Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the ~~README~~(unit tests, see correction[1]) as an example of that:
> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies:
They could, of course, have asked for the code to have been changed. Instead, they attacked the project itself. IANAL, but this seems outrageous the same way DMCA'ing a Bittorrent client would be. This doesn't circumvent DRM like Widevine. I don't understand what leg they have to stand on here.
This feels like DeCSS all over again.
P.S.: They also took down youtube-dlc, even though it's not listed.
[1]: It turns out I am wrong. It wasn't in the readme, but in the test cases. See extractor/youtube.py. To me this seems even more tenuous, but IANAL.
The fact that copyrighted works were included in the readme shows it was intended for that use, and the RIAA complaint will likely stand up to any legal scrutiny. Just because it can be used for legit purposes too won't matter in the slightest. I mean, Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court.
The only chance tools like this have legally is when infringement is an "unintended side effect."
I think you are misunderstanding the legal argument. The DMCA Section 1201 specifically prohibits (among other things) technology that "is marketed ... for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The example in the README is evidence of this.
The argument is that youtube-dl is primarily used for breaking DRM not just that it could be used for doing so.
I was thinking the same thing:
The next step following this line of thinking would be trying to ban all torrent clients, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted material.
This is like the reverse of those common disclaimers on hacking tools and tutorials which claim:
This is for educational use only.
I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that?
As for what was written in some code somewhere in the repo, it could have been written by anyone, even an RIAA plant who contributed that trojan horse to the project.
What makes anyone think what was said there is endorsed by or even representative of the views of the rest of the authors of youtube-dl or is what youtube-dl is for?
God, it pisses me off to no end to think that I'm going to be forced to use youtube's piece of shit, slow, ad-infested, tacker-infested, feature-poor, non-automatable browser interface.
But, after taking a few deep breaths, I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement.
The use youtubeDL for music would probably fit the fair use in Finland. The fair use allows personal copies of legally licensed material but not redistribution of said copies to third parties. It has been used to defend a service where ISP records the specific shows from TV like a VCR and streams them to customers at different time. The ISP:s and representation of copyright holders made a compromise to avoid legal battle, where ISP:s limited the storage duration of said recordings to two years. ISP:s still had service they could sell, and avoid unnecessary legal battle.
I'm not a lawyer. So not expert on matter, but just educated local.
Seems like putting that in the readme was pretty stupid. Intent matters in legal things, making the example infringing undermines the argument that the tool is good and some people are just bad.
> This feels like DeCSS all over again.
I think napster would be the better comparision (and especially napster compared to vcrs)
> it uses examples in the README as an example of that:
>> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses
as far as I can tell these videos are not referenced in the README, but instead in the youtube.py extractor file, which would go against the accusation that they were featured 'prominently'
I wonder what commit added those three listed examples (from three different music companies) to the README, and when. They're the worrying component as they show intent.
In a dark universe timeline somewhere, the pull request for adding them to the README came from an RIAA employee.
Without the existence of youtube-dl, youtube itself is necessarily commuting copyright infringement over the a good portion of the CC-By-SA works uploaded to youtube.
(not all of them, since the uploader grants youtube a license... but if the work has copyright holders who aren't the uploader, it applies)
That's some prime rate bullshit. Like saying since I could use Linux to download copyrighted materials, and there are guides around which tell how to do so, Linux should be removed from the Internet.
Also a good reminder - never trust a third party to host your files, always have a backup. And hosting your infrastructure on Github means anybody who wants it can take it down with a single letter.
Conversely, the RIAA is making its media available on a known, at-risk platform to attain distribution. They're not protecting their copyright sufficiently, and the copyrights should be revoked.
I can't wait for ML to lower the barrier to entry for music to near nil. Make anyone a vocalist or instrumentalist and hose these assholes.
It seems to me that they are making the claim that this tool is expressly for doing something that is forbidden by the YouTube TOS and breaking the music licenses provided.
