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

GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 273 posts

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#211

Post by gamblor956 »

bnj wrote: post #56
bitwize wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. YouTube obfuscates the URL of the video stream for videos which have been identified as containing copyrighted material and are licensed for streaming only through the YouTube Web player or app. The copyright owner has made the material available under a license which permits ONLY that. Youtube-dl contains code to decrypt the URL of the video stream in order to download and save the copyrighted material, in vi…

Out of curiosity, do you have any insight about how this works when applied to other mechanisms and tools? YouTube-dl has a lot of use cases, among which are the downloading of potentially copyrighted works, in a way which seems similar in my mind to the way a VCR has a lot of use cases including, possibly, the recording of TV shows in violation of a license. Why are VCRs permissible to distribute but not this softwa…

Because VCRs were deemed to be a tool used primarily for fair use in the Betamax case. The analysis that made VCRs possible (and DVRs, for a while) wouldn't hold up today.

In a nutshell: When Betamax and VHS VCRs came out, tv shows generally aired once, did not repeat, and were not available for purchase on an individual basis. Recording the show to watch later (aka, "time shifting") was the only means some people had to watch an episode.

And importantly: because the episode was not otherwise available (i.e., it wasn't sold or rebroadcast) there was no financial harm to the content owner for copies being made.

DVRs like Tivo relied on this logic as well. And it worked, until the studios caught on and began making film and TV content available for purchase on an individual basis, and offering the content for transitory consumption (aka streaming). By doing so, they eliminated the "time-shifting" rationale of the Betamax case (by offering downloadable copies, albeit at a higher fee, they've also addressed the "connectivity shifting" rationale techies keep bringing up). And indeed, that is why Tivo and other companies stopped selling standalone DVRs in the U.S. and Europe a few years ago. (All of the DVRs you can find today in the U.S. are offered by cable companies or the subscription service providers (Hulu, Youtube TV, etc.) pursuant to streaming and time-shifted viewing licenses they have with the studios.)

Thus, even if the Betamax case was still binding precedent (it hasn't been since the DMCA), it wouldn't apply today.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#212

Post by varispeed »

ikeboy wrote: post #198
gamblor956 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really should talk to a lawyer because it sounds like the entire basis for your protest is grounded in a misunderstanding of how the DMCA provisions work. I can tell you based on what you've posted in this thread that you absolutely do not have a tortious interference claim unless you've entered into contracts you haven't previously mentioned.

I've talked to plenty of lawyers and spent plenty of money on intellectual property issues. I know what I'm talking about. A declaratory judgement suit is in my view the proper avenue to address a tenuous IP claim. Like I said, tortious interference is not a great fit, but it's still applicable - interference with my contract with Github counts as interference. If it was an actual DMCA notice then the only remedy wou…

I am sceptical, but I wish you all the best. I hope you'll be successful like this dude who got Spotify playlist export back on - it was epic.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#213

Post by [deleted] »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #74
bitwize wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are VCRs permissible to distribute but not this software? 1) Because the Supreme Court -- in a narrow 5-4 decision -- ruled them so in the "Betamax case" after the MPAA tried -- and up to that point succeeded -- to have them banned as tools of copyright infringement. The MPAA was sore about this for decades afterward, maintaining that the SCOTUS was simply wrong as a matter of law. My girlfriend's stepfather wa…

Clearly that's pretty silly. A photocopier fits the rule of devices that violate copyright. So does a camera. Yet they are for sale.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#214

Post by konjin »

notriddle wrote: post #153
konjin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Block chain, bit torrent, freenet. There are plenty of alternatives that don't require centralization, they are just unpolished because there is no money in them. Again, github only exists because for some reason my generation of developers has decided that js is the only way to use the internet and a pretty interface makes up for not knowing the tools you are using.

Block chain is the only one in your list that is actually decentralized, and it winds up de-facto centralized anyway because it's too slow. BitTorrent is centralized around the search engines, because a content-addressable storage system can't help with content discovery. You need someone to delete torrents that claim to be video games but are actually ransomeware. FreeNet is the same as BitTorrent, except that it ha…

Which is why you don't use js. Freenet is more than enough to distribute source code with a mailing list and signed files using plain text.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#215

Post by konjin »

dredmorbius wrote: post #117
konjin wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A newsgroup works. Its just that no one under 30 seems to realize that you don't need js to have a web application.

Usenet was killed once in the name of child pornography by the current governor of New York: https://www.cnet.com/news/n-y-attorney-general-forces-isps-t...

Yes, the 4 horseman of the infopocalypse. To put it bluntly, if your system can't protect criminals it can't protect regular users either.

Heaven forbid we expect the police to actually do their job without having to spy on all of us all the time. Is expecting competence from them so much to ask?

