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

251–260 of 273 posts

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

#251

Post by bxk1 »

ikeboy wrote: post #247
Mindwipe wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally everyone who is a member of WIPO covers circumvention, so that's 193 countries.

Good point, thanks. I still think a US ruling would be very beneficial, even if it doesn't definitively settle the issue globally.

The comment is wrong though. There is no need to settle the issue globally, it's a US-only issue. As being a WIPO member or signing a treaty doesn't create laws. Being a WIPO member doesn't do much of anything actually, it's all just talk, that's why there are so many members. Instead countries have sovereignty, pass and implement their own laws regarding copyright typically requiring elected politicians to propose them and vote on them, independently from WIPO and treaties. They also have their own judicial systems, most countries not even doing a common law style system where things can ever be "settled", it's more about court orders, rather than some clever demands written by lawyers.

So, when it comes to copyright, most of the world is really not like the US. A random WIPO country is likely not just lacks anti-circumvention copyright laws, but also lacks a lot of other things in them.

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

#252

Post by garmaine »

Mindwipe wrote: post #239
garmaine wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the RIAA takedown apply in other jurisdictions, when it cites US law?

> Why would the RIAA takedown apply in other jurisdictions, when it cites US law? The RIAA can probably afford to send a second letter citing British or German law.

Point is e part of the law being cited is very US-specific.

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

#253

Post by feanaro »

philh wrote: post #148
feanaro wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that the decryption you are talking about is simple JavaScript execution and that according to this interpretation, even browsers are in violation? You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it. The RIAA would have more of a case if they hosted this on their own site and made it…

> You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it. I'm not saying this is wrong, but how do you know? That is, do you claim to have a grounded understanding of the law? (Perhaps as a lawyer, or a layperson who's studied this in some depth.) Or are you simply saying that in your opinion the law…

A layperson who's studied this in some depth. This is obviously my interpretation of the law since I haven't tested it in courts. However, if it did come to court, I think this would be the likely conclusion.

I'm also interested, though: can you imagine a phrasing or argument that would invalidate the sentence you quoted? How would the restriction be framed? Would it mention a list of concrete programs which you can to access the website? Can RIAA for instance, in your opinion, mandate that a website can only be accessed through Chrome?

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

#254

Post by feanaro »

gamblor956 wrote: post #209
feanaro wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that the decryption you are talking about is simple JavaScript execution and that according to this interpretation, even browsers are in violation? You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it. The RIAA would have more of a case if they hosted this on their own site and made it…

Are you aware that the decryption you are talking about is simple JavaScript execution and that according to this interpretation, even browsers are in violation? No, they're not. The Javascript was designed to run in the browsers as authorized user agents so that a user can view the video. You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses t…

> No, they're not. The Javascript was designed to run in the browsers as authorized user agents so that a user can view the video.

What are "browsers"?

> Yes, you can. Literally, the entire point of copyright and IP law is to incentive creators to make their creations public by protecting them when they do so.

Sure, but that has little to do with the topic at hand since copyright is not being challenged. Clearly it is the RIAA's intent for the content they publish publicly to be available publicly.

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

#255

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

ikeboy wrote: post #44

Great. I posted two forks, if GitHub takes action then I've got standing to sue RIAA (under the declaratory judgement act), which I'd love to do pro se. Btw, if anyone is associated with any fork that did go down and is interested in bringing a pro se case, feel free to contact me. I'm not a lawyer and can't give legal advice but I can help point you at some helpful laws and cases. I've been fighting false infringeme…

RIAA did not allege infringement. They alleged a violation of section 1201, e.g., publishing or otherwise trafficking in copyright protection circumvention technology. No copyright infringement is required to violate DMCA 1201(a)(2):

17 U.S.C. 1201 Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. (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 technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

It's not illegal to create copyright protection circumvention technology and in some circumstances it may be legal to use it. However, 1201 says it's illegal to offer it to the public or otherwise traffic in it.

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

#256

Post by Mindwipe »

garmaine wrote: post #252
Mindwipe wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would the RIAA takedown apply in other jurisdictions, when it cites US law? The RIAA can probably afford to send a second letter citing British or German law.

Point is e part of the law being cited is very US-specific.

It's not, you can literally swap it out for very similar anti-circumvention laws in virtually every Western democracy and indeed almost every functioning country in the world.

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

#257

Post by jlokier »

gamblor956 wrote: post #186
mkl95 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the things listed on the DMCA repo (if not most of them) are not software that could be used to download content, but the literal content you could obtain using them, such as textbooks, proprietary fonts, and so on. By taking down youtube-dl, Github has opened a window for copyright trolls to speculate about what a repository is used for, and take it down if one of its use cases involves downloading copyrigh…

I can see how it's legitimate to take down a repository with the sole, explicit goal of downloading copyrighted content, but youtube-dl is widely used by journalists to preserve uncopyrighted content. Youtube-dl is used by some journalists. Generally, most journalists at a real newspaper or media organization would ask for the original video, not a copy from youtube. Even your local evening news will use the original…

> Generally, most journalists at a real newspaper or media organization would ask for the original video, not a copy from youtube.

