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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by stjohnswarts »

fyrabanks wrote: post #557
AkumaNoTsubasa wrote: post #550

>Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos Well, then please also Block all Browsers, SSH, Tunnel, etc. too, because you can use those too to easily download copyrighted material.

this is honestly the first Hacker News article in a few years that made me yell at my computer. pure insanity.

It's the same for me. Computers, networks, and mice are all used by "criminals" to download copyrighted material without permission, I'm not sure how youtube-dl is any different. I think github simply doesn't want to fight this because basically they weren't making any money off youtube-dl, so they took it down. They'll pry my trackball mouse from my cold-dead hand though. F the RIAA and MPAA.

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

#802

Post by hekdev »

merb wrote: post #688
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"? an actual court in germany ruled that: https://openjur.de/u/2194436.html sadly german only. lots of fud and hamburg is often pro copyright owner. not sure if that would hold at the highest instance.

The decisions of a German court would have no impact on a US court.

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

#803

Post by sjy »

salawat wrote: post #794
sjy wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(A) seems applicable to me. It is obvious that the primary purpose of youtube-dl is to download videos from YouTube. It is also obvious that most videos on YouTube are copyrighted, and the absence of a ‘download’ button protects the copyright holder’s right to prevent viewers from redistributing the videos. The contentious part is whether not YouTube has “effective” anti-downloading controls that youtube-dl “circumve…

The conspicuous lack of a feature is not an active measure to be circumvented. Also, no one says you need to consume HTTP payloads with a traditional browser, no matter how much the rest of the worldwants to think that the Internet is all about the WWW. Finally, there is most definitely gobs of YouTube public domain or CC-by-SA. Copyright owners who reserve all rights are not the center of the Universe.

The RIAA says the technological measure at issue is YouTube’s “rolling cipher,” which is more than the conspicuous lack of a download button.

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

#804

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

larrik wrote: post #105
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…

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…

Distributing something that downloads copyrighted content isn't the problem though - the problem is "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access".

If the media provided by YouTube were DRM'ed and youtube-dl would be e.g. extracting the decryption key, this would make sense. Is that what youtube-dl is doing though?

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

#805

Post by kordlessagain »

aww_dang wrote: post #761
ebg13 wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any chance that someone could sue them for filing illegitimate claims?

Yes, but it is more difficult than just spamming DMCA takedown requests. I was told I need to prove "tortuous business interference".

Tortious Interference with Contract

To prove tortious interference with a contract, a plaintiff must establish several elements, including that The defendant’s conduct led to a breach of the contract; and The plaintiff suffered damage as a result.

The question would be whether Github users suffered a breach of contract for having any of our repos potentially shut down for a reason that involves a third party's claims of violation of DMCA.

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

#806

Post by kortex »

WORLD_ENDS_SOON wrote: post #734
stingraycharles wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to add a data point, but back when I still was working for a video distribution startup, we offered our customers the ability to directly import their video inventory from YouTube. They were the owners of the videos, it was just a convenient (and very popular!) feature for them to let us handle this import. We used YouTube-dl for this, of course. No way we could have done this easily without it. We imported hund…

To add another item to the list of legal, legitimate uses of YouTube-dl: lots of public domain content is uploaded to YouTube, including a lot of media produced by the US government. For example, The White House has a YouTube channel, and my understanding of US law is that the vast majority of the content uploaded to that channel is public domain (produced by federal employees in the course of their job). Journalists…

I've gobbled hours of Cspan videos with youtube-dl. Turns out cspan is a hodgepodge of like 3-5 video hosting and codec schemes, but it is able to pull about a 3rd of them no problem.

Definitely forking it, I need this to continue my research.

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

#807

Post by traviscj »

michaelmrose wrote: post #716
pmoriarty wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court." But Napster was a service run by an organization. youtube-dl is neither a service nor an organization. It's just some source code floating around the internet, to which volunteers contribute to. A very different situation. If anything, it's Youtube itself that's like Napster, and it's telling that the RIAA has gone after youtube-dl…

It's not even clear that youtube-dl vs watching in the browser is any different from watching on tv vs using your vcr to record which has long been legal.

In this case, it "steals" the ad revenue that the copyright tries to protect, no? Or am I thinking about this incorrectly?

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

#808

Post by tyzoid »

roywiggins wrote: post #524
kzrdude wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 intent matters. Browsers don't make it easy to get ahold of a copy of the file that you can share, youtube-dl does. Add that to a bad README and that's something that a court might treat very differently from a web browser. This is not far off from how it's legal to carry lockpicks but it's often not legal to carry lockpicks around with the intention of using them to commit a crime. Either way you're carrying the…

But it's perfectly legal to screencapture a video platform in full-screen, and previous courts have ruled that recording a stream you otherwise have access to is allowed (the VCR/TiVo lawsuits). The question here is whether youtube-dl is a tool that allows for the bypassing of DRM, as the RIAA is asserting that youtube has DRM on their videos that prevent automated tools from scraping the website.

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

#809

Post by RhodoYolo »

dmos62 wrote: post #322
lukifer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of amazing that computing in general, and the internet in particular, is as open and free as it is (contrast with the closed end-to-end "appliance" model of gaming consoles, or to some extent iOS). Cory Doctorow has been ringing alarm bells for over a decade about both technical and legal efforts to end general purpose computation itself, or at least to make it more the exception than the norm: https://www.…

> end general purpose computation itself, or at least to make it more the exception than the norm I'd argue, cautiously, that general computation is already an exception. That's why I prefer Linux to Windows. On Linux I can issue a command from a general command interface (the CLI) to just play a video. If I only want audio, it's an option away. I can script things together. Most of my tools are interoperable. That's…

Why are you trying to scare all of us?

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

#810

Post by NobodyNada »

m11a wrote: post #533
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.

“For all distributions of copyrighted content through their service” I don’t think that’s true? I think that only extends to this particular DMCA. Obviously it wouldn’t extend to eg me claiming Ruby on Rails is copyright infringement.

I wasn't 100% sure, and the Wikipedia page doesn't specify. Thanks for the clarification.
Post reply on HN