Of course YouTube has other videos that are under different licenses so it isn't clear that this is the only use case of the software.
What I haven’t seen pointed out is that this is really Githubs problem. They shouldn’t automatically respond to DCMA. The process should really be passed on to the owner of the repo and make them liable. Basically, defaulting to rolling over to DMCA requests had led to an environment where there’s no way to fight them. Even if I hosted something like YouTube-dl myself, my internet provider could cut me off.
It’s the same issue with deplatforming people, do we want a world where literally you lose the ability to share knowledge others don’t agree with Or in this case, a tool that could be used maliciously
actually that it is in the test cases instead of the readme makes it seem worse to me, after all the readme is not addressed to anyone in particular, they needed examples of things someone might do and they used popular videos (that happened to be copyrighted) as those examples.
But anyone running the test cases that does not have rights to those videos will have infringed, and then of course youtube-dl must also run their own test cases and we know they don't have rights to the videos.
IANAL, but regardless, according to RIAA, youtube-dl is circumventing the "DRM" built into YouTube, and therefore they're violating anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA. Therefore a DMCA claim can suffice to take it down.
Perhaps if youtube-dl used different examples (i.e. videos not protected by anti-circumvention) perhaps they could have avoided this.
It's pretty ridiculous. They might argue that a browser is a technological measure to protect a copyrighted work which youtube-dl circumvents since the DMCA is written so vaguely. Cases like this demonstrate why anti-circumvention litigation really has to go.
From the RIAA perspective it seems clear this tool was created to download copywritten material. You can disagree with the law or think the tool has other valid uses but the intent of the tool author seems clear here.
The author of the tool should have chosen a better example in the tests to at least maintain plausible deniability.
Worth noting the MPA already tried doing this to Popcorn Time, a BitTorrent client designed to provide a Netflix-like UX.[1] The Popcorn Time devs put in a counter-notice and the repository was back up a few weeks later when the period for the MPA to respond expired.
The same thing will probably happen here because this is not one of the purposes of DMCA takedown letters, period. Even if there are inappropriate test cases or something in the repo, or if they’re correct that youtube-dl bypasses DRM in violation of a different part of the DMCA, it’s still not a valid takedown because GitHub isn’t hosting anything the RIAA/those it represents own the copyright to. The correct way to do this is to go after the lead youtube-dl developer(s) and/or GitHub for facilitating infringement or whatever, but I don’t think RIAA wants to do that because they probably don’t have much/any legitimate grounds for legal claims against them, so they abuse the DMCA to look like they’re doing something.
Edit: for a more concrete picture of what happens next, read GitHub’s DMCA policy.[2] Basically youtube-dl can file a counter notice assuming they disagree with the claims, after that the RIAA has 10-14 days to get a court order or the repo goes back up.
Curious if anyone with legal expertise knows if this has legs? They say:
> The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use.
But the "circumventing" is still accessing a stream the user can view anyways, and the "reproduce and distribute" feels like a stretch -- there's no inherent distribution. This isn't anything like a pirating or a torrenting tool.
It feels more akin to when movie studios sued VCR manufacturers for being able to record TV back in 1984 -- and lost [1].
(Also, side note but I have never in my life seen a story upvoted so quickly on HN. 130 points in just 7 minutes so far.)
While its good to get a backup of the source code, youtube-dl is one of those projects that quickly becomes useless as Google mixes stuff around within YouTube, which they like to do. Without an active developer base, the project will quickly become less and less effective, which is one of the big concerns IMO about this lawsuit.
I'm very scared by this. youtube-dl needs somewhat frequent updates as Google moves the youtube codebase around. I'm worried that the RIAA's next move, now that it's starting to get inconvenient to get youtube-dl, will be to make Youtube change in some way to make existing copies of youtube-dl no longer work.
youtube-dl has been my primary way of getting videos since I learned about it. If the RIAA manages to kill it, my ability to partake in culture will be severely limited.