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#216

Post by gamblor956 »

Rochus wrote: post #207
gamblor956 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Switzerland. youtube-dl was, and still is, hosted in the U.S. And the DMCA is not as lenient as the laws of Switzerland. And on that note, neither are the IP treaties that most Western countries have made with each other, Switzerland included.

This subthread is about Switzerland, see above. And the action is also on thin ice in the USA. The assumptions on which the takedown is based on are very questionable. I am curious to see how the proceedings that have now been initiated will turn out.

No, the RIAA notice is on pretty solid ground in the U.S.

You'll note that organizations like the EFF haven't weighed in on this like they normally do when content owners get overzealous with enforcing IP controls, nor have many of the usual IP law commentators.

And more importantly, the youtube-dl creators would have already filed a response if the RIAA notice was as week as so many people in this thread have claimed; they've had a week to do so. The fact that they've yet to respond indicates that either they or the lawyers they've spent the last week talking to are having difficulty finding a response to the RIAA's notice. (This doesn't mean that they won't file a notice, just that the issue is not a piece of cake like so many people on HN believe.)

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#217

Post by gamblor956 »

Rochus wrote: post #203
gamblor956 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA does not require the technical measure to be highly effective, or even that it be effective at all. It simply requires that a technical measure of some sort exists. Thus, it doesn't matter that it's hanging the key next to the door; it is sufficient for the purposes of the DMCA that there is a closed door.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. What you propose would lead to complete arbitrariness.

No, because in the U.S. we have this thing called "reasonableness."

Obfuscating the cache file effectively controls the work by preventing most viewers from making a permanent copy. It takes technical knowledge to overcome that measure. (Go ahead, ask any non-techie you know to download a copy of a video from Youtube without using a tool like youtube-dl. They'll fail.) That's a reasonable measure; it would prevent the overwhelming majority of the population from copying. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't protect against the entire population; in the real world, keys, safes, bike locks, etc. don't stop determined individuals either.

And the outcome, if youtube-dl wins this case? Youtube and other sites that feature substantial amount of copyrighted content will have to change the technical details of how they store temporary video content, ultimately rendering youtube-dl useless for all videos, not just the ones guarded by the RIAA. Win the battle, lose the war.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#218

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

gamblor956 wrote: post #189
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anything like that ever happened?

It used to happen in the U.S. quite frequently in the days of Kazaa/Limewire. If you got caught pirating a movie, your ISP would cut you off after 1-3 strikes. It doesn't happen as much anymore because it's now easier to get a high-quality version of the movie through legitimate means than through illegitimate ones.

That's very different then the implication of a SWAT team busting in your door and carting you off to prison for some unspecified amount of time on account of copyright infringement.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#219

Post by gamblor956 »

ikeboy wrote: post #198
gamblor956 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really should talk to a lawyer because it sounds like the entire basis for your protest is grounded in a misunderstanding of how the DMCA provisions work. I can tell you based on what you've posted in this thread that you absolutely do not have a tortious interference claim unless you've entered into contracts you haven't previously mentioned.

I've talked to plenty of lawyers and spent plenty of money on intellectual property issues. I know what I'm talking about. A declaratory judgement suit is in my view the proper avenue to address a tenuous IP claim. Like I said, tortious interference is not a great fit, but it's still applicable - interference with my contract with Github counts as interference. If it was an actual DMCA notice then the only remedy wou…

Your cites don't say what you think they say.

For starters, the first link is for a motion to dismiss, A motion to dismiss merely assesses whether the plaintiff has made sufficient claims in its pleading to keep the case going. It's not a substantive ruling on the merits of anything. And second, it was related to a "tortious interference with business expectancy claim" which required the plaintiff to have a business that was interfered with as a result of the defendant's false trademark violation claim, and that harm actually resulted from the defendant's false claim. (The case is still going, and both sides have filed competing motions for summary judgment.)

The second case was a tortious interfence case in which the defendant also made false allegations of counterfeiting, which led to Amazon removing the plaintiff's products from the store, so I'm assuming you brought it up because you are going to argue that the RIAA will make factually false statements of fact against you if you make a copy of the youtube-dl repository.

If that's your plan, good luck, because you're going to need it. You're definitely going to want to hire better lawyers, too, if your current lawyers have advised you that you could beat the RIAA in these circumstances.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#220

Post by gamblor956 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #218
gamblor956 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to happen in the U.S. quite frequently in the days of Kazaa/Limewire. If you got caught pirating a movie, your ISP would cut you off after 1-3 strikes. It doesn't happen as much anymore because it's now easier to get a high-quality version of the movie through legitimate means than through illegitimate ones.

That's very different then the implication of a SWAT team busting in your door and carting you off to prison for some unspecified amount of time on account of copyright infringement.

That was never the MPAA. The law firms they originally hired for those cases were behind that and were sanctioned for it.

The RIAA and MPAA are aggressive, but they're not stupid.

Post reply on HN