RIAA Abuses DMCA to Take Down Popular Tool for Downloading Online Videos

The best ACB (who AFAIK has very little if any notable copyright record, either as a judge or otherwise) could be, from their perspective, is no change from the status quo ante.

IIRC there was a row on Debian many years ago that dealt with some license derivation that prohibited use in weapons research and construction...

In any case, RIAA already has a license to use the existing software. That license can't be unilaterally withdrawn, unless RIAA violates terms of the license that invalidates it. New versions of the software can be released with the new license, but RIAA can continue to use the older version with the original license.

And, as other people have pointed out, this would create a software license that is "non-free", and therefore incompatible with other open-source licenses, causing all sorts of headaches with software distributions, and any other software that has a dependency on the software.

I totally get the idea of boycott. But the definition of freeness says that if you do that, you are no longer free.

More interesting perhaps would be a restriction on using the software on a device that implements DRM. Then wait for the software to end up on RIAA member servers or hardware products and enforce the license.

The OSI open source definition (and the Debian Free Software Guidelines that it was adapted from) specifically prohibit discrimination against Persons, Groups or Fields of Endeavor.

He did still require code to be removed in order to reinstate the repository and the RIAA still managed to cause turmoil, so I would call this too little, too late.

* Complied with a DMCA take-down request which he had no legal reason to comply with. DMCA takedown requests are for infringing content. DMCA bans anticircumvention measures, but that's between youtube-dl and RIAA. RIAA does that by initiating litigation, or sending a demand letter to the youtube-dl project.

* Took down forks of youtube-dl, which he had no reason to do. Those should have been independent DMCA requests.

* Threatened to ban users who forked youtube-dl, in violation of his own ToS and DMCA policy.

If Nat was doing the bare minimum required to maintain legal compliance, I wouldn't fault him. Legally, he's zealously pursuing youtube-dl and acting as the RIAA's lapdog. At the same time, he's publicly making statements of empathy towards youtube-dl.

Pathetic.

Microsoft can lobby for further exceptions to §1201 anti-circumvention.

Microsoft can issue a statement formally protesting RIAA's action.

Microsoft could offer an Amicus brief or other statements in favour of youtube-dl developers.

Whilst we're discussing monopolists, Google could issue a statement that the rotating is not in fact an anti-circumventiion device.

Regardless, since DMCA takedowns are for infringing content, isn't EFF's point valid, namely that there was no infringing content?

No, they don't, because if they are grossly incorrect, there's no liability to avoid.

They have to respond to even grossly incorrect though facially valid DMCA requests to avoid the costs of trying to evaluate whether DMCA requests that are facially invalid are sufficiently grossly incorrect as to present no real risk of liability.

> there's no recourse against abusive requests.

Sure there is, civil action for defamation

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/first-amendment-case-a...

To over-simplify, you just need to implement a streaming client that saves to disk. That's the reason there are a gazillion youtube downloaders and custom, also open-source, clients that can "show" Youtube.

Thus, unless I've been misinformed and, extrapolating a little, they could just as well take down 'wget' in the same go because it also downloads potentially copyright-infringing files over various protocols.

If the RIAA where to win, then it would mean just opening a URL would give the site owner grounds to file proceedings.

An example being a DB being left open to the internet, that has sensitive data, the DB owner would be able to file a case if you just opened the DB.

You can circumvent it using the inspect element feature of any modern browser.

yt-dl "cirucmvents" it by executing the javascript (the same thing your web browser does).

At this rate V8 is going to get DMCAd for the same reason.

Note the use of the phrases "primarily designed", "has only limited commercially significant purpose", "is marketed ... for use in circumventing" -- I think the RIAA is on thin ice in this respect, but that's not for me to decide of course. Grepping through my bash history I see some stuff that could perhaps be RIAA stuff, and other things that aren't.

Anyway:

(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.

(3) As used in this subsection—

(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

(b) Additional Violations.—

(1) 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 protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

(2) As used in this subsection—

(A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.