The removal of youtube-dl is a loss to the open source community. I hope this does not set a precedence going forward and that authors re-establish themselves (and the bug tracker, which had immense amount of information).
At the same time, this lead me to browse the Github's DMCA repo, which has some real gems. For example, this DMCA takedown of repo with copied course assignment of a different student and did not comply with the Apache 2.0 Licence [1].
Seems like a fresh mirror here https://gitea.eponym.info/Mirrors/youtube-dl to fork and start it over somewhere else. Gitea is a great project. Now we need someone to fork and publish it over Tor or something. Decentralized solution would be a next step.
Diff between that mirror and the one from the web.archive.com looks good. I.e. no hidden/evil things inside. Looks safe to start over.
Considering youtube-dl isn't doing anything a web browser accessing these sites can't do, essentially serving as a headless web browser with a convenient CLI, I don't see how this could possibly have a leg to stand on.
It's like serving Mozilla a DMCA takedown for FireFox.
I however welcome the highly visible reminder that github should only be used as a mirror at most.
> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies
IMHO this wasn't the best move, I mean... the use of copyrighted music as an example DIRECTLY stated in the repo, as an example to show what you can download with the tool
"RIAA blitz takes down 18 GitHub projects used for downloading YouTube videos"
aand isn't a DMCA 512 takedown:
Although GitHub classified the RIAA letter as a DMCA takedown request, it is not one. As Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer pointed out today on Twitter, RIAA isn't alleging the library infringed on its rights, but that the library is illegal in itself.
This isn’t really a DMCA request. I don’t see an assertion that youtube-dl is an infringing work. Rather the claim is that it’s illegal per sehttps://t.co/vQ16nVleCf
Even Google Research themselves use youtube-dl when assembling computer vision datasets. The only way to work on their data and reproduce the results is through youtube-dl, as video datasets are often only distributed as URLs and timestamps, and even the example codes use youtube-dl.
I wonder how this will impact the AI research community if there's some FUD around this tool.
Generally scraping is a gray area. I know researchers who scraped Google street view for large areas to train AI models without Googles approval and got hired by Google for their impressive AI skills instead of threatened.
I know researchers are a tiny group compared to consumers, but it's still interesting I think.
Is there any legislative or regulatory work that is trying to address the gigantic mess that is music (or media in general) copyright and licensing in the US?
The DMCA is over 2 decades old, and seemingly nothing useful has come up since. The current system seems to do not much other than provide a big stick for the RIAA and MPAA to wield whenever they get bored and try to extract rent using law that still seems stuck in some mire of player piano era logic. The last sane system I encountered was when I was doing college radio, where you had a license to play music, were required to log what music you played, and were assured that some clearinghouse would sort out the royalties that needed paying out of the aggregate license fees.
There seems to be mass confusion over what's legal on modern services like Twitch, where music is used in the same spirit as radio (background music chosen at the whim of the DJ/streamer), but isn't legal because it runs up against licensing schemes designed for including music in TV and film productions with massive budgets.
There doesn't seem to be any clear way to handle shit as any sort of small content creator, as the rightsholders seem to want to preserve some weird fantasy land where they're both entitled to complex negotiated rights deals (which make sense if you're say, some massive entity a la NBC, and want to include music in a new big budget show) while also not providing anything for the rest of society (if you're not NBC- or CBS-sized, the people who negotiate rights contracts won't give you the time of day). If you're not one of the mammoth-class media conglomerates, your options appear to be "do not use music ever" or "use music casually, and then be on the receiving end of a massive legal bludgeon". You can't get the time (or music) of day, but if you do somehow manage to get it, then you _do_ get the time of day, but in the form of massive retroactive fees or whatever that you "should" have paid had the licensing cthulu been willing to engage with you before you determined that the rightsholders weren't interested in dealing with you.
Because of how github works these moves are much more damaging than you might expect: In addition to revoking your access to the supposed "infringing" work, you also lose access to all your pull request comment traffic and issues -- which, unlike the source code, aren't continually replicated to the systems of all developers.
