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

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by NegativeK »

pengaru wrote: post #175

Considering youtube-dl isn't doing anything a web browser accessing these sites can't do, essentially serving as a headless web browser with a convenient CLI, I don't see how this could possibly have a leg to stand on. It's like serving Mozilla a DMCA takedown for FireFox. I however welcome the highly visible reminder that github should only be used as a mirror at most.

There's an obvious difference between a browser that, in normal use, doesn't allow storing of streaming video, and a tool that does and isn't supported by Google at all.

Yes, you can download the full video with a browser. Yes, you can use wget or curl to do that. But youtube-dl's community was dumb enough to give clear cut examples of downloading copywritten material, which is obviously not what the RIAA or probably even YouTube's lawyers want.

Courts care about intent, and it's a straw man to argue that technical similarities mean they're half-assing their enforcement.

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

#342

Post by Denvercoder9 »

m4rtink wrote: post #289
reggieband wrote: post #239

It is a bit of a tough question. How would I feel about someone borrowing a book from a library and then photocopying it to keep a local copy? If the intent was to re-distribute then I would not feel comfortable allowing it. However, if the proposed remedy was to ban personal ownership of photocopiers I would not even consider that a valid approach. But would I expect I could keep my own photocopied version instead o…

Aren't books kinda a special case ? Given all the past (and even current!) cases of censorship and book burning, shouldn't we strive to never allow that ever again and to protects books for future generations ? Finally we have a way to preserve books in perfect form forever digitally yet people somehow try to shackle this new technology with paper book technology limitations. The same limitations that coat us so much…

> Aren't books kinda a special case ?

What is the fundamental difference between a book and a video that would make books a special case? Yes, they were around earlier, and yes, that history has shown what can happen if we start censoring expression. But that's not unique to books, and the exact same reasoning applies to video in the current world.

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

#343

Post by kelnos »

cipherboy wrote: post #315
orliesaurus wrote: post #13

> 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 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 IMHO this wasn't the best move, I mean... t…

It wasn't in the repo's README: it was part of the test suite for better or worse. See: youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py line L557

I doubt there's any "for better" in that. It's an easy bit for the RIAA to latch onto to make their case, and I expect a judge or reasonable person on a jury would make make a distinction between the two, but not enough to matter.

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

#344

Post by bleepblorp »

google234123 wrote: post #262
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…

Using a copyrighted music track as the example in the README is really stupid or just shows a total lack of respect for copyright.

Copyright law is illegitimate and should not be respected.

The stupid thing is hosting youtube-dl in the Untied States.

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

#345

Post by jcranmer »

eli wrote: post #165
CivBase wrote: 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 techn…

There's some definitions that are also relevant:

(A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

I don't believe the protections that youtube-dl works around qualify under the definition 1201(b)(2)(B) here, but I would definitely want to confer with a lawyer before posting a DMCA counterclaim.

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

#346

Post by noodlesUK »

mmaunder wrote: post #236

Who is the defendant here? Do they have resources to take this to court? If not, is there any movement on raising a legal defense fund and finding competent counsel? Anyone from the ACLU team here, and interested in weighing in or at least bringing this to your leadership for consideration?

I would be willing to contribute to a crowdfunding campaign to support any defence effort. Is the EFF involved?

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

#348

Post by adrianmonk »

eznzt wrote: post #302
adrianmonk wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, does the fact that YouTube doesn't supply a download feature constitute a "technical protection measure"? From the RIAA's point of view, it works to their benefit that a download link doesn't exist, and it may be something they like, but that doesn't mean that's why. It could just as easily be that a download feature doesn't exist because YouTube wants you to keep returning to their site if you want to rewatch…

>Also, does the fact that YouTube doesn't supply a download feature constitute a "technical protection measure"? Yes, they have some sort of DRM, albeit a very weak one.

Hmm, so maybe it's legally enough if YouTube does have a protection mechanism and the material is copyrighted, even if the protection mechanism isn't necessarily intended to protect copyright?

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

#349

Post by dylan604 »

rhizome wrote: post #206
Nextgrid wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't it be trivially reinstated then by removing any references to copyrighted content? youtube-dl has plenty of legitimate uses beyond just copyright infringement.

Which is why RIAA is trying to kill the code itself.

Cure the disease not the symptom

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

#350

Post by jchw »

google234123 wrote: post #262
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…

Using a copyrighted music track as the example in the README is really stupid or just shows a total lack of respect for copyright.

FWIW, they did not. This was misinformation from me, misreading the DMCA. I am not glad that my misunderstanding will now spread far and wide, but I at least caught it within the edit window.

The DMCA is complaining about test cases. See extractor/youtube.py in your local copy.

Post reply on HN