Asking Microsoft to resign from the RIAA over YouTube-dl takedown demand

The misuse of the DMCA takedown notice is that none of the content in the repository was copyright to the RIAA or to an entity the RIAA represents. That's it. The DMCA takedown process is emphatically not the avenue to remedy an alleged circumvention tool as defined by the DMCA. The DMCA allows relief through the courts in that case, a route the RIAA chose not to persue because it is easier to misuse the takedown process. The DMCA takedown process is intended only to remedy the situation where your or your clients' copyrighted content is hosted without permission - any other use is perjury. You can read more about how a claimant must identify the specific infringing content in a takedown notice here [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...

Downloading copyrighted music per se is not illegal. This is not the same as intentionally circumventing a digital rights protection mechanism. In some countries (but not in all) it is illegal to download copyrighted music if it was illegally uploaded. But we don't have to assume in the first place that Youtube videos were illegally uploaded. And not to forget that many titles on Youtube are licensed under CC-BY, so in any case they can be legally downloaded and even shared.

What is illegal according to the DMCA is not the same as what is legal to include in a DMCA Takedown Request. This is a specific extralegal process for streamlining disputes over copyright hosted on a third party's platform.

It's like if someone is loitering outside of a store the store owner doesn't have the right to arrest them and lock them in a cell in their basement. There's a process that needs to be followed by people. Just because loitering may be illegal, and you have the right to post a no loitering sign, doesn't mean you can enforce that on your own.

DMCA Takedowns are an exception that allows parties to quickly remove copywriten material from distribution that comes with heafty penalties (whatever the judge thinks is reasonable) for when something like this goes to court and it's found that the takedown is invalid.

RIAA's claim against youtube-dl / Microsoft is not a §512 infringement / takedown / safe-harbour act.

https://joindiaspora.com/posts/808cf690f8e801381778002590d8e...

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24888234

"This was not a DMCA 512 notice."

It is remarkable how few people commenting on the web are noticing that.

A notice under section 512 needs to identify both the material infringed and the infringing material.

The letter identifies some works that may be infringed, e.g., VEVO videos listed in youtube-dl's documentation.

However it does not identify the location of any infringing material, e.g., an unauthorised copy of a VEVO video.

It cannot be a valid DMCA 512 notice.

The letter instead refers to section 1201 which includes a prohibition against enabling circumvention of copyright protections.

The argument is that youtube-dl violates that prohibition.

Online debate about the applicability of the DMCA in this case should focus on section 1201 not 512.

For example, is youtube-dl "primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected [by copyright]" Do most YouTube video URLs use enciphered signatures. Not IME. Does the rolling cipher "control access" to YouTube videos, or does it just control downloading. Etc.

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Looks like there are a bunch of different git-remote-ipfs implementations:

https://github.com/larsks/git-remote-ipfs https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/git-remote-ipld https://github.com/cryptix/git-remote-ipfs

> to build more durability and resiliency into distributed version control systems

I'm following Git-SSB and Holochain.

Apart from IPFS, any others you've found?

What is open source infrastructure though? Can there ever be a public-owned and operated server?

It's the "Imbalance of money" part that's critical to that.

And unfortunately, yes. I think so.

Remember, Google v. Oracle has hit the Supreme Court. The only reason it's gone on so long is both sides can afford to keep throwing money at it.

What happens when one side can't?

I'm still here ;)

I know why. Same reason why we didn't say shit when Uber was burning from the inside and our CEO was on drunk rampages with seedy women in the car.

The US has no labor laws protecting the employee. Saying something can easily get you fired, next day. They don't have to give a reason.

A protest would require a non-trivial amount of people all coordinated in a 24 hour period or so to come forward with demands.