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

YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 686 posts

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#561

Post by _23sd »

thewakalix wrote: post #465
toyg wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Youtube wasn't behind the DMCA takedown, though. Do they even care about youtube-dl?

Youtube has to listen to the RIAA's demands because music and music videos are a huge portion of their traffic. The music industry could decide to move all that to Spotify if they chose.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#562

Post by m-p-3 »

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.

It's already there, you can authenticate using a cookie file if you want.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#563

Post by mmcdermott »

sneak wrote: post #505
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…

GitHub is owned by Microsoft, who is a member of the RIAA who created this legal action. For Microsoft to pay for the lawyers to take it down (via their RIAA membership payments) and also pay for the lawyers to keep it up seems... rather silly.

From the outside in, there are a lot of aspects of the legal system that look like this - welfare for lawyers. Unfortunately, fixing it requires changing the law and we've made of practice of sending a lot of lawyers to Capitol Hill who are very sympathetic to the needs of lawyers. It's probably the biggest self-perpetuating interest group there is.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#565

Post by wgjordan »

zerocrates wrote: post #537
wgjordan wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Infringement of copyright is defined by the statute and does not include the anti-circumvention 1201 provisions.

Yeah, my mistake, you're correct the 1201 anti-circumvention provisions do define a new violation separate from copyright infringement itself.

However, there is a circuit split as to whether a violation of section 1201 requires a nexus to copyright infringement to be valid. If an 'infringement nexus requirement' is upheld, section 512 may still cover section 1201 violations by shielding service providers from any copyright infringement liability that would establish a nexus with the circumvention tool.

I don't see this particular issue ever being resolved by the courts in any case, so there's still quite a bit of ambiguity in this connection between the two sections of the DMCA.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#566

Post by nybble41 »

oconnor663 wrote: post #177
bigbubba wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if RIAA lawyers believe themselves productive members of society, or if they recognize themselves as the parasites they are.

I mean, if we believe it benefits us to have copyright laws, then obviously it benefits us to have copyright lawyers, and the rest is just implementation details. I'd wager 99% of people believe copyright laws are a net good.

> I'd wager 99% of people believe copyright laws are a net good.

If asked, a majority might say that (though IMHO nowhere near 99%). Their actions indicate otherwise, however, and a person's beliefs are better judged by their actions than by their words.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#567

Post by belorn »

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.

I am not that afraid that google would require sign-ins for everything. Even google with its massive market dominance should be pretty scared of given such a clear opening for a competitor, and being accessible without a login is a huge feature in order to get market share quickly compared to a competitor that does not.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#568

Post by kodah »

bluGill wrote: post #545
TechBro8615 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds hopelessly naive. At the risk of starting a political flamewar, it’s really not possible for any individual to effect large scale change to policymaking beyond the hyper local level. It’s especially impossible to go against massive lobbying interests like the RIAA.

You alone yes. However if everyone reading this works at the problem...

Could you imagine getting HN to agree on what the definition of Open Source is?

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#569

Post by wgjordan »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #481
wgjordan wrote: post #461

Rather interesting that GitHub decided to restore access 1 day after receiving the EFF's counter notice, instead of waiting 10 days. As a brief legal recap, in 1998 the DMCA added §512 [1] to US copyright law, which established a mechanism for shielding 'service providers' from liability for content posted by users (known as 'safe harbor'), but only as long as they follow formal procedures (known as 'DMCA takedown')…

The youtube-dl incident was not a section 512 takedown. There was no infringing material, i.e., content, to remove. The RIAA letter made no mention of section 512, referring instead to section 1201. Neither did this letter from EFF refer to section 512. This was not a section 512 takedown. The rules in section 512 do not apply.

The 'copyright violations' section of the RIAA letter (regarding the unit tests) was clearly a standard §512 notice alleging copyright infringement. Even if §512 wasn't explicitly mentioned, it's still a legally effective notification of claimed infringement.

> The rules in section 512 do not apply.

Assuming you're referring only to the §1201 'anticircumvention' portion of the claim (the main focus of the GitHub post), whether this portion is also subject to §512 rules is a little more ambiguous. §1201 defines a trafficking violation separate from copyright infringement itself, but some court rulings have established a requirement that §1201 violations establish a 'nexus' to copyright infringement in order to be valid. If this requirement holds, §512 safe harbor protections could indirectly cover §1201 claims as well. However, because there's a circuit split on the issue, unless GitHub is sued on this exact point it's impossible to say for sure what rules would apply in this specific case.

In any case, GitHub handled the 1201 takedown claim in reference to its established, documented process in handling takedown notices and counter notices [1], except for the fact that it didn't wait 10-14 days after receiving a counter notice before re-enabling this content. The deviation from their published policy is still itself noteworthy.

[1] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#570

Post by hombre_fatal »

asperous wrote: post #405
jjeaff wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How has youtube not sent a cease and desist for the name youtube-dl? They would most definitely have a case that the name makes it appear to be a youtube product. Would a cease and desist for the name only somehow imply that google has no issue with the functionality? Because I know not protecting your trademark can lead to dilution. And by issuing takedown notices, they are showing that they are aware of the existen…

Youtube has to realize that a significant amount of content that people watch on its site is reaction, commentary, compilations, and other recycled content. I think its for this reason that they don't go after these projects very aggressively.

It's just arbitrary. There's prob even a low-sev ticket somewhere in Youtube's issue tracker to take out youtube-dl. They can do it at any time.

That they haven't done it (make youtube-dl's life harder) yet just means they might do it tomorrow, not that they don't care.

Post reply on HN