The RIAA knowingly issued a takedown where there was no copyrighted content. That is perjury. It is spelled out in the DMCA. If they wanted to sue under the "no circumvention" clause, they could have. But they chose to misuse the DMCA takedown process again. Just once I'd love to see them put in their place for the rampant abuse of the system.
This was not a DMCA 512 notice.
It is remarkable how few people commenting on the web are noticing that.
A notice under section 512 needs to identify both the material infringed and the infringing material.
The letter identifies some works that may be infringed, e.g., VEVO videos listed in youtube-dl's documentation.
However it does not identify the location of any infringing material, e.g., an unauthorised copy of a VEVO video.
It cannot be a valid DMCA 512 notice.
The letter instead refers to section 1201 which includes a prohibition against enabling circumvention of copyright protections.
The argument is that youtube-dl violates that prohibition.
Online debate about the applicability of the DMCA in this case should focus on section 1201 not 512.
For example, is youtube-dl "primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected [by copyright]" Do most YouTube video URLs use enciphered signatures. Not IME. Does the rolling cipher "control access" to YouTube videos, or does it just control downloading. Etc.
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.
That feels more like "circumventing a technological measure" than youtube-dl. Are they in danger?
The right way is that ad networks are circumventing your cognitive and technical measures you installed to avoid ads
Same with spam, etc
The laws are not one-sided recipes for this social form over that one.
Okay so you make a counterargument that maybe this qualifies as fair-use or falls under some other exemption. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not right, that's for a court to decide. The RIAA's lawyer is not here to defend youtube-dl's position on the matter, youtube-dl has the responsibility of defending itself and demonstrating why it chose to use copyrighted music videos as the key example and use case.
You can object to the law and you can even provide a defense for youtube-dl and counter the takedown notice, but you can't say that RIAA's lawyer abused the DMCA takedown process by defending its client.
This is not like breaking encryption on DVDs.
Your device has to download the data in order for the video to be viewed. Streaming is a form of downloading; a copy of the data passes through your equipment, and is retained for some duration of time.
If Chrome does something, any other piece of software is allowed to do it.
Sure it does. That's how it buffers and caches things.
Even if it doesn't leave a copy on the HDD, a copy in RAM is still a copy.
But all of these things are happening inside of my own computer. YouTube already sent the bits and bytes to my computer and I am allowed to do whatever I want with those bits and bytes.
There's nothing illegal about keeping a copy of something that was in memory and anybody arguing otherwise should be viewed as an enemy of humanity.
> I'm sure the RIAA would be suing Google over that.
Probably, but it could not reasonably sue on the basis that Google's web browser is circumventing copy protection in Google's video site. They could still sue that way unreasonably of course.
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24888234
I believe TOS violations per-se aren't covered by the DMCA, but by the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) instead.
In any case, DOES the YouTube TOS actually forbid the use of alternate clients to download and view videos?
Youtube red or something I think it's called.
What's the difference in using youtube-dl to d/l copyright video or using youtube premium to d/l said copyright video.
Note: I have not used youtube res service so idk how it works
It's like if someone is loitering outside of a store the store owner doesn't have the right to arrest them and lock them in a cell in their basement. There's a process that needs to be followed by people. Just because loitering may be illegal, and you have the right to post a no loitering sign, doesn't mean you can enforce that on your own.
DMCA Takedowns are an exception that allows parties to quickly remove copywriten material from distribution that comes with heafty penalties (whatever the judge thinks is reasonable) for when something like this goes to court and it's found that the takedown is invalid.
Whatever your feelings on ICE, this story was never substantiated and you shouldn't be repeating it as though it's an established fact.
This is how disinformation spreads. People just casually repeat things as if they're common knowledge. Soon everybody just "knows", no matter whether it was ever true to begin with. It's lazy and irresponsible. Stop it.
"ICE officials on Tuesday promised to cooperate with an investigation" (Reported 15 Sept 2020).
> The report did not detail any detainees who said they had received a hysterectomy against their will;
Right there in the same article.
