Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by dragonwriter »

kadoban wrote: post #79
shmerl wrote: post #12

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

This is part of the DMCA process. Github takes it down until they get a counter-claim from the repo owner, don't think they really have much of a choice in it, legally.

> This is part of the DMCA process. Github takes it down until they get a counter-claim from the repo owner, don't think they really have much of a choice in it, legally.

They have a choice, but if they would be liable for hosting the content but for the DMCA safe harbor, failing to take it down when they receive compliant takedown notice means that they are then exposed to that liability because they are outside of the safe harbor.

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

#272

Post by smegcicle »

jchw wrote: 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…

> it uses examples in the README as an example of that:

>> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses

as far as I can tell these videos are not referenced in the README, but instead in the youtube.py extractor file, which would go against the accusation that they were featured 'prominently'

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

#273

Post by larrik »

Santosh83 wrote: post #173
larrik wrote: 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…

No it doesn't follow at all, any more than had the repo owners included a couple of public domain recordings in the repo then the conclusion that the tool was clearly intended to download public domain recordings.

It's hard for a lot of techies to grapple with this, but courts and law are often decided by the intent of the offense. This shows intent, whereas public domain works would not. The difference, in court, is massive.

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

#274

Post by vhold »

mindslight wrote: post #176
NobodyNada wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but as far as I know GitHub has to comply with DMCA requests. Otherwise, they would lose their safe harbor protection and become liable for all distributions of copyrighted content through their service. However, GitHub is also required to reinstate `youtube-dl` if the creator files a DMCA counter-notice.

This is not a valid DMCA takedown request, as the claimant has not asserted copyright ownership of anything in the repository. This notice is a conflation of two separate aspects of the DMCA, the copyright takedown process and technological circumvention devices. If the RIAA wishes to claim that youtube-dl is a circumvention device, the proper route is to sue the authors of youtube-dl. This notice is an abuse of proc…

This is a good point, but I think ultimately Github has to comply with it to maintain their legal immunity, it's not their responsibility to determine if a copyright claim is valid.

Similarly, youtube-dl can issue a counter-notice, and Github will have no responsibility to determine the validity of that either. They simply restore access unless they have been notified that a lawsuit is in progress.

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

#275

Post by jefftk »

caleb-allen wrote: post #230
topkai22 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about https://sr.ht ?

In general, general purpose hosts are going to want you to fight your own legal battles.

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

#276

Post by marc_abonce »

jaspergilley wrote: post #33

You can download the most recent version of the YouTube-DL code from Wayback Machine here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201018144703/https://github.co... Fuck the RIAA

There's also that copy in the Arctic. I don't think that Github will remove that one.

Edit: On a serious note, though. I just realised that Internet Archive apparently doesn't archive most PRs? (https://web.archive.org/web/20201018122643if_/https://github...) If so, that's a real shame, I had an open PR on youtube_dl and even though I still have the code locally, I would've liked to keep the PR conversation as it had some really helpful feedback and a bunch of people that were potentially interested in my feature.

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

#278

Post by stale2002 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #166
gorbachev wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No, they aren't obligated to do anything.

This is semantics. Because github absolutely would not be able to exist if it lost its safe harbor protections.

So, it is "obligated", in that if it does not follow these laws, then it will 100% have shut down, eventually, due to business reasons.

If the alternative to doing a certain action, is that your business will almost certainly be shut down eventually, then I think that is a reasonable situation to use the word "obligated" for.

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

#279

Post by pipi_delina »

jchw wrote: 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 is so annoying... this means they can go after the OS we are using because some kids use their OS to download pirated stuff

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

#280

Post by neiman »

neiman wrote: post #255
aidenn0 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not because Word doesn't: 1. Advertise that it is intended to aid in copyright infringement 2. Include some tools to circumvent DRM used in harry potter e-books.

I didn't notice that. Links?

Oh yeah, this paragraph:

"For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies"

That's quite unwise to be honest. But these examples should be removed, not the code itself.

Post reply on HN