581–590 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have it backwards. Google is very much on the same side as RIAA in this case. Youtube-dl is simply too convenient for avoiding the ads.
I dunno. Every Youtuber I know makes use of Youtube-dl (or related projects) extensively because many of them don't maintain archives of their own content and Youtube's built-in tools for downloading stuff back from them are terrible.
Everybody, go to PyPi: https://pypi.org/project/youtube_dl/#files Download the whl. Download the tar.gz. ???? Profit. Also, a recommendation for the youtube_dl crew is to use a self-hosted solution (if GitHub/GitLab/SourceForge wont do). Find a cheap Linux hosting provider and run Gitea on it: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea It's the best tips I can give for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is like your abusive partner brings up all the things they think you did wrong when they don't have any logical argument.
I believe the way you put it describes this part in the DMCA takedown notice the best way possible. Bringing up European laws on intellectual property and mixing it with US "copyright" is comical to me, especially after reading this [0] article on French law recently: > France doesn’t have copyright. Sorry for US readers, your “copyright” is nonsense that doesn’t apply here, though the word “copyright” can be seen mi…
I assume this only applies to "copyrighted" content? Is it illegal to torrent a Linux distro or some such thing?
Either way, this seems much more reasonable than the US's current system.
Worth noting the MPA already tried doing this to Popcorn Time, a BitTorrent client designed to provide a Netflix-like UX.[1] The Popcorn Time devs put in a counter-notice and the repository was back up a few weeks later when the period for the MPA to respond expired. The same thing will probably happen here because this is not one of the purposes of DMCA takedown letters, period. Even if there are inappropriate test…
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.
They can't fully un-ring that bell. The RIAA will always be able to argue infringement was the purpose since they used copyrighted examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that they are making the claim that this tool is expressly for doing something that is forbidden by the YouTube TOS and breaking the music licenses provided. Of course YouTube has other videos that are under different licenses so it isn't clear that this is the only use case of the software.
Wait a minute, there's a difference between distributed copyrighted works, and merely copying it for yourself. In France for instance, we have this notion of "copie privée" (private copy), that says we are allowed to copy anything as long as we don't distribute it back. We even pay taxes on persistent memory for the privilege. Up thread there's also a citation of the Betamax case, which says that it's okay for people…
What private copy wanted to cover is more like "I bought a physical CD and I make a cassette copy because my car doesn't have a CD player" or because I want to listen to a mix of my favorite music (so you paid a tax on cassettes and later on CD-R and CD-RW media). This was later extended to "I copy all my collection of music to a hard drive and stop flipping CDs in and out of the player" (so you pay a tax on hard disk drives).
So why does the Recording Industry Association of America get to decide whether a tool for downloading content on a service that is produced by people around the world and released under many different licenses exists or not? The RIAA and America in general has no right to police the rest of the world.
Quite obviously, because the developers decided to host their code there. If they hosted it somewhere else, there would be different laws restricting how people all over the world use it.
Why does the tool being hosted on an American website make any difference?
YouTube's content doesn't all belong to them, they don't even own the majority of the content on there and a huge number of users and creators on youtube do not live in or fall under American jurisdiction which means neither does the content they create, so again, why should the RIAA have the ability to do this?
I'm very scared by this. youtube-dl needs somewhat frequent updates as Google moves the youtube codebase around. I'm worried that the RIAA's next move, now that it's starting to get inconvenient to get youtube-dl, will be to make Youtube change in some way to make existing copies of youtube-dl no longer work. youtube-dl has been my primary way of getting videos since I learned about it. If the RIAA manages to kill it…
To restore your ability to partake in culture, you can use JDownloader. It is universal and can download from almost any media site.
Curious if anyone with legal expertise knows if this has legs? They say: > The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. But the "circumventing" is still accessing a stream the use…
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…
Lets be clear though - the only reason copyrighted material is allowed on Youtube is because the owners then grant a license for the content in exchange for ad revenue. Offering a download link severly damages the "owners are paid for their content" part of the equation.