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

YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 332 posts

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#181

Post by stevefan1999 »

jjeaff wrote: post #47
gizmo686 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what should we ask for? There is stuff to complain about with the DMCA, but the core process is reasonable. Someone claims copyright infringement by a user, and the website takes the content down. The user claims no copyright infringement, the website restores the content. The website is immune from liability, the alleged copyright owner can settle things in court with the user if they want to.

You should ask for immunity for tools that could potentially be used to infringe copyright, but that are not actually infringing copyright. If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then certainly congress can accept that software doesn't pirate copyrighted works, people pirate copyrighted works.

Actually I found the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" very oxymoronic.

Sure one might argue that if you have the intent to kill, it's not necessary for one to use a gun, you have alternatives such as grenades, knives, chainsaw or even your bare hand if it's lethal enough. This is how you derive that "the gun is not evil, it's the people who are" statement.

But guns, under the category of firearms (not only guns, what about rocker launchers?), are almost-certainly designated to kill, and what is the top priority of firearm? Aim to be the most efficient killing machine.

So if you use a gun, it's not necessary that you are going to kill people, but it is very likely that you are imposing a threat to do so, regardless of if you're attacking/defending.

Therefore, trying to apply the gun analogy to current state of youtube-dl is an injustice to youtube-dl, as you compared an intrinsically evil entity to another.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#182

Post by hnlmorg »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #172
tdrgabi wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that evidence for the case though? youtube-dl has code to see through obfuscation methods which are only available to specific YouTube partners. If you're a tool for downloading open, not copyrighted videos, why do you need that?

youtube-dl is not, strictly speaking, a downloading tool. It's an access tool. You want to access YouTube videos through an alternate client, as is your legal right in the European Union ? youtube-dl is a useful library for the job. You can use youtube-dl to download videos, but the intended use here is clearly for watching them. Just because syringe needles are tested on (and advertised for) human skin and are also…

You're trying very hard to make a technical distinction but the problem is that this is a legal problem not a technical one and rightly or wrongly, legal definitions don't always align with technical ones.

For starters, intent is factored into the law. There's several different classifications of murder depending on intent. Likewise someone carrying a kitchen knife home, still packaged, from the shops is unlikely to be reprimanded compared to someone carrying a more decorative knife around. They're both knives but one instance clearly carries a different intent to another.

The problem with youtube-dl is that having tests which work against copyrighted content and having the README describe usages against copyrighted content, it's much harder to argue that the intent of this is purely for copyleft content. Your point about this being an access tool (which actually makes no difference in terms of circumventing DRM anyway -- which was the claim for the take down) also doesn't fly because this tool creates a file on your local disk so it's hard to argue that the intent is for that file to be temporary.

I'm not saying I agree with the take down notice (I don't) but something a great many techies on here miss is that not every argument can be won with science.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#183

Post by saddlerustle »

nix23 wrote: post #176
saddlerustle wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Exclusively" is the key word. Whether youtube-dl is designed to "exclusively" be used for legally permitted uses is a matter for a court to decide. The RIAA's claim listed several reasons why it believes this is not the case. The DMCA as written is a little more nuanced, but on whole the laws serve the same purpose.

>Exclusively Not the tool is meant here but the User, and you know it. It's legal to record radio, and record/download Youtube videos, if you don't redistribute it (outside Family and Friends

The distribution of youtube-dl itself is what's at issue, not the use of youtube-dl or the distribution of files downloaded with youtube-dl.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#184

Post by sm4rk0 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #117
Bjartr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but as far as I recall, a site receiving a DMCA notice must immediately remove the stated content. The person who put the content up may then file a counter-notice, which, if uncontested may then be followed by reinstating the content. If contested, the process moves into the courtroom.

False in this case. The 17 USC (2)(c)(1)(C) safe-harbour protections apply only to hosting of infringing works, and neither youtube-dl nor its test suites infringe on any RIAA or member copyrights as averred in RIAA's notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The RIAA's letter does not claim infringement within the text of youtube-dl source or test suites , though it tries hard to appear so, but rather a…

Haha! This is absurd:

> Microsoft (owner of Github) is listed on the RIAA's members page. Neither Google LLC, its Youtube subsidiary, nor parent Alphabet Inc. are. The RIAA are threatening a member for a §1201 violation against a nonmember. That's ... weird. https://www.riaa.com/about-riaa/riaa-members/

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#186

Post by himlion »

marvin wrote: post #131
jtjbdhsjjdnd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström were all found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK". I wouldn't call it walk freely.

