The anti-circumvention provision is one of the worst laws out there. It elevates manufacturers into law-makers. Anything that was legal can be made illegal by virtue of a lock. Even a lock placed on our own property by someone else.
How long until we are forced back to the stone age if we want to keep our rights?
Anti-circumvention also allows for effectively unlimited copyright: if the owner doesn't make a copy available without DRM, then there will never be a copy legally suited for long-term archival.
IMO the rightsholder of a a creative work publishing the work with digital restrictions should make it ineligible for copyright protection, as the requisite equity that justifies copyright protection has not been met - the published work won't eventually become part of the public domain. This should also include any restrictive transformation of a creative work (eg compiling source->binary) unless the original creative work has been published or escrowed.
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.
Mostly true, but John Deere is currently not able to prevent farmers from repairing their own tractors, per the exemption granted to the Librarian of Congress. This exemption must be actively petitioned for renewal every three years.
A brilliant way to let off some steam, while making it impossible to build any sort of business around circumvention (and hence funneling enough resources into circumvention to make it viable and widespread), because there's a ~50% chance every 3 years that your business is made illegal.
Does this ruling affect open source tools that accomplish the same end goal of downloading a video? Are project maintainers looking at alternate self hosted git repositories in the event that Microsoft decide to pull them offline again?
>>The court doesn’t dispute that people can use a regular browser to download audio and video files from YouTube. However, that requires them to go into the browser’s developer tools and manually modify a signature value.
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.
I wouldn't say "fraud". I think it's similar to the legal reasoning that says it's still a crime to open and enter a locked door even if the key is "hidden" on top of the door.
Except that it generally isn't a crime to open and enter a locked door when you own the door, which is closer to the situation we're talking about here.
It a crime to enter an unlocked door, or even to walk into a building with no door at all, uninvited. This is a very different thing than visiting a public website.
If someone mailed me their key along with a letter saying "I want you to go into my house and take my DVD of season 1 of the Sopranos and you can watch it at your home for the next week, but then you have to throw it in the garbage", is it illegal for me to do what they say but then not throw it in the garbage?
The hypothetical I gave was meant to extent the previous one. My personal take on it is that it's not so much a door to someone else's property as a locked box mailed to you along with a key, and instructions that say you have to put the DVD back in the box as soon as you're done watching, and after a week you have to throw away the key.
Since you're obviously used to taking everything absolutely literally, I'd suggest using a screen reader if you want to hear the terms and conditions said out loud. Otherwise, you have to read them.
At the end of the day, no matter what the analogy is, there is no logic-ing your way through this. The reality is that the RIAA lobbies to have laws that protect their intellectual property, even at the cost of consumer rights. The RIAA would make what you just said illegal if they could.
Oh, I agree! I'm not saying what currently is considered legal or not, just what I think _should_ be legal or not. My argument isn't that the DMCA isn't enforceable, but that it's dumb.
That's a bad example because it's still a crime to open and enter an unlocked door.
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.
Except that's not what effective means in the context of the DMCA. If "effective" mechanisms existed in that sense (they don't), there would be no need for the law.
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.
A browser extension that uses that method to add a "download" button to Youtube videos alongside the upvote / downvote buttons seems like a useful thing.
i use a ^very^ outdated browser version for consuming videos.
just right click and select download video and it works, as is, no hacking, no dev mode, no editing URL parameters.
I beg for anyone, any presidential candidate, to say they will overturn Section 1201 of the DMCA for the unconstitutional baloney it is. Still waiting…
>There is a legal consensus that the fact that a person may deactivate or go around a TPM does not mean that the technology fails to offer ‘effective control’ because so holding would render the DCMA ‘nonsensical,”
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?
> 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.
I doubt Congress' intent was to make it illegal to read some plain text sent to your computer either, however that is now the case in regards to YouTube.
Where they got stung is the use of FFmpeg to transcode files. YouTube actually return an "InnerTube" key in the page response that can just be used to ask for the mp4 file of a video.
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.
IMHO, through pretty bad law. This just strongly feels like a space where simple legal principles haven't (hopefully, yet) emerged despite obvious logical parallels.
Indeed it is nonsense, web scraping (DMCA archive exemption) and DVR's (time shifting) are both well established as legal practices. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/business/media/court-upho... -- So RIAA can STFU and get back to trying to figure out how to better exploit the trash-tier "artists" they've been trying to force everyone to listen to through shady deals and control of media channels/spectra that they only control through artificial scarcity provided by the FCC.
Putting aside all the legal and freedom issues, is anyone able to speak more to the technological issue of: what is the "rolling cipher"? Sounds interesting.
what absolute outrageous absurdity as usual. america is a fucking cesspool
> 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.
60 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadHow 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
There Are All Sorts Of Problems With Ruling That YouTube Ripping Tool May Violate Copyright Law
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33119847
I remembered browsing Digg at the time. People made songs and shirts with the colors having the hex representation.
I am old ;(
> 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.