[erling]

Totally down with the potential conflict of interest or implications of GitHub, but it’s not GitHub specifically that’s zealous about DMCA. Any server and any host of that server is going to be subject to it. The only appeal of a smaller or private server is less visibility, but legally it’s the same. DMCA isn’t going anywhere.

[judge2020]

Well, GitHub/Microsoft could go on a PR campaign and say "we're not going to honor this RIAA DMCA since we know yt-dl isn't violating the DMCA!" but then GitHub/Microsoft would opening themselves up to a lawsuit against (basically) the entire music industry. The amount of goodwill MSFT loses over this (hopefully isolated) incident has to be worth a few orders of magnitude less than the tens of millions of dollars that would be burned to actually fight the RIAA.

Smaller hosts could get away with not honoring DMCAs since the RIAA likely isn't going to waste resources actually filing a lawsuit, but this yt-dl situation seems like the perfect setup for the RIAA to set a precedent outlawing video/music downloaders if someone were to actually fight them on it (and until then, they can continue to take down video/music downloaders until someone does counter it).

[pxeboot]

Microsoft is actually a member of the RIAA [1].

[1] https://www.riaa.com/about-riaa/riaa-members/

[ponker]

Microsoft is much wealthier than the “entire music industry” but this still might not be a hill they want to die on.

[gisishskdlt]

How deep is the RIAA's pockets? Has this most recent tactic held up in court? What are you basing this on?

[mayneack]

Does github actually have to honor every request that comes in? I thought the youtubes of the world did that because of the volume, but hypothetically, couldn't they do some due diligence and push back on requests they don't think are valid instead of just taking them down and requiring the repository owner to appeal. I'm sure it would be more expensive for them, but it's still a choice.

[adrianN]

It is my understanding that DMCA requests have to be honored immediately unless the hoster wants to expose themselves to large legal risk. The uploader of the banned content can file a counter request, upon which the copyright holder either withdraws, or things land in court. But if the hoster doesn't honor the request they lose their hosting privilege and can be sued for copyright infringement themselves.

[feanaro]

DMCA is not a worldwide law.

[mschuster91]

It may not be legally, but practically. Almost all major content-hosting companies are headquartered in the USA and thus bound to the DMCA: Facebook/Twitter (social networks), Google/Amazon/Microsoft (clouds), Github/Gitlab/Sourceforge (code repositories), StackOverflow, Automattic (Wordpress), Akamai/Cloudflare/Fastly (CDNs), Wikimedia/Fandom (wiki hosting). The only major exception is Atlassian who are headquartered in Australia.

No matter if your content may be legal under e.g. European law (e.g. right to repair, right to interoperability, right to reverse engineer), you are going to have a hard time hosting it. And even if you get it hosted at an European provider (remember, we don't have anything that competes with any of the three US cloud giants in terms of functionality!), you will have issues with accepting donations easily - Paypal, Stripe and all credit cards are under US regulation.

And it's not just theoretical, just look at what happened to Kim Dotcom/Megaupload (or, tangentially related, Julian Assange). If the US deems you a danger to their business interests, you are going to get hunted down, no matter where in the world you are and if what you are doing is legal under the jurisdiction of that country.

[aequitas]

You can consider it a worldwide law:

  - a lot of big tech companies are based in the US
  - a lot of companies want to do business in the US
  - DCMA can become part of a trade agreement with the US, I don't know if the E.U. will save us at this point.