Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday October 28 2020, @07:27PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]

RIAA Sued By YouTube-Ripping Site Over DMCA Anti-Circumvention Notices

A company operating a YouTube-ripping platform has sued the RIAA for sending "abusive" DMCA anti-circumvention notices to Google. According to the complaint and contrary to the RIAA's claims, the Yout service does not "descramble, decrypt, avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair" YouTube's rolling cipher technology.

Last Friday, the RIAA caused [outrage] on the Internet when it filed a complaint that took down the open source software YouTube-DL from Github.

According to the RIAA, the "clear purpose" of YouTube-DL was to "circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube" and "reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use."

As the debate and controversy over the complaint rages on, a company based in the US that operates a YouTube-ripping platform has filed a lawsuit alleging that similar complaints, filed by the RIAA with Google, have caused its business great damage.

RIAA's YouTube-DL Takedown Ticks Off Developers and GitHub's CEO

An RIAA takedown request, which removed the YouTube-DL repository from GitHub, has ticked off developers and GitHub's CEO. Numerous people responded by copying and republishing the contested code, including in some quite clever ways. Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well, offering help to get the repo reinstated.

Yout v. RIAA complaint.

Previously: GitHub has Received a DMCA Takedown from RIAA for youtube-dl


Original Submission

Related Stories

GitHub has Received a DMCA Takedown from RIAA for youtube-dl 42 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911
https://old.reddit.com/r/youtubedl/comments/jgttnc/youtubedl_github_repository_disabled_due_to_a/
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md

Now when you go to their site, it reads:

Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown.

This repository is currently disabled due to a DMCA takedown notice. We have disabled public access to the repository. The notice has been publicly posted.

If you are the repository owner, and you believe that your repository was disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification, you have the right to file a counter notice and have the repository reinstated. Our help articles provide more details on our DMCA takedown policy and how to file a counter notice. If you have any questions about the process or the risks in filing a counter notice, we suggest that you consult with a lawyer.

Also at 9to5Google

[2020-10-25 01:01:09 UTC: Updated title to more accurately reflect notice was given to GitHub, not to youtube-dl. --martyb]


Original Submission

GitHub Revamps Copyright Takedown Policy After Restoring YouTube-dl 17 comments

GitHub Revamps Copyright Takedown Policy After Restoring YouTube-dl

GitHub revamps copyright takedown policy after restoring YouTube-dl:

The source code for YouTube-dl, a tool you can use to download videos from YouTube, is back up on GitHub after the code repository took it down in October following a DMCA complaint from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Citing a letter from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (the EFF), GitHub says it ultimately found that the RIAA's complaint didn't have any merit.

[...]

This is the best possible outcome of the RIAA's attack on youtube-dl. Good on @GitHub for standing up for developers against DMCA § 1201 abuses.

The @EFF did amazing work representing the project, and you should read their letter: https://t.co/Whh0cKTgIFhttps://t.co/BT1aovWZx7

— Filippo Valsorda 💚🤍❤️ ✊ (@FiloSottile) November 16, 2020

If there's a silver lining to the episode, it's that GitHub is implementing new policies to avoid a repeat of a repeat situation moving forward. [...]

GitHub is also establishing a $1 million defense fund to provide legal aid to developers against suspect section 1201 claims, as well as doubling down on its lobbying work to amend the DMCA and other similar copyright laws across the world.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @07:42PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @07:42PM (#1070052)

    Please tell me that the EFF is providing legal assistance in this case. This seems like an excellent opportunity to put the RIAA in their place and to set a precedent against some of the more egregious abuses of the DMCA. If the EFF is supporting this, I may have to donate to them.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @07:49PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @07:49PM (#1070057)

      No, they won't be doing anything. This takedown is just collateral damage in the bigger censorship wars raging right now. Everyone got in the habit of anytime they saw something "interesting" on YouTube they hit it with Youtube-dl before even watching it, since so many "interesting" videos would disappear mid viewing. So of course it has to go. You can't edit history if people can hold a copy of things offline and repost it to bitchute.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by RamiK on Wednesday October 28 2020, @08:30PM

        by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @08:30PM (#1070080)

        It's more likely the RIAA is just establishing some usage statistics regarding stream rippers to in response to Tofig Kurbanov's case ruling:

        The stay request’s memorandum states at the outset that 90 percent of the stream-ripping sites’ traffic comes from users based outside the States; the platforms attracted “well over 300 million visitors” between October of 2017 and September of 2018, per a previous filing.

        ( https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2020/09/21/tofig-kurbanov-riaa-lawsuit/ [digitalmusicnews.com] )

        That is, they're trying to find a usage baseline by taking down all the rippers they can find for a few days to justify that ass-pulled 90% claim. Of course, they'll fail to do so and will naturally hide/manipulate the stats and pretend none of this is related... Regardless, the timing is very likely just them rushing to find/cook some numbers since Kurbanov is similarly rushing through to file his supreme appeal.

