3 ms·
The EFF made a very compelling case: “The YouTube website code at issue in this case is different: it was not clearly designed to limit access to videos, or th
by IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
The EFF made a very compelling case:
“The YouTube website code at issue in this case is different: it was not clearly designed to limit access to videos, or the ability to copy them. YouTube videos arrive at a viewer’s device with no encryption or scrambling. No login, password, key, or other secret knowledge is required to gain access.
“Tellingly, YouTube does use encryption and a password-controlled login to limit access to subscribers of its separate pay-TV service, YouTube TV,” EFF adds.
The article expands:
"According to EFF, Yout and similar tools provide the same functions as video cassette recorders once did. They allow people to make copies of videos that are posted publicly by their creators.
In addition, these tools are vital for some reporters and useful to creatives who use them for future work."
But they missed an opportunity:
Does DCMA outlaw the manufacturer of DVD burners or Cassette recorders ?
Clearly, the RIAA doesn't think so, since they haven't sued?
- zaphirplane 4y agoSued and lost https://consumerist.com/2014/01/17/on-this-day-in-1984-the-supreme-court-saved-the-vcr-from-certain-death/ https://consumerist.com/2014/01/17/on-this-day-in-1984-the-s... I think the EFF are in some part leaning on the judgements reasoning > if a product has a substantial, legitimate use it can be sold, even if some consumers use it illegitimately. Which is also why BitTorrent clients continue to exist
- jokoon 4y agoIt's funny to imagine that a popular software would become illegal to write or distribute. It's already a bit difficult for ISP to throttle p2p.