4 ms·

Access to YouTube videos is only "authorized" through YouTube's site and official apps (or yada yada), and YouTube videos are copyrighted material. YouTube has

Access to YouTube videos is only "authorized" through YouTube's site and official apps (or yada yada), and YouTube videos are copyrighted material. YouTube has technological measures to ensure that you only watch YouTube videos that way. If you circumvent those technology measures, that's prima facie a DMCA violation, no? The definition of circumvention of a technology measure is extremely broad including "to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure". I'm pretty much of the opinion that the DMCA is a piece of crap as a law, but it doesn't lack for breadth and generality in those definitions.

hunter2_ 3y ago
Sure, but I'm trying to grok the essence of the technological measure being used by YouTube. I have to imagine that merely offering terms of service doesn't constitute a technological measure, and nor would merely slicing up the response in a DASH-like manner [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_ove...
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Well... here's the dumb thing. The DASH-like manner (or, "rolling cipher" as they like to call it) has currently held up as being an effective protection measure. It comes up all the time when RIAA in particular sues YouTube stream-rippers. https://torrentfreak.com/deciphering-youtubes-rolling-cypher-in-your-browser-is-a-piece-of-cake-201030/ https://torrentfreak.com/deciphering-youtubes-rolling-cypher...
  - hunter2_ 3y ago
    Very interesting. I feel like any type of digital storage or transmission format (PCM audio formats like CD Audio, packet switched networks like Internet Protocol, etc.) could also be described thusly, given that a typical human can't readily consume it. We use a tool that parses it using some algorithm, not a tool that avoids/breaks the algorithm. The error correction of a CD or the sequence number of a packet surely rolls way more rapidly than those DASH slices, too. Are those more common formats also considered effective access controls, since humans have severe difficulty interacting with them without the help of a tool? Granted, I suppose the difference there is that the creators of those formats/protocols did publish the spec, whereas YouTube didn't. Or did they, though? The JavaScript that YouTube serves is the instruction for parsing the DASH response, available publicly, hardly different from publications like IEC 60908 ("Red Book" CD-DA spec) or an RFC 791 (IP spec) -- a different language, is all. What a mess.
    - Mindwipe 3y ago
      The difference is also intent. YouTube implemented the rolling cypher to satisfy music industry demands that the files were not permanently downloadable (and it appears they were able to provide abundant evidence that Google has communicated that to them in court, I don't think this is a controversial point). That wasn't the point of the red book spec. Intent matters significantly, legally.
      - hunter2_ 3y ago
        If the rolling cypher they implemented truly exceeds DASH in such a way as to exert control, then I think that would convey intent. If it's substantially DASH alone and DASH requires the equivalent of a rolling cypher just to work, that's rather meaningless; the intent of implementing DASH certainly would've had most to do with adaptive bitrate UX. Based on some other comments, it sounds like they added something like this for music videos and the like, so it may hold up. But I'm armchair judging at this point, and IANAJ. Isn't a rolling code how RF locks (car fob, garage opener, etc.) operate? Those are actually good at keeping out third parties, though.
  - hunter2_ 3y ago
    Off-topic: happy 10k, 1k!
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
DMCA 1201 isn't just a crap law. It's completely unworkable, as has been known since before it was passed. Suppose Bob is in the business of duplicating public domain US government works. He downloads videos from the NASA website, presses them onto DVDs and sells them on eBay. He can do this without anybody's permission because DVDs are from the mid-90s and the patents are expired. He uses the same DVD format as Hollywood so people can watch them on their existing DVD players, but he also makes a free DVD player app for Linux so people can watch his DVDs or rip them or do whatever they want because they're in the public domain. It can also do the same with any other DVDs, because it's the exact same format. Is Bob breaking the law? Now suppose Bob is a jerk who is doing this with public domain works without providing anyone a way to exercise their right to copy them, or doing it to enforce contractually unlawful license terms or something like that. Is someone who makes a tool to thwart Bob breaking the law? If so the law could have (more) First Amendment problems, to say nothing of the obvious unreasonableness. But if not then it's a worthless law because anyone could use that as a justification to break anything. Which it is regardless because it has never been effective at suppressing the availability circumvention tools, only at should-be-impermissible abuses like prohibiting interoperability to prop up existing monopolies. It's also notable that NASA publishes many videos on YouTube. As in, only on YouTube.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  DVD supports both encrypted and unencrypted video, so Bob is only breaking the law if he's releasing a decryption tool. The entire DeCSS case hinged on video decryption specifically, everything else was already implemented by other parties. Now, if Bob decides to encrypt those DVDs, then you have an interesting legal area where half the law applies and the other half doesn't. DMCA 1201 only applies to things that protect copyrighted works[0], not just any kind of access control measure. And it comes in two parts: one that makes it illegal to break encryption, and another that makes it illegal to provide tools to break encryption. So if you put uncopyrightables behind DVD CSS's encryption algorithm, you can't sue someone for decrypting that particular DVD. But if you distribute a DVD decryption tool, then you're harming the protection of copyrighted DVDs, so you can't distribute a decryption tool even though some jackass might try to functionally recopyright public domain material with DVD CSS. More interesting than the NASA case would be Kevin MacLeod. He releases Creative Commons music under a CC-BY license, and that license has a clause specifically prohibiting the distribution of Creative commons material with DRM on it. A lot of YouTubers use his music, probably didn't know about this clause, and definitely didn't know that the music industry would rugpull everyone by claiming that dynamic download URLs are a DMCA 1201 technical protection. So if these music industry cases succeed, it also means that a lot of YouTubers are open to some copyleft trolling on Kevin's part. I doubt he'd actually do that, but it's still shitty that this is possible. [0] See Chamberlain Group v. Skyline Technologies; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._Skylink_Technologies,_Inc.#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._Sky...

hunter2_ 3y ago

Sure, but I'm trying to grok the essence of the technological measure being used by YouTube. I have to imagine that merely offering terms of service doesn't constitute a technological measure, and nor would merely slicing up the response in a DASH-like manner [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_ove...