Yeah, Sweden doesn’t allow for zeroing debts due to legal judgements in personal bankruptcy, IIRC. This means that they were effectively sentenced to lifelong debt slavery. This is another dark part of the Scandinavian model that most aren’t aware of. Same system in Norway.

I know a friend of one of those 4 mentioned and he is doing absolutely fine (money-wise at least)

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#187

Post by romanoderoma »

saddlerustle wrote: post #178
romanoderoma wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Youtube-dl is absolutely illegal software. Not in Italy What US law says is often irrelevant outside of the US of A

No, the restrictions around circumventing an effective technological protection measures are implemented in Italian law too [1] and more broadly are required to be implemented in every EU member state as a result of EU Directive 2001/29/EC [2] [1] https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/it/it211en.pdf [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...

That doesn't make youtube-dl "absolutely illegal".

You should know that "absolutely" means anytime, everywhere, which is obviously wrong.

You should also know that in Italy for something to be claimed illegal the court has to emit a verdict.

If nobody challenge the status of youtube-dl obtaining a guilty verdict, it is perfectly legal.

Last but not least, that law was created during fascmism, so there's also that.

But in any case "fair use"(as you americans call it) is always permitted in Italy, you don't need a license, you are liable only if the entity detaining the copyright obtains a restricting order from a judge.

So in Italy I can download any video I want from YouTube and I am permitted to watch them, It's not against the law.

What's against the law is the re-distribution of the content.

Moreover, you probably misread the law or skipped that passage, in Italy internet publishing (such as file downloading) itś a different right and it's called "exclusive right of communication to the public of the work"

> it also includes the making available to the public of a work in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them

Sorry.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#188

Post by joepie91_ »

dredmorbius wrote: post #117
Bjartr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but as far as I recall, a site receiving a DMCA notice must immediately remove the stated content. The person who put the content up may then file a counter-notice, which, if uncontested may then be followed by reinstating the content. If contested, the process moves into the courtroom.

False in this case. The 17 USC (2)(c)(1)(C) safe-harbour protections apply only to hosting of infringing works, and neither youtube-dl nor its test suites infringe on any RIAA or member copyrights as averred in RIAA's notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The RIAA's letter does not claim infringement within the text of youtube-dl source or test suites , though it tries hard to appear so, but rather a…

> Youtube-dl is executing code as a World Wide Web user agent, provided by Google/YouTube [...]

I'm guessing that's a typo, and this was actually meant to say the following?

> Youtube-dl is executing code as a World Wide Web user agent, accessing a service provided by Google/YouTube [...]

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#189

Post by scrollaway »

nix23 wrote: post #168
scrollaway wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a video about the exact case in question, talks extensively about the decryption aspect and in general the circumvention of technological protection measures. Watch it, don't watch it, it doesn't matter to anyone here, but please lower that horse back down to earth, it's a little high.

>but please lower that horse back down to earth, it's a little high As if your talking about yourself, maybe your a bit young but we had the exact same problem in the past (decrypting DVD's) those are Disc who stored Movies on it. And a Swiss Court decided that it's legal to use dvcss (not sure about the name). And you tell me to watch a YT from a US Lawyer.

If you'd bother watching the video you'd note that he specifically talks about the CSS DRM, and even the AACS encryption key.

So yeah, tone it down a bit.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#190

Post by wizzwizz4 »

nimbius wrote: post #50
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hilarious, well done. I realized something while :+1:-ing your PR: I was thinking about how digg deleted my account over posting the AACS key, I really couldn't care less if Microsoft deleted my account over it. Very interesting considering that even just 2 years ago I never would have done this for fear of my account being deleted. All of my work and personal projects are moved to gitlab (the CI/Kubernetes/e…

>I think Microsoft is losing mindshare with GitHub. You're not wrong. Sure, the cloudflare browser checks and antibot pages on gitlab are aggravating, but there are a litany of documented reasons people are walking away from Microsofts latest acquisition. maybe the biggest one is the ICE contract they ardently refused to back out of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub#Controversies Its also pretty obvious MS doesnt…

> gitea and github both host splendidly

Do you mean GitLab?

Post reply on HN