As I understand, takedown is a 17 USC 512 (copyright infringement) safe-harbour, but not a required or indemnifying protection under 17 USC 1201, anti-circumvention:
Assuming youtube-dl is dead and the web APIs become hopelessly obfuscated, how hard would it be to talk to youtube as if I were a samsung smart tv?
Perhaps the next iteration of this project can leverage google's own insatiable greed against them. Embedding youtube into every "smart" device on the face of the planet probably requires that google maintain a fairly consistent private API which all of these devices can communicate with. If someone were to reverse engineer one of these devices or just throw wireshark on the WLAN, it probably wouldn't take long to emulate the same approach...
What is stopping someone from using these types of internal interfaces instead of the public ones?
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911&p=3
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911&p=4
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911&p=5
[+] [-] jchw|5 years ago|reply
> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies:
They could, of course, have asked for the code to have been changed. Instead, they attacked the project itself. IANAL, but this seems outrageous the same way DMCA'ing a Bittorrent client would be. This doesn't circumvent DRM like Widevine. I don't understand what leg they have to stand on here.
This feels like DeCSS all over again.
P.S.: They also took down youtube-dlc, even though it's not listed.
[1]: It turns out I am wrong. It wasn't in the readme, but in the test cases. See extractor/youtube.py. To me this seems even more tenuous, but IANAL.
[+] [-] larrik|5 years ago|reply
The only chance tools like this have legally is when infringement is an "unintended side effect."
[+] [-] eli|5 years ago|reply
The argument is that youtube-dl is primarily used for breaking DRM not just that it could be used for doing so.
[+] [-] molmalo|5 years ago|reply
This is crazy.
[+] [-] pmoriarty|5 years ago|reply
This is like the reverse of those common disclaimers on hacking tools and tutorials which claim:
I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that?As for what was written in some code somewhere in the repo, it could have been written by anyone, even an RIAA plant who contributed that trojan horse to the project.
What makes anyone think what was said there is endorsed by or even representative of the views of the rest of the authors of youtube-dl or is what youtube-dl is for?
God, it pisses me off to no end to think that I'm going to be forced to use youtube's piece of shit, slow, ad-infested, tacker-infested, feature-poor, non-automatable browser interface.
But, after taking a few deep breaths, I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement.
[+] [-] josmala|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bawolff|5 years ago|reply
> This feels like DeCSS all over again.
I think napster would be the better comparision (and especially napster compared to vcrs)
[+] [-] smegcicle|5 years ago|reply
>> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses
as far as I can tell these videos are not referenced in the README, but instead in the youtube.py extractor file, which would go against the accusation that they were featured 'prominently'
[+] [-] bluedino|5 years ago|reply
popcorn time?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23075484
[+] [-] hiisukun|5 years ago|reply
In a dark universe timeline somewhere, the pull request for adding them to the README came from an RIAA employee.
[+] [-] nullc|5 years ago|reply
(not all of them, since the uploader grants youtube a license... but if the work has copyright holders who aren't the uploader, it applies)
[+] [-] smsm42|5 years ago|reply
Also a good reminder - never trust a third party to host your files, always have a backup. And hosting your infrastructure on Github means anybody who wants it can take it down with a single letter.
[+] [-] echelon|5 years ago|reply
I can't wait for ML to lower the barrier to entry for music to near nil. Make anyone a vocalist or instrumentalist and hose these assholes.
[+] [-] kevincox|5 years ago|reply
Of course YouTube has other videos that are under different licenses so it isn't clear that this is the only use case of the software.
[+] [-] ikeboy|5 years ago|reply
My analysis is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 and I'm broadly skeptical of the legal viability under US law.
