11 ms·
Right, but the law makes no mention of secret keys, it just says you can't go around anything that controls access to a copyright work; and you can't provide to
by kmeisthax 6y ago
Right, but the law makes no mention of secret keys, it just says you can't go around anything that controls access to a copyright work; and you can't provide tools to do so. The actual legal definition of tools covers both actual technical purpose as well as marketed purpose. Rebranding, say, OBS as "Recorder for YouTube" and talking about how you can use it to get around YouTube's downloading protections by screencapping the entire video would possibly constitute a 1201 violation.
There's also another question of law, though: does 1201 apply when only the intent of the DRM has been circumvented, as opposed to it's technical scope? In other words, does pointing a camera at a monitor constitute circumvention of DRM under section 1201? Most DRM can't actually validate, say, that a human is watching instead of a camcorder. (Let's ignore pesky things like Cinavia which are more akin to post-piracy frustration techniques, and easily circumvented with any kind of Free media player.) Likewise, YouTube's rolling cipher can't really validate that it's not sitting inside of an instrumented browser that will dump whatever URLs it grabs. Our hypothetical OBS rebrand wouldn't actually be a 1201 violation unless the law specifically covers things that DRM can't technically enforce but would like to.
- mox1 6y agoThe rebuttal to your reasoning is in the letter. Basically a federal judge has previously ruled that utilizing a publicly available password is not circumvention of a copyright protection mechanism. The code containing the "sig" (as google calls it) or "rolling cipher" (as RIAA calls it) is available to anyone by viewing the JavaScript. This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism.
- toyg 6y ago> This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism. I can see this as ending up with Youtube being forced to require sign-ins. Massive expense for Google. Then Youtube-dl adds one parameter for the password, and we're back to square one.
- jtbayly 6y agoYou already have to sign in to view some videos, don’t you? Does YT-dL not have a way to handle those right now?
- OJFord 6y agoDo you? I've never tried to watch any that have required it. Maybe there's Red-only content that isn't advertised/recommended to non-subscribers?
- monokh 6y agoContent with a certain age threshold triggers login. The last time I looked at this, embedding these videos was still possible without logging in. So there are definitely ways in accessing the content without authentication.
- OJFord 6y agoHm. If embedding works maybe my ad-blocking is sufficient; or I just haven't come across any that require it. I mostly just watch woodworkers/machinists/electronics/etc. Sort of conceivable it could be age restricted but would also be surprising.
- fuzxi 6y agoThere's also members-only content on some channels that requires a paid subscription to access.
- nonbirithm 6y agoIt does, but it's broken. https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues/23860 https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues/23860 The developers are not responding to the issue, and from what I understand it is borderline impossible to fix, because there is an entire security team behind the Google login protection. The only workaround is to login with a browser and copy the cookies from it to youtube-dl.
- jjeaff 6y agoWhat is considered publicly available? I suppose right clicking and selecting view source is ok, but reverse engineering a code out of a hardware chip isn't? Because any kind of DRM basically has a key in the possession of the user. There are just different levels of difficulty to read that key.
- sjy 6y agoThe detail of the “publicly available password” case [1] is quite interesting. It’s not directly analogous to the YouTube system, but as the EFF points out, the RIAA’s reliance on German law has its own problems. > When Petrolink learned that one of its largest customers, EOG Resources, might switch over to Digidrill’s visualization service, Petrolink took action. Instead of paying Digidrill for access to the corrected drilling data via LiveLog, Petrolink obtained a laptop running DataLogger – along with the corresponding USB security dongle – and then, after realizing DataLogger used an open source Firebird database, managed to gain access to the database by using Firebird's default administrator username and password. Armed with this access, Petrolink developed a program named “RIG WITSML” (dubbed “the scraper” or “the hack”) that could be installed on an MWD company’s computer running DataLogger in order to – in real time – query corrected drilling data from the DataLogger database and transfer that information to PetroVault for visualization. Petrolink then began installing this RIG WITSML program on MWD computers running DataLogger at more than 300 well sites. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4765801/digital-drilling-data-systems-v-petrolink-service/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4765801/digital-drilli...
- feanaro 6y ago> Likewise, YouTube's rolling cipher can't really validate that it's not sitting inside of an instrumented browser that will dump whatever URLs it grabs. What is the criteria for differentiating between youtube-dl and a "browser"?
- zensavona 6y agoJust re-upload it and change the readme to define "youtube-dl" and "Youtube Digital Library"
- ineedasername 6y agoas well as marketed purpose Yes, it would be problematic if, for example, Samsung was marketing their latest flagship as "Our dark-light technology means you can take nearly pixel-perfect video of movies while you watch them in the movie theatre!"
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoThere are exceptions. Access for the disabled is one of them and youtube-dl can very much be the basis for an accessibility tool.