RIAA Thwarts Yout’s Attempt to Declare YouTube-Ripping Legal
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
This position is absurd. "We have to rule this way or else the DMCA wouldn't apply to YouTube when it clearly does."
No. As much as I don't like this ruling, the reverse would be absurd.
Holding that the "effective" adjective means "strong"... would mean the law prohibits circumventing impossible-to-circumvent technological protection measures but doesn't prohibit circumventing the ones that you actually can. It would have no force. This was clearly not Congress's intent.
It couldn't be, but Congress's intent makes no sense either way. A DRM system could simply be a .gif on a webpage or a sticker on a box that says "DRM." If you broke that DRM through the method of not being intimidated by the sticker, is that a special crime?
Is there another way the .gif saying "DRM" on a web page can be deemed ineffective, unless effective means strong?
Effective generally means "capable of having the desired effect". The "DRM" here actually prevents the user from doing something. Unless you use a tool explicitly meant to circumvent it, or manually delve into developer world yourself, you can't just download it.
The intent is to stop someone with a viable attack on a DRM system from legally spreading it broadly.
Anyone have the details on that?
Youtube requires a certain parameter set. They send you the parameter with the webpage. The interpretation that this is some kind of meaningful control seems like a bit of a fraud upon the court.
Hackers tend to overemphasize the technical aspects of an issue, whereas courts mostly care about the human aspects.
It's a misrepresentation because the law requires the protection to be effective. If I mail you a locked box alongside the key, the lock cannot be reasonably described as "effective" in terms of controlling your access.
Effective in the DMCA sense means "intended to have the effect of..." it does not mean the mechanisms have to be foolproof.
This is also why the DMCA is a bad law, because it harms legitimate use while doing almost nothing to actual cases of piracy.
It's essentially exactly what the browser does when pulling in the video for playback. There is no manual decryption or anything of the sort involved.
any one running for office will have a simple choice to make regarding this: which side of the argument has the better funded lobby?
https://www.veed.io/view/42ce44c6-198a-498a-bd85-9d38c88e3a4...
I hope this code is protected by DMCA.
(yes the mp4 actually comes through when you click to download it on the actual website, but not mp3)
> In a detailed ruling, Judge Stefan Underhill concludes that the service failed to show that it doesn't circumvent YouTube's technological protection measures.
this is saudia arabia tier nonsense. why do these anti piracy articles always mention circumventing a "protection"? how can a news outlet echo this and not bat an eye? this makes me think all the people who support this law are frothing pointy haired scum that think everything should just be their way, mixed with idiots who buy into their arguments like "a protection was circumvented!". im not paying tax money to protect your absolute garbage media making $5 more from blocking piracy. you do not have the right to exist, its a privilege if anyone buys your shit (and we know well that lots of idiots are buying pop media regardless of piracy)
and what music industry? i didnt think such a thing still exists after 2010
also, youtube is unusable garbage, solely because it forces me to use their non-working in browser viewer instead of real software.
I don't know what you're talking about. I use youtube all the time in Firefox with ublock origin and sponsorblock. It's an amazing service.
Free 4k videos with no ads on almost any topic? Sign me up.
your username is highly relevant.
There Are All Sorts Of Problems With Ruling That YouTube Ripping Tool May Violate Copyright Law
I remembered browsing Digg at the time. People made songs and shirts with the colors having the hex representation.
I am old ;(
How long until we are forced back to the stone age if we want to keep our rights?
Also, copyright should be limited to a maximum of 10-20 years. Of course these things will never happen politically, so pirate away. The real problems highlighted by the youtube-dl saga are the general reliance on centralized Github and the fact that most users' access to computing is mediated by centrally-controlled apps.