youtube-dl DMCA'd by the RIAA - RIAA and MPAA are on a mass takedown spree

[ScatmansWorld]

This has dim consequences for stuff like archive.XX sites, or even screencaps - all that is technically copyright violation under same provision as using ytdl whenever robots.txt is not honored.

Fuck that. Anything for the sake of archival is fair use and corporations (or honestly any content creator for that matter) should not be the authority on what should or shouldn’t be archived for the sake of history.

 

[byuu]

One thing that's always bugged me is this oft repeated idea that it's actively illegal to use a 3rd party program to download YouTube videos.

It's not. And the EFF lawyer argues something along those lines.
The browser you watch (i.e. download) YouTube videos with is also a third-party program unless you use official Chrome.
So how is it legally different to use youtube-dl to access YouTube from using Firefox or Brave?

 

[Norvic]

While this is generally a good thing, I'm very worried that this is going to put the RIAA on the warpath. Youtube has had this easily circumvented "signature" URL authentication scheme for going on a decade. In the mean time, technology has moved on. It is now entirely possible for Youtube to put DRM on every single video transparently, and completely disable trivial downloading. They won't unless they're forced, but the RIAA has the means to force them.

I'd really rather youtube-dl took the "hit" of not being hosted on github to appease the idiots at the RIAA rather than this shit which might stir them to action.

 

[byuu]

I'd really rather youtube-dl took the "hit" of not being hosted on github to appease the idiots at the RIAA rather than this shit which might stir them to action.

Trying to appease the RIAA will only lead to more and more ridiculous demands. They will never be happy until they wrung every last cent out of every consumer.
Telling them clearly to fuck off is the only way they'll stop.

 

[Kiislova]

While this is generally a good thing, I'm very worried that this is going to put the RIAA on the warpath. Youtube has had this easily circumvented "signature" URL authentication scheme for going on a decade. In the mean time, technology has moved on. It is now entirely possible for Youtube to put DRM on every single video transparently, and completely disable trivial downloading. They won't unless they're forced, but the RIAA has the means to force them.

I'd really rather youtube-dl took the "hit" of not being hosted on github to appease the idiots at the RIAA rather than this shit which might stir them to action.

WIDEVINE and all EME DRM for everything would be nightmarish. We have to thank Mozilla for its standardisation.

 

[XMassAllYearRound]

I'm conflicted about this.

On one hand there's a site standing up against the RIAA for once which while I doubt it's gonna go anywhere it's still a rather ballsy endeavour given the prescedents on the matter.

On the other hand I'm still banned on that very site for using and refusing to change the word blacklist in software used for routing and I couldn't care less if they get crushed in court as they care more about the public image than software development, with this most likely being a publicity stunt.

I don't know, I guess I'm siding with Github as the longterm implications of them winning the case is better than having the fucking RIAA take down all services for downloading videos off the internet, I'm just gonna go right back to hating them as soon as an agreement or veredict is reached.

 

[Kosher Dill]

refusing to change the word blacklist in software

"Coalfax" is an acceptable alternative.

 

[Mr. Ghoul]

This was a nice surprise when running updates yesterday. I'm gonna go pirate some shitty main stream pop music now just as a fuck you to the RIAA.

 

[mindlessobserver]

If the RIAA follows true to their past precedent they are absolutely going to sue. Never doubt the vindictiveness of those covetous boomers. Even if they lose they will view it as money well spent to absolutely ream Github with years long expensive litigation. As a warning to any other techn platform that would have the sheer audacity to actually assert its legal rights.

 

[moocow]

Honestly if we ever end up in a situation with bloody streetside massacres, the absolute scum involved with the RIAA and its activities should be cowering in fear in their gated communities, lest they end up encountering a justifiably enraged population.

Y'know, that's what really disheartens me and pisses me off about all the riots this past year and what it means for any potential future "uprising" or widespread violence.

The violence is all just targeting normies. They're explicitly avoiding violently going after politicians (with, I think, only two notable exceptions) and journalists. People like those running the RIAA are perfectly safe, and they probably always will be. It's us plebs who'll get the brunt of whatever violence is coming.

Feels bad, man. I just wanted to grill in my back yard and occasionally play video games.

 

[TwinkLover6969]

If the RIAA follows true to their past precedent they are absolutely going to sue. Never doubt the vindictiveness of those covetous boomers. Even if they lose they will view it as money well spent to absolutely ream Github with years long expensive litigation. As a warning to any other techn platform that would have the sheer audacity to actually assert its legal rights.

And just after everyone had forgotten how big of shitbags they are after they spent almost 10 years suing teenagers for downloading music from Napster/Limewire/Whatever

 

[AnOminous]

So is there any merit to this idea that it's actually illegal to download videos from YouTube and not just a violation of their ToS (which, considering you can download the videos without an account, you never actually agreed to) or are there just too many faggots repeating something they heard without any basis in reality?

I don't see any reason it would be any more illegal than using a VCR to record a TV show. The RIAA lies.

 

[BlazikenLover]

Does anyone actually have a list of things GitHub censored, like C+=? I can't find a readily-composed list. I know there's gotta be at least a couple things.

I've tried searching this in both google ane duckduckgo and got no results, could someoneexplain this one to me?

Edit: should have checked a secone time, someone already answered.

 

[Quioui]

I've tried searching this in both google ane duckduckgo and got no results, could someoneexplain this one to me?

per 3119967d0c's post: https://github.com/ErisBlastar/cplusequality
funny read

 

[karz]

It could either be a file permissions problem or a certificate problem. Try doing `youtube-dl -U --no-check-certificate`

Sorry for the late reply. Doing this updates the executable to the latest version. Cheers, mate.

 

[Da Grim Reaper]

Internet Download Manager still works

 

[Irrelevant]

Did anyone read the blog post? Youtube-dl removed all the signature related code so it can most likely no longer be used to download official music videos, age gated videos, etc. Even for the legitimate use on KF it's likely things like protest videos will end up quickly age gated and you won't be able to download them.

In the post GitHub linked directly to the commit which removed it all so anyone with a brain can easily reverse it in seconds. It seems like a fuck you move from Microsoft but the RIAA lawyers probably don't understand the implications.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I don't see any reason it would be any more illegal than using a VCR to record a TV show. The RIAA lies.

It'd be more like using a handheld video camera to record a HDCP-encrypted movie. Maybe you want to play the movie on your Raspberry Pi media center, but you're circumventing a technological measure. They don't want you to do that.

Is there any legal precedent of a fair use exception to the anti-circumvention clause? As far as I know it's uncharted territory.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Did anyone read the blog post? Youtube-dl removed all the signature related code so it can most likely no longer be used to download official music videos, age gated videos, etc. Even for the legitimate use on KF it's likely things like protest videos will end up quickly age gated and you won't be able to download them.

In the post GitHub linked directly to the commit which removed it all so anyone with a brain can easily reverse it in seconds. It seems like a fuck you move from Microsoft but the RIAA lawyers probably don't understand the implications.

No, they linked to some fork where some random removed both the tests and the cipher code. If you look at the restored repo, the tests were removed, but not the cipher handling. Just means the tests have to be done seperately from the main repo.

 

[AnOminous]

Is there any legal precedent of a fair use exception to the anti-circumvention clause? As far as I know it's uncharted territory.

So far as I remember (although I have not been ardently keeping up on it and may have missed something), the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA hasn't been litigated very much. It would seem there would have to be such an exception, or fair use could more or less be eliminated just by even the most trivial "copy protection" scheme. The closest the statutory language gets is stating: "(1)Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." There are other exceptions applying to librarians although the statutory language is incoherent.