In earlier HN threads about this youtube-dl takedown, it was pointed out that sometimes authors of videos used youtube-dl to download their own videos, because they don't keep their own original; treating YouTube as a repository for their data, much like people use Google Drive, or GitHub.

So even when a real newspaper or media organisation asks for the original, those authors needs youtube-dl to retrieve that original. Or maybe they'll just tell the media organisation to download it themselves as there's no difference.

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

#258

Post by philh »

feanaro wrote: post #253
philh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it. I'm not saying this is wrong, but how do you know? That is, do you claim to have a grounded understanding of the law? (Perhaps as a lawyer, or a layperson who's studied this in some depth.) Or are you simply saying that in your opinion the law…

A layperson who's studied this in some depth. This is obviously my interpretation of the law since I haven't tested it in courts. However, if it did come to court, I think this would be the likely conclusion. I'm also interested, though: can you imagine a phrasing or argument that would invalidate the sentence you quoted? How would the restriction be framed? Would it mention a list of concrete programs which you can…

Fair question. I don't necessarily have something specific in mind, I just have a generally high prior of things like: the law is complicated; DMCA is complicated; things don't necessarily mean what they sound like they'd mean; arguments like "if you allow this you can't possibly forbid that, what on earth are you thinking" are unreliable at best[1].

But the sorts of things I could imagine going wrong with your argument might be...

* Yes, browsers are in violation of the thing bitwize quoted, but it doesn't apply to them for reasons written elsewhere.

* Yes, browsers are actually in violation of DMCA. People probably noticed this when the law was being written, but no one listened to them. If anyone tried to enforce DMCA against browsers, DMCA would get overturned, so no one's going to try. (I think this is unlikely - if there was an argument that browsers violate DMCA, I think I'd probably have heard of it. Probably. But including for completeness.)

* Browsers need Javascript engines for many many reasons. Youtube-dl (afaik) needs a javascript engine specifically to get around this obfuscation. That could be relevant somehow. (Similar reasoning might say that locksmiths are allowed to own lockpicks and no one else is. I believe the law has roundly rejected that. But that doesn't mean the law would reject this, too.)

Again, not claiming any of these actually apply. Just, this sort of thing is why I'm hesitant to make inferences that seem otherwise sensible.

[1] https://xkcd.com/651/

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

#259

Post by feanaro »

philh wrote: post #258
feanaro wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A layperson who's studied this in some depth. This is obviously my interpretation of the law since I haven't tested it in courts. However, if it did come to court, I think this would be the likely conclusion. I'm also interested, though: can you imagine a phrasing or argument that would invalidate the sentence you quoted? How would the restriction be framed? Would it mention a list of concrete programs which you can…

Fair question. I don't necessarily have something specific in mind, I just have a generally high prior of things like: the law is complicated; DMCA is complicated; things don't necessarily mean what they sound like they'd mean; arguments like "if you allow this you can't possibly forbid that, what on earth are you thinking" are unreliable at best[1]. But the sorts of things I could imagine going wrong with your argum…

I very much appreciate your thoughtful response. I think the points you raise are fair, but none of them strongly and clear-cut in RIAA's favour. In fact, I would call them weak and cannot imagine RIAA would want to really press this matter in court using any of them.

To answer very shortly: to my knowledge, there are no such exemptions for browsers specifically. Point 2 would actually work against DMCA, as you observed. I think point 3 is defeated by the fact that there are websites which require JS support to initiate video reproduction but which do not use it as an obfuscation technique.

Instead, RIAA is counting on this matter not to reach the courts and everyone submitting to their will out of fear, which ever so slightly modifies public opinion on the matter and pushes the Overton window.

From my experience, in cases like this the law turns out to be somewhat arbitrary and devolves into "whatever the judge(s) of the highest order think". It is extremely important not to get self-defeatist at this point and argue aggressively for the outcome you want to see play out.

Of course, I am not sure how this would in fact play out in court, but I think no one is. If anyone is aware of a concrete fact which makes my reasoning outright invalid, I invite them to cite it.

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

#260

Post by ric2b »

muststopmyths wrote: post #170
jasode wrote: post #37

Some example comments in this thread: >"People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, " >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" >"The nice thing about fossil" ... those well-meaning suggestions are missing the true difficulty : The community wants a (1) Schelling Point [0] for workflow/issues/discussions/PRs that's also (2) censorship resistant. So far, (1) and (2) con…

>"Time for a decentralized version control system?" A GitTorrent, if you will.

That's just git on IPFS.
Post reply on HN