Live data from Hacker News

YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

github.com

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#161
post #56

Hope this motivates a few more free software devs to move away to a free host, at least apart from GH mirrors for exposure. IUUC importing this to GitLab would have taken ~½dozen clicks and saved the open issues, etc.?

GitLab also has to comply with DMCA complaints. A quick search brought up their procedure: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/security/opera... They'll still take down a repo and block the user if it is hosted. And self hosting something isn't free, plus quite possibly puts more legal exposure on the team. This isn't a problem with technologies or the platform. There fundamentally needs to be a narrowing o…

But ~anyone can host it.

Re: your edits, yes, DMCA reform is also important, and quite arguably more so. But decentralizing from GitHub would still slow takedowns down, and have other benefits.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#162

What I think is hilarious is how many takedown notices they've received! https://github.com/github/dmca

This person's classmate copied and re-posted their exam as their own: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2...

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#163
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that copyrighted works were included in the readme shows it was intended for that use, and the RIAA complaint will likely stand up to any legal scrutiny. Just because it can be used for legit purposes too won't matter in the slightest. I mean, Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court. The only chance tools like this have legally is when infringement is an "unintende…

Should it stand up to legal scrutiny though? What does it matter if I play the beatles on youtube by watching in a web browser or watching an .mp4 file that I just downloaded? It's functionally the same.

The former gives money to the original content owner for every listen while the latter does not. Which is why you're able to listen to it on youtube without having to personally pay someone.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#164
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The RIAA's logic is that a youtube-dl user is equivalent to someone in a movie theater with a video camera. The situation they're concerned about is somebody downloading a music video that they've authorized to be on Youtube. They make money on Youtube views, but they're losing precious fractions of a cent when you download it and watch it offline. This is obviously not ethically justified, but I have no idea if it's…

The problem with their argument is that youtube-dl is a video camera. The US has already rules that video cameras, VCRs, DVD recorders, etc are all devices with legitimate uses, and you can't stop them from being made or sold. A movie theater is within its rights to ask patrons using video cameras to leave, and Google would be within its rights to lock down Youtube. The RIAA is fishing, and all the precedents are aga…

> The RIAA is fishing, and all the precedents are against them pulling up even a minnow.

Unfortunately there is a lot of precedent for the lawyers of a large organization bullying a smaller one and getting away with it.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#165
post #99

> this seems outrageous the same way DMCA'ing a Bittorrent client would be Why stop there? I can use my browser to illegally download content, so I guess we better issue a DMCA takedown that too. But who even needs a browser? Let's issue a takedown for the GNU Project while we're at it because I could use wget to do the same thing. In fact, I could write my own program to illegally download content, so we better just…

DMCA is a bad law, but you'd have a harder time arguing a general purpose web browser meets any of the following conditions:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

(2)No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(A)is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B)has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C)is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#166
post #12

They should have counter claimed this nonsense instead of taking down the repo. RIAA is an abusive troll.

Github is obligated to take down the "offending" content as soon as they receive a DMCA notice. It's then on the owner of that content to file a counter claim to restore it. Even if the content is not in violation of DMCA, your files will be gone for a day or two, or longer depending on how slow the publishing platform operators are to process the counter claim and how long it takes to file the counter claim.

> Github is obligated to take down the "offending" content as soon as they receive a DMCA notice.

No, they aren't obligated to do anything.

Github is immunized from any liability they would otherwise have to the complaining party for hosting the material affected by the notice if they comply within the parameters of the DMCA safe harbor provision (which requires action "expeditiously" rather than "immediately") when they receive a notice.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#168
Is there any legislative or regulatory work that is trying to address the gigantic mess that is music (or media in general) copyright and licensing in the US?

The DMCA is over 2 decades old, and seemingly nothing useful has come up since. The current system seems to do not much other than provide a big stick for the RIAA and MPAA to wield whenever they get bored and try to extract rent using law that still seems stuck in some mire of player piano era logic. The last sane system I encountered was when I was doing college radio, where you had a license to play music, were required to log what music you played, and were assured that some clearinghouse would sort out the royalties that needed paying out of the aggregate license fees.

There seems to be mass confusion over what's legal on modern services like Twitch, where music is used in the same spirit as radio (background music chosen at the whim of the DJ/streamer), but isn't legal because it runs up against licensing schemes designed for including music in TV and film productions with massive budgets.

There doesn't seem to be any clear way to handle shit as any sort of small content creator, as the rightsholders seem to want to preserve some weird fantasy land where they're both entitled to complex negotiated rights deals (which make sense if you're say, some massive entity a la NBC, and want to include music in a new big budget show) while also not providing anything for the rest of society (if you're not NBC- or CBS-sized, the people who negotiate rights contracts won't give you the time of day). If you're not one of the mammoth-class media conglomerates, your options appear to be "do not use music ever" or "use music casually, and then be on the receiving end of a massive legal bludgeon". You can't get the time (or music) of day, but if you do somehow manage to get it, then you _do_ get the time of day, but in the form of massive retroactive fees or whatever that you "should" have paid had the licensing cthulu been willing to engage with you before you determined that the rightsholders weren't interested in dealing with you.

Right ol' kafkaesque nightmare, it is.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#169
post #4

Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the ~~README~~(unit tests, see correction[1]) as an example of that: > We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For…

> this seems outrageous the same way DMCA'ing a Bittorrent client would be

popcorn time?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23075484

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#170
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking the same thing: The next step following this line of thinking would be trying to ban all torrent clients, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted material. This is crazy.

Why not just ban computers or even why not jail people who even think about using ytdl? These organisations like RIAA need reality check. Sadly there is no body to stand against their bullying and stiffling the freedom of speech.

EFF takes up these causes sometimes, right? This notice is hollow sabre-rattling, so I wouldn’t worry too much. What can RIAA do if somebody forks the project and hosts it in the Lithuania? Not much. Yell into a pillow, maybe.
Post reply on HN