        --
        compiling...
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:46AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:46AM (#1070186)

        This takedown is just collateral damage in the bigger censorship wars raging right now.

        Which are themselves the -- inevitable -- result of increasing centralization and corporate mono-ownership of the internet.
        If all of this was happenning, even 10 years ago, all of the companies involved would be a luaghing stock and their competitors would be making hay by promising more freedom and less drama.
        But the competitors have all been bought up, or squeezed out, or shut down. There are perhaps only a dozen sites and less companies who matter now, and the inevitable result was always going to be loss of freedoms and ever more blatant censorship.

        The solution is simple: anti-trust. Break up the big social media companies -- github included. Force them to open up their protocols and break the network effect. See how quick they are to takedown, censor, or ban when people really can move elsewhere. We can keep section 230 and bring back a competative internet by just breaking up the monopolies that have grown over the last 15 years, like we do in every other industry. Or used to do.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:24PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @01:24PM (#1070343)

          It is interesting how the Right is so upset by this censorship, but it is their "market will correct itself" policies that led directly to it.

          Personally, I think they wouldn't be as upset if it was "the other" that was being censored, but since it is "them" it MUST be stopped.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @06:39PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @06:39PM (#1070482)

            "the Right is so upset by this censorship, but it is their "market will correct itself" policies that led directly to it."

            uhh, nopers, fucktard! registering your business with the government like a slave, funding the scum at the IRS and all the other extortion schemes, following all regulations, etc. is not the Free Market. In a *Free Market* (right or left. capitalist or not) there is competition. None of this state socialism, crony capitalism and fascism is Free Market.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:03PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:03PM (#1070554)

            It is interesting how the Right is so upset by this censorship, but it is their "market will correct itself" policies that led directly to it.

            No, it is the primarily Dem-promoted expansion of copyrights and patents beyond all limits of sanity, that led directly to it.
            Market cannot correct itself when the state is granting millions of monopolies per year; market cannot even survive the accumulation of those things. Now you are trying to blame the other side for the destruction?
            https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm [uspto.gov]
            https://www.copyright.gov/history/annual_reports.html [copyright.gov]
            This virus was not quarantined in time, now observe the raging infection with its exponent.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @08:06PM (7 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @08:06PM (#1070066) Journal

      And evidently, the ACLU doesn't handle censorship cases anymore...

      --
      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by helel on Wednesday October 28 2020, @09:49PM (5 children)

        by helel (2949) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @09:49PM (#1070110)
        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:04PM (4 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:04PM (#1070116) Journal

          Not really [spiked-online.com]

          --
          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by helel on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:27PM (3 children)

            by helel (2949) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:27PM (#1070126)

            First, shying away from a small subset of first amendment cases is not remotely the same as saying they don't "handle censorship cases anymore." Having read your article it would be more accurate to say "the ACLU doesn't defend terrorists anymore." The tl;dr is that they've taken allot of flack for helping domestic terrorists in court and so they've adopted an unofficial policy of avoiding such cases for now.

            The truth is when you start murdering your political opponents it's no longer a first amendment issue. Terrorism is not free speech. Just because a shooting or vehicular manslaughter is politically motivated doesn't make the ACLU somehow in favor of censorship when they don't rush in with pro bono legal defense or an amicus brief.

            --
            Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
            • (Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:28PM

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:28PM (#1070127) Journal

              You fail to understand the fundamentals

              --
              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
            • (Score: 0, Redundant) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:57AM (1 child)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:57AM (#1070175) Journal

              Oh, and he says, right there in the article,

              "If anybody gets violent on either side, you gotta bust ’em, for the violence, not the speech".

              I mean, it can't be more obvious, so basic, it's apparently easy to overlook.

              --
              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2020, @03:12PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2020, @03:12PM (#1070865)

                Redundant

                Well, there ya go! Ceremonial censorship at work! Free speech is as dangerous as a gun to these people, or more so! And most likely they are democrats massaging their narrative that only racists and terrorists want free speech. Good way to throw an election to their alter ego republicans

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2020, @03:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2020, @03:19PM (#1070872)

        the ACLU doesn't handle censorship cases anymore

        Troll

        But the moderators do! They want more!

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday October 28 2020, @11:11PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @11:11PM (#1070147)

      I don't know how well their legal counsel [youtu.be] will do in this particular case. Should still be fun to watch, either way.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @09:34PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @09:34PM (#1070105)

    OK, so I'm a little bit confused here.

    To remain in compliance with the DMCA safe harbour provisions, if Github takes down a repository due to a DMCA takedown notice, then they are legally required to reinstate it upon receiving a counter-notice (at which point, the RIAA must either give up and do nothing, or file a lawsuit within 10 days).

