RIAA trying to take down youtube-dl, time to fight back

[magic]

So the DMCA complaint isn't even technically valid, because no content of RIAA members is being hosted at GitHub. RIAA only alleges that youtube-dl is a circumvention tool, but there are no provisions for automatic takedown of such tools akin to the automatic takedown of copyrigted material itself.

Nevertheless, Microsoft® GitHub® executives are "annoyed" because they know that this invalid complaint is a threat that RIAA could potentially sue the developers for aiding circumvention and then sue GitHub for aiding aiding circumvention, so they just went along with the request.

Despite being "annoyed" and "willing to unblock the project", GH apparently isn't willing to take on any risk and just asks the developers to remove whatever the RIAA didn't like.

The project obviously will chose to remove those features over changing their git host

[thinkfat]

Never underestimate how quickly an annoyed development team can act.

[madires]

Freedom of the Press Foundation: Music industry forces widely used journalist tool offline (https://freedom.press/news/riaa-github-youtube-dl-journalist-tool/).

[maginnovision]

They're probably annoyed because they need to sue and get a ruling otherwise they open themselves up to being sued for not complying with the order. It's not as if these companies want to comply because they hate their users it's just cheaper to lose some users than sue or be sued.

[magic]

Yeah, but it's lame nevertheless. They could just shut up and not make a public display of what pussies they are.

Their "deep regret" is not going to convince the project to stay.
Their "anger" is not going to stop RIAA from doing more of it to them.

Typical victim posturing, as if anyone cared

[maginnovision]

Like I said, they would rather lose a few users contributing very little to the platform as a whole than lose a bunch of money fighting, bullshit or not. You don't have to like it but it's the way the system is set up. I also don't care if they have regret but PR always has to say something since everyone wants to say the silence means whatever they want which is usually the worst thing they can think of.

They said nothing because they just want to shutdown github anyway. I know a bunch of you think that because there was a github thread about it.

[TheNewLab]

Hey, I will also post this as a separate thread. It is realted.

I get regular emails from the Elctronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
There is a bill before US congress, where in reading in detail says that if someone just "claims" copyright infringement, the new law would give us only a short window to respond, and then get hit with a $30,000 penalty. That is you and me, that is any one of us posting a meme or a video we make and post anywhere, including social media sights.
THIS will affect all of us
You may also go to the eff website to learn even more.
Below is the text of the email: 



three stacked bills labeled 10,000 with a copyright symbol in the middle

We are at a critical juncture in the world of copyright claims. The “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act”—the CASE Act—is apparently being considered for inclusion in next week’s spending bill. That is “must pass” legislation—in other words, legislation that is vital to the function of the government and so anything attached to it, related to spending or not, has a good chance of becoming law. The CASE Act could mean Internet users facing $30,000 penalties for sharing a meme or making a video. It has no place in must pass legislation.

Take Action
Stand up for free speech online

The CASE Act purports to be a simple fix to the complicated problem of online copyright infringement. In reality, it creates an obscure, labyrinthine system that will be easy for the big players to find the way out of. The new “Copyright Claims Board” in the Copyright Office would be empowered to levy large penalties against anyone accused of copyright infringement. The only way out would be to respond to the Copyright Office—in a very specific manner, within a limited time period. Regular Internet users, those who can’t afford the $30,000 this “small claims” board can force you to pay, will be the ones most likely to get lost in the shuffle.

The CASE Act doesn’t create a small-claims court, which might a least have some hard-fought for protections for free expression built in. Instead, claims under the CASE Act would be heard by neither judges or juries, just “claims officers.” And CASE limits appeals, so you may be stuck with whatever penalty the “claims board” decides you owe.

Previous versions of the CASE Act all failed. This version is not an improvement, and Congress has not heard enough from those of us who would be most affected by CASE: regular, everyday Internet users who could end up owing thousands of dollars. Large, well-resourced players will not be affected, as they will have the resources to track notices and simply opt out.

How do we know that the effect of this bill on people who do not have those resources has not been understood? For one thing, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia said in an open hearing any claim with a $30,000 cap on damages was “truly small.” Of course, for many many people – often the same people who don’t have lawyers to help them opt-out in time – paying those damages would be ruinous.

That’s why we’re asking you to take some time today to call and tell your representatives how dangerous this bill really is and that has no place being snuck through via a completely unrelated “must pass” spending bill.

Tell Congress that a bill like this has no place being added to any spending bill. That it must rise or fall on its own merits and that there are people who will be harmed and who are speaking out against this bill.


Thank you,


Katharine Trendacosta
Activism Team | Electronic Frontier Foundation

[bsfeechannel]

Hey, I will also post this as a separate thread. It is realted.

Isn't double posting a bad thing on this forum?

[cdev]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but youtube-dl does not circumvent anything. If you use it it doesn't give you any access you didn't already have, which is usually free already. Most people, like myself, use it infrequently, to save a free video we have already watched, so we can understand it better, or take down facts or write a story about it. Or to have a record to refer back to.

It doesn't do anything nefarious, or decipher anything people don't already have access to.

I know you can use it with passworded sites, but I never have. But in those cases, the people have already paid for that access.

No court jury will ever convict them for that, since people aren't stealing.

.....

[Halcyon]

No court jury will ever convict them for that, since people aren't stealing.

Even if it was content such as a feature film or TV series, some countries, such as Australia, have already established that merely downloading copyrighted content isn't considered stealing and that there is no offence committed.
It's only when you start distributing that content that it becomes unlawful.