GitHub and EFF Back YouTube Ripper In Legal Battle With the RIAA (torrentfreak.com) 20
GitHub and digital rights group EFF have filed briefs supporting stream-ripping site Yout.com in its legal battle with the RIAA. GitHub warns that the lower court's decision threatens to criminalize the work of many other developers. The EFF, meanwhile, stresses that an incorrect interpretation of the DMCA harms people who use stream-rippers lawfully. TorrentFreak reports: In 2020, YouTube ripper Yout.com sued the RIAA, asking a Connecticut district court to declare that the site does not violate the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. The music group had previously used DMCA takedown notices to remove many of Yout's appearances in Google's search results. This had a significant impact on revenues, the site argued, adding that it always believed it wasn't breaking any laws and hoped the court would agree. Last October, the Connecticut district court concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn't circumvent YouTube's technological protection measures. As such, it could be breaking the law. Yout operator Johnathan Nader opted to appeal the decision. Nader's attorneys filed their opening brief (PDF) last week at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to reverse the lower court's decision. The YouTube ripper is not the only party calling for a reversal. Yesterday, Microsoft-owned developer platform GitHub submitted an amicus brief that argues for the same. And in a separate filing, the EFF also agrees that the lower court's decision should be overturned.
GitHub's brief starts by pointing out that the company takes no position on the ultimate resolution of this appeal, nor does it side with all of Yout's arguments. However, it does believe that the lower court's interpretation of the DMCA is dangerous. The district court held that stream rippers can violate the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. The court noted that these tools allow people to download video and audio from YouTube, despite the streaming platform's lack of a download button. According to GitHub, this conclusion is premature, dangerous, and places other software types at risk. In the present lawsuit, GitHub reiterates that stream-ripping tools should not be outlawed. The fact that YouTube doesn't have a download button doesn't mean that tools that enable people to download videos circumvent technological access restrictions. "YouTube's decision not to provide its own 'download' button, however, is not a restriction on access to works. It merely affects how users experience them," GitHub writes. If the court order is allowed to stand, GitHub warns that a broad group of developers could be exposed to criminal liability, effectively chilling technological innovation. YouTube download tools are not the only types of software at risk, according to GitHub. There are many others that affect 'how users experience' online websites. These could also be seen as problematic, based on the district court's expansive interpretation of the DMCA. These widely accepted tools could put their creators at risk if the DMCA is interpreted too strictly, GitHub warns.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also submitted an amicus curiae brief (PDF) yesterday. The digital rights group takes interest in copyright cases, particularly when they get in the way of people's ability to freely use technology. In this instance, EFF points out that stream-rippers such as Yout.com provide a neutral technology with plenty of legal uses. They can be used for infringing purposes, but that's also true for existing technologies -- the printing press, for example. "Like every reproduction technology -- from the printing press to the smartphone -- these programs, colloquially called 'streamrippers,' have important lawful uses as well as infringing ones. "Video creators, educators, journalists, and human rights organizations all depend on the ability to make copies of user-uploaded videos," EFF adds. In common with GitHub, EFF notes that the absence of a download button on YouTube doesn't imply that download tools automatically violate the DMCA, especially when there are no effective download restrictions on the platform. [...] According to EFF, Yout and similar tools provide the same functions as video cassette recorders once did. They allow people to make copies of videos that are posted publicly by their creators. In addition, these tools are vital for some reporters and useful to creatives who use them for future work.
GitHub's brief starts by pointing out that the company takes no position on the ultimate resolution of this appeal, nor does it side with all of Yout's arguments. However, it does believe that the lower court's interpretation of the DMCA is dangerous. The district court held that stream rippers can violate the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. The court noted that these tools allow people to download video and audio from YouTube, despite the streaming platform's lack of a download button. According to GitHub, this conclusion is premature, dangerous, and places other software types at risk. In the present lawsuit, GitHub reiterates that stream-ripping tools should not be outlawed. The fact that YouTube doesn't have a download button doesn't mean that tools that enable people to download videos circumvent technological access restrictions. "YouTube's decision not to provide its own 'download' button, however, is not a restriction on access to works. It merely affects how users experience them," GitHub writes. If the court order is allowed to stand, GitHub warns that a broad group of developers could be exposed to criminal liability, effectively chilling technological innovation. YouTube download tools are not the only types of software at risk, according to GitHub. There are many others that affect 'how users experience' online websites. These could also be seen as problematic, based on the district court's expansive interpretation of the DMCA. These widely accepted tools could put their creators at risk if the DMCA is interpreted too strictly, GitHub warns.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also submitted an amicus curiae brief (PDF) yesterday. The digital rights group takes interest in copyright cases, particularly when they get in the way of people's ability to freely use technology. In this instance, EFF points out that stream-rippers such as Yout.com provide a neutral technology with plenty of legal uses. They can be used for infringing purposes, but that's also true for existing technologies -- the printing press, for example. "Like every reproduction technology -- from the printing press to the smartphone -- these programs, colloquially called 'streamrippers,' have important lawful uses as well as infringing ones. "Video creators, educators, journalists, and human rights organizations all depend on the ability to make copies of user-uploaded videos," EFF adds. In common with GitHub, EFF notes that the absence of a download button on YouTube doesn't imply that download tools automatically violate the DMCA, especially when there are no effective download restrictions on the platform. [...] According to EFF, Yout and similar tools provide the same functions as video cassette recorders once did. They allow people to make copies of videos that are posted publicly by their creators. In addition, these tools are vital for some reporters and useful to creatives who use them for future work.
