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

261–270 of 273 posts

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

#261

Post by ric2b »

tweetle_beetle wrote: post #125
chmod775 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Probably the lawyers will move on when the thing becomes hard enough to use and gets contained few techies showing off to their few friends and calling it a victory. youtube-dl is a tool mostly used by techies anyways, and they specifically took down the code repository. On top of that youtube-dl is a commandline tool. This is not your typical "google how do I netflix" end-user. You can bootstrap an application tha…

> youtube-dl is a tool mostly used by techies anyways This is just speculation, but I think that there may have been a tipping point reached where it is no longer being just used by CLI "techies". It has been incorporated into other tools which appeal to a much wider userbase - many of whom will never know they are using it behind the scenes. For example, there is: a user-friendly front-end for it in Kodi [1], an eas…

Those tools are built by developers, which will have no issue with getting access to youtube-dl in more technical ways.

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

#262

Post by ikeboy »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #255
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 publi…

Yes, technically I'd be going for a declaratory judgement of non-circumvention.

It's been done before. Matthew Green brought a declaratory judgement case on section 1201, although in different circumstances - see https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/07/28/statemen...

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

#263

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

ikeboy wrote: post #262
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publi…

Yes, technically I'd be going for a declaratory judgement of non-circumvention. It's been done before. Matthew Green brought a declaratory judgement case on section 1201, although in different circumstances - see https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/07/28/statemen...

The EFF on behalf of Prof. Green is not arguing "non-circumvention". They admit Green has performed circumvention. They argue 1201 as applied to Green's work is unconstitutional.

Again, the RIAA is not alleging circumvention. They are alleging publication/trafficking in circumvention technology.

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

#264

Post by ikeboy »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #263
ikeboy wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, technically I'd be going for a declaratory judgement of non-circumvention. It's been done before. Matthew Green brought a declaratory judgement case on section 1201, although in different circumstances - see https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/07/28/statemen...

The EFF on behalf of Prof. Green is not arguing "non-circumvention". They admit Green has performed circumvention. They argue 1201 as applied to Green's work is unconstitutional. Again, the RIAA is not alleging circumvention. They are alleging publication/trafficking in circumvention technology.

It's not a direct match, but that's to be expected in an underexplored area of law.

To get really precise, I'd probably argue along these lines:

1. Declaration that YouTube's rolling cipher isn't an effective access control or copy control

2. Declaration that my actions don't count as marketing in violation of 1201(b)(1)(c), or alternatively that any marketing was not in violation of that section.

3. Declaration that my fork of youtube-dl isn't primarily designed or produce for the purpose as in 1201(b)(1)(a)

4. Declaration that youtube-dl has substantial commercially significant purpose or use beyond circumvention on copyrighted content, as per 1201(b)(1)(b)

I don't think access controls is a winner, although I'd probably throw in the analogous declaratory judgement counts for 1201(a)(2) just in case.

Depending on how RIAA defends it, I could add declaratory judgement counts addressing their specific claims.

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

#265

Post by optimuspaul »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #193
optimuspaul wrote: post #120

am I the only one that doesn't support YouTube-dl? Are there use cases for it that are not downloading content that is not your own?

In the case that you were more concerned about the legality than the morality of it, you have to remember that downloading freely available videos on YouTube is perfectly legal. (Of course sharing the downloaded files is not , unless you have a copyright on them, or if they are in the public domain)

I had not considered that. I should also note that I rarely look at videos on YouTube so I am not really aware of the scope of that is there.

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

#266

Post by optimuspaul »

7786655 wrote: post #237
optimuspaul wrote: post #120

am I the only one that doesn't support YouTube-dl? Are there use cases for it that are not downloading content that is not your own?

I use it to watch YouTube videos in MPV. I have a machine where Chrome won't start and Firefox can't reliably display video without dropped frames, but MPV runs perfectly.

Interesting. I'd not heard of MPV, def going to check that out. Video playback is something I deal with everyday.

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

#267

Post by optimuspaul »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #129
optimuspaul wrote: post #120

am I the only one that doesn't support YouTube-dl? Are there use cases for it that are not downloading content that is not your own?

There are all sorts of legit uses. There are some videos I've uploaded that I've long ago lost the original source to. Also, if I wanted to go home and see my parents, it's probably better if I download the ted talks, youtube videos etc that I might like to watch on my personal connection than theirs.

Downloading my own videos doesn't require something like YouTube-DL. Offline personal use of others videos does make sense.

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

#268

Post by bitwize »

feanaro wrote: post #94
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…

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…

If browsers evaluate all of the JavaScript and implement the access controls, they are not in violation.

However, a tool which selectively evaluates the JavaScript to decrypt the content URL without implementing the rightsholder's policies would count as disabling or evading effective protection under the DMCA, and thus be illegal. Browsers are not such tools; however, distributing software (say, a GreaseMonkey script) or instructions on how to make a browser evaluate the decryption JavaScript and download the video without implementing the policies would also be illegal.

Why is this so hard to understand? The law is very clear: when a protective measure is set up, be it in JavaScript, Visual Basic, or anything else, anything that gets around that measure is a crime to distribute.

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

#269

Post by Mindwipe »

realusername wrote: post #175
Mindwipe wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be legal in any of those territories - those explicit copyright exemptions don't apply to content that you're not licensed to have permanently or broadcasts. European law also requires member states to have laws against breaching technical protection measures, and bypassing those isn't usually legal irrespective of personal copy exemptions. And in this case Youtube-dl was taken down because it was claimed…

> It wouldn't be legal in any of those territories - those explicit copyright exemptions don't apply to content that you're not licensed to have permanently or broadcasts. On my case (French laws), there's no exception for that: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI00000... as long as it's a private copy. > European law also requires member states to have laws against breaching technical protection…

I'm afraid that the French Supreme Court disagrees with you on both points (https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publi...)

As it must, because the European directive has primacy.

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

#270

Post by arghwhat »

jasode wrote: post #248
arghwhat wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not every project records email addresses in the source code. You have missed the point entirely. The email Git workflow is based around—you guessed it— git . Git, being designed entirely around email-based workflows, stores the email authors and committers of every commit (they often differ), and furthermore, often also marks the reviewers. This is fully automatic . If you are looking for email addresses, you eith…

>How can you be discussing how to create issues if you don't even know how to get the software in the first place to discover issues with? How do you even know of the software if you had not already found a place which could contain the starting point for your process? Why is this question so strange to you? The end user usage of a tool can be much more widely known than the workflow development of it. Let's take a l…

> Let's take a look at Youtube-dl specifically:

So you're going to take a project that does not at all use emails in their workflow as an example for email based workflows? Brilliant.

Have you perhaps considered that maybe, if a project actively used emails in any part of their process, maybe addresses would have been more visible?

If only we had the means to write arbitrary relevant text on a page such as the one you linked...

> But some starting points matter more than others.

It objectively does not. Everyone starts once. It only matters for recruitment. However, as you yourself seem to accept "youtube-dl.org" as an acceptable starting point, which can contain arbitrary information in any form, then there is nothing more to discuss here.

> ... is not making progress in that discussion.

... Like every argument you've made so far.

As this point, I'll consider the discussion as over by three-fold repetition. Everything you have presented has already been answered (directly or indirectly), and the counter-scenarios are all faulty (e.g. discussing doomsday scenarious with no ability to share maintainer addresses yet accepting a website, using a non-email based project as reference for an email workflow, yadda yadda).

I'll take my leave.

Post reply on HN