Even the whistleblower's statement implies that there is one doctor doing it (though again, this is unsubstantiated), not that it is an official policy of ICE as the comment above implies. ("the guys who forcibly castrate women")
I'm not trying to say ICE is great or never did anything wrong. I don't know. I'm saying we can't go around casually repeating unsubstantiated rumors as though they are gospel truths - even if they really, really seem like they would be true because they totally confirm all of our preconceived notions about the subject. Information is sloshing around the world faster than ever and this kind of sloppiness is literally destroying civilization.
I think GitHub is fabulous. I love the service and I think its great as a central place to look for and contribute to open source projects better than options we had before.
But issues like this does clearly show an area of misalignment and conflict of interests.
This isn't a call to move from GitHub wholesale (churning between git hosts isn't an effective use of resources imho), but to build more durability and resiliency into distributed version control systems (Keybase-esque identity management, signing every commit, etc). Just as the Internet Archive and others are championing a distributed web , technologists must champion distributed development systems. Perhaps a reasonable target is to be able to perform a "git pull" from IPFS? As Gilmore said , interpret censorship as damage and route around it.
 http://kirste.userpage.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/internet-arti... (First Nation in Cyberspace, TIME International - Dec. 6, 1993, No.49)
I'm following Git-SSB and Holochain.
Apart from IPFS, any others you've found?
The code is all open source, and is decently simple to self host if you feel inclined.
People end up getting banned by these companies without any notice, and sometimes without cause.
The problem is not GitHub or MS, the problem is the current law about copyrighted content, tools, fair usage, counter procedures, etc.
AFAIK (not a lawyer) DMCA requests are presumed correct so the hoster has to take the content down, with a later process to handle a dispute.
Microsoft is a site that hosts projects for free while following the law. They have no interest in defending a project legally (besides, maybe, PR). Why would they?
The request isn't clearly fraudulent, the RIAA's case is shaky, but it's something one could defend in a court and maybe even win with, provided a strong imbalance of money to spend.
Absolutely not. The hoster won't enjoy a safe harbor (for the specific accused infringement) if the request is properly formed (which they seldom are, including this one) and they they do not take the material down, but they are under no obligation to do so.
[And as other posters have noted-- in this case a copyright infringement isn't even alleged; they're complaining under the anti-circumvention provisions which have no notice and takedown or safe harbor at all.]
In a U.S. court? You really think so? If you're right then in my opinion that's proof that the law needs fixing.
And unfortunately, yes. I think so.
Remember, Google v. Oracle has hit the Supreme Court. The only reason it's gone on so long is both sides can afford to keep throwing money at it.
What happens when one side can't?
Money is less important to the outcome of a trial than people think it is.
The RIAA was founded in 1952 so it couldn't have been a founding member, yet I can't find any news or press release with permutations of "Microsoft joins RIAA". Based on archive.org's oldest copy of the RIAA website's members page, it was a member since 2016 at least.
The problem here is that Microsoft has interests now on GitHub, same as Nvidia has interest on ARM. Sure they will assure blablabla bla bla... seriously, do not even try to denny interest on expensive acquired stuff
Gitlab wouldn't fix the problem here - if Gitlab were owned by Microsoft, even if fully FOSS, Microsoft would probably do the same thing.
The problem here is that Microsoft has plenty of interests, and protecting Github's sanctity is not #1 on that list.
IMO this is the problem with FOSS services running on a corporate of under base. We aren't their main source of money, so they have perverse incentives.
Yes, they should and could have done that, all the more so, since justification for the request is on thin ice.
> Microsoft can take the easy first step of resigning from RIAA in protest
What should that be good for? Rather they should use their influence there to prevent such nonsense in the future.
The US has no labor laws protecting the employee. Saying something can easily get you fired, next day. They don't have to give a reason.
A protest would require a non-trivial amount of people all coordinated in a 24 hour period or so to come forward with demands.
Because what's MS to gain from this, other than some goodwill from some subset of people, if they did it specifically to stand up for OSS?
This and many of their actions hurt independent musicians.
Don't fall for their gaslighting, there are many artists that they do not represent.
Microsoft Store online marketplace dropped books and music in 2017: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47810367
Modern day version:
RIAA thinks ideas/instructions about how to record music will destroy the record industry.
Twitter thinks that some ideas from the NYPost will harm democracy.
The NYTs thinks that revealing anonymous sources will harm democracy (because their inside sources would be fired).
Freedom of speech in the broadest sense is not the equilibrium state of cultural norms.