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Well... here's the dumb thing. The DASH-like manner (or, "rolling cipher" as they like to call it) has currently held up as being an effective protection measure. It comes up all the time when RIAA in particular sues YouTube stream-rippers. https://torrentfreak.com/deciphering-youtubes-rolling-cypher-in-your-browser-is-a-piece-of-cake-201030/ https://torrentfreak.com/deciphering-youtubes-rolling-cypher...
- hunter2_ 3y ago
  Very interesting. I feel like any type of digital storage or transmission format (PCM audio formats like CD Audio, packet switched networks like Internet Protocol, etc.) could also be described thusly, given that a typical human can't readily consume it. We use a tool that parses it using some algorithm, not a tool that avoids/breaks the algorithm. The error correction of a CD or the sequence number of a packet surely rolls way more rapidly than those DASH slices, too. Are those more common formats also considered effective access controls, since humans have severe difficulty interacting with them without the help of a tool? Granted, I suppose the difference there is that the creators of those formats/protocols did publish the spec, whereas YouTube didn't. Or did they, though? The JavaScript that YouTube serves is the instruction for parsing the DASH response, available publicly, hardly different from publications like IEC 60908 ("Red Book" CD-DA spec) or an RFC 791 (IP spec) -- a different language, is all. What a mess.
  - Mindwipe 3y ago
    The difference is also intent. YouTube implemented the rolling cypher to satisfy music industry demands that the files were not permanently downloadable (and it appears they were able to provide abundant evidence that Google has communicated that to them in court, I don't think this is a controversial point). That wasn't the point of the red book spec. Intent matters significantly, legally.
    - hunter2_ 3y ago
      If the rolling cypher they implemented truly exceeds DASH in such a way as to exert control, then I think that would convey intent. If it's substantially DASH alone and DASH requires the equivalent of a rolling cypher just to work, that's rather meaningless; the intent of implementing DASH certainly would've had most to do with adaptive bitrate UX. Based on some other comments, it sounds like they added something like this for music videos and the like, so it may hold up. But I'm armchair judging at this point, and IANAJ. Isn't a rolling code how RF locks (car fob, garage opener, etc.) operate? Those are actually good at keeping out third parties, though.
- hunter2_ 3y ago
  Off-topic: happy 10k, 1k!

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

DMCA 1201 isn't just a crap law. It's completely unworkable, as has been known since before it was passed. Suppose Bob is in the business of duplicating public domain US government works. He downloads videos from the NASA website, presses them onto DVDs and sells them on eBay. He can do this without anybody's permission because DVDs are from the mid-90s and the patents are expired. He uses the same DVD format as Hollywood so people can watch them on their existing DVD players, but he also makes a free DVD player app for Linux so people can watch his DVDs or rip them or do whatever they want because they're in the public domain. It can also do the same with any other DVDs, because it's the exact same format. Is Bob breaking the law? Now suppose Bob is a jerk who is doing this with public domain works without providing anyone a way to exercise their right to copy them, or doing it to enforce contractually unlawful license terms or something like that. Is someone who makes a tool to thwart Bob breaking the law? If so the law could have (more) First Amendment problems, to say nothing of the obvious unreasonableness. But if not then it's a worthless law because anyone could use that as a justification to break anything. Which it is regardless because it has never been effective at suppressing the availability circumvention tools, only at should-be-impermissible abuses like prohibiting interoperability to prop up existing monopolies. It's also notable that NASA publishes many videos on YouTube. As in, only on YouTube.

kmeisthax 3y ago
DVD supports both encrypted and unencrypted video, so Bob is only breaking the law if he's releasing a decryption tool. The entire DeCSS case hinged on video decryption specifically, everything else was already implemented by other parties. Now, if Bob decides to encrypt those DVDs, then you have an interesting legal area where half the law applies and the other half doesn't. DMCA 1201 only applies to things that protect copyrighted works[0], not just any kind of access control measure. And it comes in two parts: one that makes it illegal to break encryption, and another that makes it illegal to provide tools to break encryption. So if you put uncopyrightables behind DVD CSS's encryption algorithm, you can't sue someone for decrypting that particular DVD. But if you distribute a DVD decryption tool, then you're harming the protection of copyrighted DVDs, so you can't distribute a decryption tool even though some jackass might try to functionally recopyright public domain material with DVD CSS. More interesting than the NASA case would be Kevin MacLeod. He releases Creative Commons music under a CC-BY license, and that license has a clause specifically prohibiting the distribution of Creative commons material with DRM on it. A lot of YouTubers use his music, probably didn't know about this clause, and definitely didn't know that the music industry would rugpull everyone by claiming that dynamic download URLs are a DMCA 1201 technical protection. So if these music industry cases succeed, it also means that a lot of YouTubers are open to some copyleft trolling on Kevin's part. I doubt he'd actually do that, but it's still shitty that this is possible. [0] See Chamberlain Group v. Skyline Technologies; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._Skylink_Technologies,_Inc.#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._Sky...