[+] [-] lettergram|5 years ago|reply
It’s the same issue with deplatforming people, do we want a world where literally you lose the ability to share knowledge others don’t agree with Or in this case, a tool that could be used maliciously
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|5 years ago|reply
But anyone running the test cases that does not have rights to those videos will have infringed, and then of course youtube-dl must also run their own test cases and we know they don't have rights to the videos.
[+] [-] chabad360|5 years ago|reply
Perhaps if youtube-dl used different examples (i.e. videos not protected by anti-circumvention) perhaps they could have avoided this.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pipi_delina|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zucker42|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwardu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mulmen|5 years ago|reply
The author of the tool should have chosen a better example in the tests to at least maintain plausible deniability.
[+] [-] alexfromapex|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] paul7986|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] google234123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] resfirestar|5 years ago|reply
The same thing will probably happen here because this is not one of the purposes of DMCA takedown letters, period. Even if there are inappropriate test cases or something in the repo, or if they’re correct that youtube-dl bypasses DRM in violation of a different part of the DMCA, it’s still not a valid takedown because GitHub isn’t hosting anything the RIAA/those it represents own the copyright to. The correct way to do this is to go after the lead youtube-dl developer(s) and/or GitHub for facilitating infringement or whatever, but I don’t think RIAA wants to do that because they probably don’t have much/any legitimate grounds for legal claims against them, so they abuse the DMCA to look like they’re doing something.
Edit: for a more concrete picture of what happens next, read GitHub’s DMCA policy.[2] Basically youtube-dl can file a counter notice assuming they disagree with the claims, after that the RIAA has 10-14 days to get a court order or the repo goes back up.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/github-reinstates-popcorn-time-code...
[2] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...
[+] [-] crazygringo|5 years ago|reply
> The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use.
But the "circumventing" is still accessing a stream the user can view anyways, and the "reproduce and distribute" feels like a stretch -- there's no inherent distribution. This isn't anything like a pirating or a torrenting tool.
It feels more akin to when movie studios sued VCR manufacturers for being able to record TV back in 1984 -- and lost [1].
(Also, side note but I have never in my life seen a story upvoted so quickly on HN. 130 points in just 7 minutes so far.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
[+] [-] Kim_Bruning|5 years ago|reply
Some examples for youtube-dl might be:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqz-KE-bpKQ Big buck bunny
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsGyueVLvQ Sintel
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhWc3b3KhnY Spring
In fact, youtube actually allows you to filter by CC, so there's never a reason not to!
[+] [-] dvt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aquova|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jordigh|5 years ago|reply
youtube-dl has been my primary way of getting videos since I learned about it. If the RIAA manages to kill it, my ability to partake in culture will be severely limited.
[+] [-] tbabej|5 years ago|reply
At the same time, this lead me to browse the Github's DMCA repo, which has some real gems. For example, this DMCA takedown of repo with copied course assignment of a different student and did not comply with the Apache 2.0 Licence [1].
[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2...
[+] [-] arno1|5 years ago|reply
Diff between that mirror and the one from the web.archive.com looks good. I.e. no hidden/evil things inside. Looks safe to start over.
```
$ git log --oneline -3 48c5663c5 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) [afreecatv] Fix typo (#26970) <=== https://gitea.eponym.info/Mirrors/youtube-dl
7d740e7dc [23video] Relax _VALID_URL (#26870) <=== https://gitea.eponym.info/Mirrors/youtube-dl
4eda10499 [utils] Don't attempt to coerce JS strings to numbers in js_to_json (#26851) <=== https://web.archive.org/web/20201018144703if_/https://github...
```
https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/4855/is-it-possible-...
[+] [-] pengaru|5 years ago|reply
It's like serving Mozilla a DMCA takedown for FireFox.
I however welcome the highly visible reminder that github should only be used as a mirror at most.