You does have a download button. (Score:3)
Re: YouTube does have a download button. (Score:2)
Re:You does have a download button. (Score:5, Interesting)
The real use case of these downloaders is to preserve content if the YouTube censors decide to remove it for whatever reason.
two tracks.... (Score:1)
I tend to look for 2 things in cases like these; Are they arguing that the act should be legal? Are they arguing that act is being treated as illegal due to some law or policy the accuser has ignored? Either way I just put it all to the side and wait for a ruling.... Video ripper huh?
Vague words (Score:2)
OK, like what?
Like "Journalism?" "Rappin?"
Re: (Score:2)
You are allowed to download videos for which the copyright laws do not apply, or videos for which the copyright grants you the right to reproduce the video.
Re: Vague words (Score:1)
If you crack the encryption on a Bluray disc to rip a movie that's in the public domain, you've still breached DMCA. Logically it's no different from hacking into Google's servers t
Re: (Score:3)
They asked for a legal use, and I provided it.
Google allowing or not allowing a thing (EULA stuff) isn't the same as "legal use" (The Law stuff).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Vague words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We may be arguing slightly different subtleties, however
GOOGLE DOES IN FACT CLAIM COPYRIGHTS TO EVERYTHING YOU UPLOAD OR TRANSMIT through their network
https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en#toc-permission
***
You provide Google with that permission through this license.
This license allows Google to:
***
host, reproduce, distribute, communicate, and use your content — for example, to save your content on our systems and make it accessible from anywhere you
Re: (Score:3)
There are numerous videos without adequate accessibility features enabled for those with difficulties seeing or hearing that can be enjoyed better by retrieving the video and running it through other tools.
Re: Vague words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Is this why most really good programmers are gay?
A very interesting case (Score:3)
Its a very interesting case and will take quite a lot of disentangling. If I understand correctly (I've never used it) Yout offers a service which is more or less the equivalent of youtube-dl.
You enter a youtube url and it then downloads the corresponding file. Actually if I understood properly its more restricted than youtube-dl, because with that you can download whatever resolution is offered for streaming. Whereas Yout appears to restrict the higher res downloads to paying subscribers.
The end result is the same in both cases (with this exception), and is also the same as if you recorded the streaming of the file as it played. This last is completely lawful since the Betamax case, as long as its for private use. There is quite a range of things you can lawfully do with your copy once you have made it in this way.
So the question should be: what is different about Youtube?
Not only is the recording of streaming content lawful, also downloading it by the use of youtube-dl or similar also seems to be lawful. It may be contrary to youtube's terms and conditions of service, which it will argue must be assented to before using youtube in any way. But its not a breach of DCMS nor is it a breach of copyright.
So how is it going to be possible to make the argument that an end result which is the same whether achieved by recording a stream or using a downloader app is legal in these two cases, but not when offered as an online service? I cannot see how, if recording as it plays and using a downloader app are lawful, to offer a service which achieves the same result can not be.
I also can't see that in any of these cases there is any bypassing of any attempt on youtube's part to prevent downloading. It would be perfectly possible to prevent it - Amazon after all sells ebooks which have lots of restrictions on them. A simple method for youtube would be to go to an encrypted stream with a membership and registration requirement and the use of specific software to play. It would probably be commercially disastrous of course.
So the argument seems to be that youtube is entitled to put content on the net without any technical restrictions on downloading or recording, but that if someone uses Yout to get a copy of the file instead of the other methods they are in breach of DCMS and/or copyright. I can't see this flying.
I also can't see a similar argument they seem to be relying on flying. This is the argument from feature absence. There is no download button, therefore to download is unlawful. Or maybe, the weaker version, its a breach of T&Cs. I can't see this flying either. Maybe if there was a strongly worded and very visible notice that downloading and holding a personal copy for offline use was a breach of T&Cs? Whatever, they don't have such a thing. And even if they did, the Betamax decision would probably make it inoperative.
There is a kind of parallel from the UK. In the UK you have to pay a tax of 150 pounds or so a year to watch any kind of live TV. For a while the BBC put up loads of content on its streaming service, iplayer, and allowed use of iplayer without having paid the fee. They then discovered that the young were simply cancelling their tax payments and giving up the right to watch live TV, because everything they wanted (and its not much!) was on iplayer or the other channels' streaming services.
In the end they were compelled to mandate payment of the tax and registration of users as a condition of streaming from iplayer. It turned out, what a surprise, to be impossible both to have material freely available on demand on the net and also to expect people to pay to get it.
One suspects something similar will happen as a result of this case. Youtube will not be able to have the service operate in a manner that allows downloads and recording and also prevent people from taking advantage of that by getting downloads.
I also cannot see that the content industry's attempt to get tools like file sharing apps a