what is the purpose of this obfuscation? I mean if it is to hide the licensed content then legally speaking it doesn't sound like a great argument.
So to have a "nice" youtube-dl, just remove those tests and more importantly the DRM removal (not sure it will benefit RIAA in long term though...)
The reality is that there is no "circumvention of protection measures", like RIAA is claiming. Youtube provides a javascript to decrypt their cipher, youtube-dl runs it just as intended and that's it, that's just what a normal browser does.
From a technical (code) perspective, obfuscation may be an inadequate protection. But legally, the DMCA only requires some technical measure, and obfuscation satisfies that requirement. It is irrelevant that youtube-dl waits until after Youtube decrypts the content, since the law as written is agnostic to the specific technical details of how copyright protection schemes are implemented.
If this is truly the case, then every web browser that can access YouTube and supports JavaScript is guilty as well.
It's like distributing an encrypted video along with a python script that decrypts it and then saying that anyone who executes that script on linux is circumventing the copy protection. It's ridiculous.
Youtube-dl will not win this argument based on technical details on how content is provided by a licensee to an end user. That's irrelevant to how copyright law works. The entire history of copyright law has been about preventing the unauthorized copying of protected works through technical means, so copyright laws are deliberately agnostic to how the technical details are implemented. In the case of the DMCA, all that is required is that some technical effort went into restricting the unauthorized copying of licensed content.
A lot of HN commenters have pointed out that the technical efforts were quite simple: obfuscating the name of the cache file in the browser's cache folder. But for legal purposes that is sufficient. And if it's not, then in the very near future Youtube will no longer store RIAA music videos (or possibly any content) in an accessible cache folder, and congratulations: youtube-dl (and its competitors) won't work at all for it's namesake site.
I have no idea how American courts usually work, but what a given program actually does seems pretty relevant to me, if you allege something like that. But I guess that's just my opinion and the American law really is that fucked. Thanks for your answer.
No, they don't willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts the content. Youtube simply does that for expediency.
The end result if youtube-dl wins on these technical access grounds is that Youtube will be forcedby the RIAA and other content licensors to stop caching content in accessible form. Youtube-dl will win the battle and lose the war.
I might be missing something, but I'm not sure what's the caching thing is about. YouTube tells you under what URL you can access the specific video or audio file, you download it and that's it. Whether the downloaded data is saved to a file or temporarily stored in RAM or whatever is up to the client. And the way everything is structured right now, I really can't see any other way they could do it without creating some kind of proprietary YouTube client.
The next step is probably go with Widevine: but YouTube probably doesn’t want to go there unless it has to.