SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Major Record Labels Sue Youtube-dl's Hosting Provider:
"We don't think the suit is justified," says Uberspace chief Jonas Pasche in comments to TorrentFreak.
"YouTube has measures to prevent users from downloading specific content, which they make use of for YouTube Movies and Music: DRM. They don't use that technology here, enabling a download rather trivially. One may view youtube-dl as just a specialized browser, and you wouldn't ban Firefox just because you can use it to access music videos on YouTube."
According to an Uberspace lawyer, the aim of the lawsuit is to achieve some kind of precedent or "fundamental judgment". Success could mean that other companies could be obliged to take action in similarly controversial legal situations.
And the alleged illegality of youtube-dl is indeed controversial. While YouTube's terms of service generally disallow downloading, in Germany there is the right to make a private copy, with local rights group GEMA collecting fees to compensate for just that. Equally, when users upload content to YouTube under a Creative Commons license, for example, they agree to others in the community making use of that content.
[...] "Not only does YouTube pay license fees for music, we all pay fees for the right to private copying in the form of the device fee, which is levied with every purchase of smartphones or storage media," says Reda.
"Despite this double payment, Sony, Universal and Warner Music want to prevent us from exercising our right to private copying by saving YouTube videos locally on the hard drive."
The question of whether YouTube's "rolling cipher" is (or is not) a technical protection measure is currently the hot and recurring topic in a lawsuit filed by YouTube-ripping site Yout.com against the RIAA in the United States. After more than a year, the warring factions are no closer to an agreement.
This comes just as (2021-12-17) the main developer changed his status to, "inactive."[1]
Gee, I wonder why?
In my opinion, "the powers that be" won't be satisfied until they get the youtube-dl program completely chased into the underground. Is the successor yt-dlp) next?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17 2022, @08:32AM (3 children)
So, corporations can scrape and mine all the data they can pilfer from my machine every time I connect (or not), but I can't download a YouTube lecture video because... ?
Increasingly the answer here is because of a corrupted legal system and a wholly captured IP court in the US. Chinese researchers don't have to put up with this rentier crap and that will stand to them as the years go by and by.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Monday January 17 2022, @02:11PM (2 children)
I believe this is the correct mindset on this matter. At least let's be consistent on intellectual property and rights. Do people need to start forming collectives to advocate for their rights? Maybe they should form a clubhouse with a security team, individually. There could be 10,000s of thousands across the country. They could form larger groups, let's call them States that could advocate for them and express their collective power through something like the Federal Government. Oh wait, they would just be co-opted and bought off the same as the current batch of people.
Maybe instead of meeting them with a reasoned out response, we should simply meet them with fire and steel in an event their grandchildren will still feel in their bones 100 years later.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 17 2022, @03:02PM
Fire and steel? I like it, but can we invite the luddites with their torches and pitchforks?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday January 17 2022, @05:14PM
Glad to see I was wrong about which side you're on.
However, no need for fire and steel. Why storm the wall, when you can just go around it?
But yes, I would like official recognition of copying as an inalienable right, and an end to all this harassment of people whose work makes copying easier. The Freedom to Copy should rank up there with the other freedoms in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Copyright law has kept a stranglehold on some technological advancement, and poisons our thinking in many ways.
One way is with seductive and false narratives about the supposed harm artists and scientists suffer every time anyone so much as sees, hears, or otherwise senses a work without having obtained (bought) permission. Another is that our art is thoroughly infested with ownership thinking, with fantasy prone to especially blatant forms of property rights, for instance the Elder Wand from the Harry Potter books that somehow has just enough sentience to magically know who owns it. Another example is Gandalf expressing such respect for property rights that it helped him resist the temptation to take the One Ring. Copyright has even been construed to mean that artists deserve to have the power to dictate what others shall think of their works, what with even having to fight for the right to parody. A negative review might harm sales. Fortunately, the desire to censor negative reviews clashed with Freedom of Speech, and lost. Be good to have this issue settled once and for all, soon, but I fear it shall not be soon. May take a few more generations.