[+] [-] orliesaurus|5 years ago|reply
IMHO this wasn't the best move, I mean... the use of copyrighted music as an example DIRECTLY stated in the repo, as an example to show what you can download with the tool
[+] [-] black_puppydog|5 years ago|reply
1. You should not have your development process on a centralized platform, at least not if you're doing anything that smells of copyright issues
2. If you do host on a centralized platform, have regular, decentralized backups of code and issue tracking.
3. Also, avoid US-centric hosting for this kind of thing. But really, refer to 1.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|5 years ago|reply
"RIAA blitz takes down 18 GitHub projects used for downloading YouTube videos"
aand isn't a DMCA 512 takedown:
Although GitHub classified the RIAA letter as a DMCA takedown request, it is not one. As Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer pointed out today on Twitter, RIAA isn't alleging the library infringed on its rights, but that the library is illegal in itself.
This isn’t really a DMCA request. I don’t see an assertion that youtube-dl is an infringing work. Rather the claim is that it’s illegal per se https://t.co/vQ16nVleCf
— John Bergmayer (@bergmayer) October 23, 2020
https://www.zdnet.com/article/riaa-blitz-takes-down-18-githu...
[+] [-] bonoboTP|5 years ago|reply
I wonder how this will impact the AI research community if there's some FUD around this tool.
Generally scraping is a gray area. I know researchers who scraped Google street view for large areas to train AI models without Googles approval and got hired by Google for their impressive AI skills instead of threatened.
I know researchers are a tiny group compared to consumers, but it's still interesting I think.
[+] [-] fivre|5 years ago|reply
The DMCA is over 2 decades old, and seemingly nothing useful has come up since. The current system seems to do not much other than provide a big stick for the RIAA and MPAA to wield whenever they get bored and try to extract rent using law that still seems stuck in some mire of player piano era logic. The last sane system I encountered was when I was doing college radio, where you had a license to play music, were required to log what music you played, and were assured that some clearinghouse would sort out the royalties that needed paying out of the aggregate license fees.
There seems to be mass confusion over what's legal on modern services like Twitch, where music is used in the same spirit as radio (background music chosen at the whim of the DJ/streamer), but isn't legal because it runs up against licensing schemes designed for including music in TV and film productions with massive budgets.
There doesn't seem to be any clear way to handle shit as any sort of small content creator, as the rightsholders seem to want to preserve some weird fantasy land where they're both entitled to complex negotiated rights deals (which make sense if you're say, some massive entity a la NBC, and want to include music in a new big budget show) while also not providing anything for the rest of society (if you're not NBC- or CBS-sized, the people who negotiate rights contracts won't give you the time of day). If you're not one of the mammoth-class media conglomerates, your options appear to be "do not use music ever" or "use music casually, and then be on the receiving end of a massive legal bludgeon". You can't get the time (or music) of day, but if you do somehow manage to get it, then you _do_ get the time of day, but in the form of massive retroactive fees or whatever that you "should" have paid had the licensing cthulu been willing to engage with you before you determined that the rightsholders weren't interested in dealing with you.
Right ol' kafkaesque nightmare, it is.
[+] [-] nullc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|5 years ago|reply
The difference matters. GitHub is required to honor DMCA takedowns. Other legal requests are granted on a case by case basis.
-- /u/telionn @ reddit
https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/jgub36/youtube...
As I understand, takedown is a 17 USC 512 (copyright infringement) safe-harbour, but not a required or indemnifying protection under 17 USC 1201, anti-circumvention:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
Lumen (Chilling Effects) is silent on this point in their FAQ: https://lumendatabase.org/topics/14
[+] [-] jaspergilley|5 years ago|reply
Fuck the RIAA
[+] [-] bob1029|5 years ago|reply
Perhaps the next iteration of this project can leverage google's own insatiable greed against them. Embedding youtube into every "smart" device on the face of the planet probably requires that google maintain a fairly consistent private API which all of these devices can communicate with. If someone were to reverse engineer one of these devices or just throw wireshark on the WLAN, it probably wouldn't take long to emulate the same approach...
What is stopping someone from using these types of internal interfaces instead of the public ones?
[+] [-] GlitchMr|5 years ago|reply