If a program had its own implementation of widevine, why wouldn't you also be "effectively a web browser" ?
Isn't the Widevine password essentially public as it is distributed to the client where it was extracted? Or was the Widevine key somehow stolen from Google's private repository?
There are multiple widevine keys, some are in CPU memory (shipped with the client software), some are in trusted enclaves on devices. Some of the trusted enclave keys have been dumped from hardware (nexus 6 for one, iirc) and eventually those keys were revoked or downgraded
> Whenever you watch a video you are downloading it. Why is this comment downvoted? It's highlighting one of the most common misunderstandings that laypersons have regarding video download/streaming. Most people think that you can "view" content on the internet without downloading it. In this context, a tool which purports to "download" content, you know... sounds like it's nefariously doing something that the "viewi…
This may be completely true in a technical sense, but that's not how the law works (see https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 ). And while the same bits pass through your connection, this equivalence already breaks down right away: There is clearly a difference between persisting a media file to disk vs having it ephemeral in browser memory.
An interesting question along these lines arose recently in relation to an Australian password disclosure law that related to accessing “computers,” which was used to compel disclosure of a smartphone passcode. To HN readers and the digital forensics people who pull data off smartphones, they’re obviously computers. But the judge was not convinced that a law written to allow access to “computers” in the early 2000s was intended to allow access to smartphones today, which contain far more personal information than the typical personal computer of 20 years ago. After all, if you asked someone “do you have a computer?” they would be unlikely to say yes based on their possession of a smartphone. And if you ask someone who streamed a YouTube video whether they “downloaded” it, I think in most cases the answer would be no. That’s why the tool is called “youtube-dl,” even though it is now used for streaming as well.
Yet another case of big corp attacking someone, that someone having an online voice and complaining, big corp doing damage control spinning some tale about how they'll endeavor to do better in the future and how much they agree with the little guy.
For once I'd like companies to be honest, just say you reversed it when it was found out it would be more cost efficient to do so.
On the contrary, they’re doing a lot, including establishing a $1M legal defense fund for developers and a technical team to review the validity of anti-circumvention DMCA notices. It seems like they’re doing a lot more than just paying lip service to EFF / developer freedom, and they should be commended for it.
They’re correcting a wrong because their reputation took a big hit in the dev community. Now there’s big talk of the dangers of not self-hosting your repo and the monoculture of using GitHub. Although it probably has good intent, this is largely PR.
Even if largely PR, that's still a million dollars.
Are 1201 takedown notices even supposed to be a thing, or were they just invented by the RIAA and/or other overly enthusiastic copyright holders? I was under the impression that DMCA notices were for the removal of infringing content, not alleged anti-circumvention tools. That's what the law seems to specify. The notification and takedown process is specified for infringement of copyrighted works, not distribution of…
> I was under the impression that DMCA notices were for the removal of infringing content, not alleged anti-circumvention tools. That's what the law seems to specify. My reading is that the DMCA expanded the definition of 'copyright infringement' to include 'circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner' (§1201), and so a DMCA notice specifying 'ma…
Infringement of copyright is defined by the statute and does not include the anti-circumvention 1201 provisions.
There is no legally-specified takedown procedure for a 1201 violation, and correspondingly no "safe harbor." The "takedown" here was more in the vein of a demand letter.
Github links to the EFF letter [0] in the DMCA repo. This letter spells out in clear, convincing and explicit detail why the RIAA was wrong. Profit-making Github and Microsoft could have performed this analysis and championed developers themselves, but it was the non-profit EFF that actually did the work. EFF deserves more credit than just a link for fighting against this shit. [0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob…
Yes, I've read it. That's why I came to my conclusion. Btw. nearly all of the facts in the referenced letter were expressed in HN discussions just a few hours after the takedown. From my point of view they were obvious.
I agree that they were obvious and, as you say, the HN conversations show that they occurred to many technologists. That said, I think there is an argument to say that the EFF was better qualified to write the letter. The reason being that MSFT wants to look like an impartial content host (to avoid being liable) and the EFF is explicitly an advocacy group. If MSFT advocates for content on that platform, it could be portrayed as a conflict of interest by the RIAA lawyers. I completely understand the optics of EFF doing the heavy lifting on this one.
The action to take down Youtube-dl seemed to be a directed time based action meant to coincide with the election. Most on-line youtube downloading sites were also deplatformed a day or two before the election.
I think that Youtube didn't want users to have the ability to locally save videos that they have seen during the week of the election.
It seems to be a greater attempt to suppress information sharing than anything specific to the copyright.
Youtube just wanted immediate action to prevent people from using the code to get around the online download sites that were also taken down.