DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder, like a lawyer, or ... the rights-enforcement association to which the copyright holder belongs.
ETA: And yes, if you submitted a DMCA takedown which has any reasonable chance (from the recipient/provider's perspective) of being valid, it would get taken down. Otherwise, the provider takes on their customer's liability. Very few (and zero free) providers are willing to do so.
>> Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material.
> DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder
I think it's clear that "RIAA is not the copyright holder" is shorthand for "no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder". Even if you don't accept that, you can easily deduce that no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder by looking at the immediately following claim, "there is no infringing material".
Given that there is no infringing material, it can't really matter whose agent the RIAA purports to be.
The youtube-dl DMCA notice does not allege copyright infringement (section 512 of the DMCA) but rather breaking DRM (section 1201 of the DMCA). Arguing that there is no [copyright-]infringing material is completely missing the point.
jfrunyon's comment is an accurate statement of the law, and reflects what the EFF, a legal organization that specializes in IP and tech-related areas of the law, has posted.
OTOH, your comment violates a number of HN rules and probably should be deleted for dang kills your account for a few days.
BTW, they also did allege infringing material. Whether or not that material's copyright is in fact infringed upon by youtube-dl is not for GitHub to decide. (And, in my non-lawyer opinion, a US court would probably say it is, if this ever makes it that far.)
> The clear purpose of this source code is to ... reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. ... We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies: • Icona Pop – I Love It (feat. Charli XCX) [Official Video], owned by Warner Music Group • Justin Timberlake – Tunnel Vision (Explicit), owned by Sony Music Group • Taylor Swift – Shake it Off, owned/exclusively licensed by Universal Music Group
The copyright holders can be harmed by actions other than direct copyright infringement. In particular, the law recognizes DRM circumvention as a harm. Other commenters had already covered this aspect before I made my comment, so I'm unsure why you expect me to cover it again.
Well, it's very similar to many other real situations like common household doors. They provide a weak level of protection and we add laws that criminalize getting unauthorized entry.
I'm sometimes baffled that people miss that point when it comes to internet security. The biggest real difference is the global nature of the internet and thus problems with jurisdiction, which obviously doesn't apply if both sides reside in the same jurisdiction.
This particular protection mechanism is bypassed by all browsers when they access the content. Are browsers infringing too?
Clearly what is most important is the intent. In this case, it is very clearly RIAA's intent to make the aforementioned videos obtainable publicly via the use of HTTP agents. Browsers are HTTP agents. youtube-dl is an HTTP agent. Either they are all infringing or they are all not infringing.
On the other hand, it is clearly the intent of my door and lock to keep people out.
You're absolutely right. From my non-lawyer understanding that's why the youtube-dl dmca mainly rests on youtube-dl showing illicit use within their code (download of copyright protected material) and not that the tool is theoretically capable. But it's indeed a slippery road.
There are other examples in the real world tho, where the distribution/creation of the tool is already illegal (e.g. certain weapons or explosives), because only reacting after damage is done is infeasible.
Not necessarily. Public domain and fair use don't require distribution to
occur. Ex: Photos taken in the 1890s are public domain, and you may know that they exist (having seen a print in a no-photography-allowed museum), but the owner of the only copy of the photo is under no obligation to distribute them.
Lets tackle explosives:
Where public interest exists for legitimate use, they are allowed: mining, fireworks, and hobby rockets. And there is real risk of grevious bodilly harm associated, even if used properly - we are not even considering terrorism.
There is massive legitimate use for downloading videos, yet the alleged harm is purely monetary.
ETA: And yes, if you submitted a DMCA takedown which has any reasonable chance (from the recipient/provider's perspective) of being valid, it would get taken down. Otherwise, the provider takes on their customer's liability. Very few (and zero free) providers are willing to do so.