YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

Post by npteljes » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

NoSalt wrote: post #353

ryanar wrote: post #184

It seems like EFF fought for youtube-dl and GitHub used their letter as legal firepower to bring the repo back online. If GitHub were fighting for the developer they would have funded the attorney, right? Though from their blog post it does look like they are taking steps to fund defense in the future as well as other steps to improve the situation. Reading EFFs claim is pretty interesting, they state that saving a c…

To be honest, I had no idea youtube-dl did anything else other than download YouTube videos. What other functions does it have?

Post by feanaro » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #296

TechBro8615 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIU the argument is more that youtube-dl is effectively a web browser and doesn’t do anything that a web browser doesn’t do. Further, it does not include any “secret” key for DRM circumvention like might be bundled with e.g. Chrome in the case of Widevine, where browser vendors agree to protect the secret key.

Right, but the law makes no mention of secret keys, it just says you can't go around anything that controls access to a copyright work; and you can't provide tools to do so. The actual legal definition of tools covers both actual technical purpose as well as marketed purpose. Rebranding, say, OBS as "Recorder for YouTube" and talking about how you can use it to get around YouTube's downloading protections by screenca…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #372

mox1 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rebuttal to your reasoning is in the letter. Basically a federal judge has previously ruled that utilizing a publicly available password is not circumvention of a copyright protection mechanism. The code containing the "sig" (as google calls it) or "rolling cipher" (as RIAA calls it) is available to anyone by viewing the JavaScript. This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism.

> This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism. I can see this as ending up with Youtube being forced to require sign-ins. Massive expense for Google. Then Youtube-dl adds one parameter for the password, and we're back to square one.

Post by sjy » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

feanaro wrote: post #523

kmeisthax wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the law makes no mention of secret keys, it just says you can't go around anything that controls access to a copyright work; and you can't provide tools to do so. The actual legal definition of tools covers both actual technical purpose as well as marketed purpose. Rebranding, say, OBS as "Recorder for YouTube" and talking about how you can use it to get around YouTube's downloading protections by screenca…

> Likewise, YouTube's rolling cipher can't really validate that it's not sitting inside of an instrumented browser that will dump whatever URLs it grabs. What is the criteria for differentiating between youtube-dl and a "browser"?

Post by scubbo » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

clarkdale wrote: post #510

ComputerGuru wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What movie? I think you mean, “read the book.”

Not OP, but I think he was referring to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)[0] which grossed $887.9 million and won 4 Academy awards[1]. [0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Fel...