    Obviously Yout LLC. is willing to take this to court. So filing a counter-notice seems like a no brainer? Why is the repository still down?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @09:39PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @09:39PM (#1070108)

      Ah, the timelines appear to be that the repository is to be reinstated between 10 and 14 business days upon receipt of a counter notice. So I guess you get fucked for a minimum of two weeks even if the DMCA claim has no merit and you respond promptly. Brutal.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:16PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:16PM (#1070121) Journal

        Brutal.

        By design... The machine is working perfectly, keeping the common carrier threat at bay...

        --
        Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by shortscreen on Wednesday October 28 2020, @11:21PM (2 children)

      by shortscreen (2252) on Wednesday October 28 2020, @11:21PM (#1070152) Journal

      IIUC there are two separate cases here. Yout can't file a counternotice for the github takedown because the original takedown wasn't directed at them. Yout doesn't run the youtube-dl project.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by jasassin on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:20AM

        by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:20AM (#1070171) Journal

        Yout can't file a counternotice for the github takedown because the original takedown wasn't directed at them. Yout doesn't run the youtube-dl project.

        That may be true, but since they claim their business is losing money because of what may be a frivolous DMCA claim, they have every right to sue. What repercussion ensues, if any, only time will tell.

        --
        jasassin@gmail.com Key fingerprint = 0644 173D 8EED AB73 C2A6 B363 8A70 579B B6A7 02CA
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @06:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @06:02PM (#1070472)

        Oh I see, I was confused by the headline "Yout LLC. Sues RIAA Over Youtube-DL DMCA Complatins" which appears totally wrong. This lawsuit is in response to totally different DMCA takedowns (delisting Yout from Google search) and is not related to youtube-dl at all.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Thursday October 29 2020, @02:21PM (2 children)

      by TheRaven (270) on Thursday October 29 2020, @02:21PM (#1070371) Journal

      To remain in compliance with the DMCA safe harbour provisions, if Github takes down a repository due to a DMCA takedown notice, then they are legally required to reinstate it upon receiving a counter-notice (at which point, the RIAA must either give up and do nothing, or file a lawsuit within 10 days).

      As I understand it, it's actually asymmetric. They are required to take down the project when they receive the take-down notice, they are permitted to put it back when they get the counter-notice and protected if they do, but they are not required to put it back.

      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:56PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:56PM (#1070469)

        It seems you may be, at least in part, right. IANAL, but taking a look at the statute [cornell.edu] it looks like reinstatement is required only to avoid liability for damages directly caused by the takedown itself. But indeed, the limitation on liability offered by responding to takedown requests does not appear to be conditioned on responding to counter notifications.

        So I think that means, for example, if you took down someone's website in response to a takedown and failed to reinstate it within the timelines upon receipt of a counter notice, you could potentially be liable for the lost business that occurred because the website was down, but still not liable for the original alleged infringement (because you responded to the takedown notice). I have not examined any relevant case law.

        However, I suspect virtually everyone implementing the takedown process also implements the reinstatement process because that should really not be any harder to do and does provide additional liability protection so why would you not do it.

        • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday November 04 2020, @10:11AM

          by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday November 04 2020, @10:11AM (#1072831) Journal

          However, I suspect virtually everyone implementing the takedown process also implements the reinstatement process because that should really not be any harder to do and does provide additional liability protection so why would you not do it.

          YouTube famously does not bother with reinstatement in a lot of cases. Their T&Cs provide them with the right to drop your content without notice for any reason and explicitly provide no availability guarantees, so you have no liability from them that you can usefully argue in court.

          --
          sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by jasassin on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:57PM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 28 2020, @10:57PM (#1070139) Journal

    The day someone wins a victory in court that penalizes the RIAA in the way they have screwed 12yo girls, is the day I start wearing Depends undergarmets.

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com Key fingerprint = 0644 173D 8EED AB73 C2A6 B363 8A70 579B B6A7 02CA
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Zinnia Zirconium on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:21AM (1 child)

    by Zinnia Zirconium (11163) on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:21AM (#1070214) Homepage Journal

    # 24-Jun-2013: When use_cipher_signature=True, the signature must be
    # translated from lengths ranging from 82 to 88 back down to the
    # original, unciphered length of 81 (40.40).
    #
    # This is not crypto or a hash, just a character-rearrangement cipher.
    # Total security through obscurity. Total dick move.

    Haha! So very convincing. Gonna get that github repo back in no time, boys.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday October 30 2020, @07:56AM

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday October 30 2020, @07:56AM (#1070768) Homepage
      If it says "cipher", then it's crypto, even if they're asserting it's crapto-crypto.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(1)