'youtube-dl' Downloading Software Removed From GitHub By RIAA Takedown Notice (9to5google.com) 186
Jahta writes: The GitHub repository for the popular youtube-dl utility is offline after GitHub received a DMCA takedown notice from the RIAA. The notice claims that "The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use." "Whether you're looking to backup contents of your personal YouTube account or download some of your favorite YouTuber's videos for offline use, many turn to youtube-dl as the most reliable and in-depth tool for downloading videos from YouTube -- along with many, many other sites that have videos like Vimeo, CNN, etc," writes Kyle Bradshaw via 9to5Google. "Beyond simple downloading features, youtube-dl is also able to convert your download into nearly any format, including creating an mp3 of just a video's audio track."
"One of the primary bases for the RIAA's claim is that youtube-dl appears to be developed with the explicit intention of enabling the downloading of copyrighted works, with music videos from the likes of Icona Pop, Justin Timberlake, and Taylor Swift being used to test the tool's functionality, a claim which we were able to independently verify." It's now up to the project's creators to file a counterclaim in the hopes of restoring youtube-dl's status on GitHub.
"One of the primary bases for the RIAA's claim is that youtube-dl appears to be developed with the explicit intention of enabling the downloading of copyrighted works, with music videos from the likes of Icona Pop, Justin Timberlake, and Taylor Swift being used to test the tool's functionality, a claim which we were able to independently verify." It's now up to the project's creators to file a counterclaim in the hopes of restoring youtube-dl's status on GitHub.
Last version I got was 2020.09.20 (Score:2)
It was a great tool. I hope it survives. or gets forked "elsewhere"
Re: (Score:2)
I got this, https://github.com/ericalbers/... [github.com]
You have a link to another more recent? Please share
Re:Last version I got was 2020.09.20 (Score:5, Informative)
I got this, https://github.com/ericalbers/... [github.com]
You have a link to another more recent? Please share
https://youtube-dl.org/ [youtube-dl.org]
Re: (Score:2)
All the links on youtube-dl.org point to their github repository, so they are all dead, basically.
Nope, at le3ast they no longer do:
https://youtube-dl.org/downloa... [youtube-dl.org]
https://youtube-dl.org/downloa... [youtube-dl.org]
https://youtube-dl.org/downloa... [youtube-dl.org]
http://abf-downloads.openmandr... [openmandriva.org]
Tarballs are okay. (Score:3)
All the links on youtube-dl.org point to their github repository, so they are all dead, basically.
From the webpage itself:
Currently our dev repository is taken down due to DMCA takedown notice by RIAA.
Downloads still work as usual.
Only github is down.
The tarballs are still okay.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Last version I got was 2020.09.20 (Score:3)
Somebody could just fork it and use examples of public domain videos for ripping rather than ones the RIAA potentially has domain over.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not going to "survive" without political support. There is a number of wingnuts that blindly follow the gun lobby PR that "protects" the 2nd amendment from threats that do not exist, but no proponents of extending it to cover the right of a man to build and own useful tools, which are way more important than a purchased gun.
After all, it isn't youtube-dl that's downloading the music videos, it's the person who's executing it, no?
Re: (Score:2)
but no proponents of extending it to cover the right of a man to build and own useful tools
While you wallow in your victimhood the "gun lobby" is doing that for you, in the context of tools and techniques that non-licensed people use to produce firearms. There have been a number of attempts to make various jigs for finishing 80% firearms illegal to sell or share. And CNC equipment. And fixtures. And drawings. There is a case going on right now where the government is arguing that molding a plastic block then molding the rest of the plastic firearm around that is an illegal technique.
Plenty of t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not "wallowing in victimhood", I'm laughing at the level of stupid one historical accident is able to produce.
Re:Last version I got was 2020.09.20 (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Open VLC, click media -> open network stream, paste URL, click play
3. Click Tools -> media information
4. Copy everything from the Location field at the bottom
5. Past this new URL into your browser. This will start the video streaming in your browser
6. Select the download or save file option in your browser and save the resulting
Re: (Score:3)
That leaves you with a random / low resolution version. Anyhow, while VLC is a nice swiss-army knife, there's tons of add-ons that the same, plus easy selection of quality.
fuck the fucking fuckers (Score:3)
Re:fuck the fucking fuckers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's python bro.
Also their letter is a little silly. It says that youtube-dl is distributing copies of their songs, which it's not. It says that it's bypassing copy protection, which it's not, unless youtube not having a download button counts as copy protection. I hope the author ignores this and the problem goes away. I use youtube-dl every day as it's much nicer to watch locally (without streaming lag or overlays) and with mpv. It really sounds like the RIAA's beef is with Youtube whose system isn't secure enough to prevent youtube-dl from working. I wonder if Youtube will break this to appease the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fuck the fucking fuckers (Score:5, Informative)
I agree the lawyers' arguments are dubious. They are a little more complex than what you're saying, though.
Youtube URLs have a string that indicates which video is requested, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] indicates that DLjJwW1lFxI is the video identifier. This is then passed to a JavaScript function that converts that string to the URL to obtain the actual video files. This is the "rotating cypher" that the complaint refers to.
There is the precedent of DeCSS source code being taken down with DMCA complaints, which is probably the most analogous situation. The DMCA does not require that "encryption" be well-designed or strong, just that its presence at all requires it not be circumvented. But the DeCSS analogy doesn't quite work, either. The main issue is that Youtube actually serves the code required to "unlock" the "cypher" they're using. It's in the form of a Javascript file that's executed in the browser. As I understand it, youtube-dl simply locates the same function using a regex, then uses a Javascript interpreter to execute that function. It's performing the same functions that would occur in a browser. Instead of using third party code like DeCSS, youtube-dl actually uses the code served by Youtube.
It's absurd to characterize Youtube's URL obfuscation scheme as a cypher, but that reasoning might hold up in court. That said, any browser extension that monitors content requests can find the same URLs. For example, the logging feature of uBlock Origin also provides the same information. I suppose the RIAA could argue that such browser extensions are also infringing because they also block ads, but I'd hope that courts would view them as security tools.
The other issue is that the source code includes test cases to download works copyrighted by the RIAA. This wasn't a good choice and the lawyers have seized upon this to argue that youtube-dl is a tool intended for piracy. It would have been better to choose some public domain content for the test cases. It shouldn't matter, except that the lawyers might well be successful at convincing a judge that youtube-dl is intended for piracy.
It's unfortunate that the developers were clumsy about the test case. They've resisted feature requests to break actual DRM schemes like Widevine. They've also refused to add support for sites whose primary purpose is to distribute pirated works. Given the care that they've taken to avoid attracting the attention of lawyers in other situations, they should have chosen better test cases. That's an unforced error and would make it riskier to file a DMCA counterclaim.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that youtube-dl doesn't actually know how to decrypt this simple cypher. And it doesn't even have to. It's google doing the decrypting with their own javascript.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind you said that clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely by the same argument all browsers that can interpret Javascript would be subject to this ruling too? All youtube-dl is doing is replicating what a browser does.
We're going to need a better argument (Score:4, Insightful)
I like youtube-dl. I don't want to see it go away.
> All youtube-dl is doing is replicating what a browser does.
If youtube-dl just did the same thing as Chrome, we wouldn't have nay need for youtube-dl. So obviously it doesn't something different.
Specifically, a browser shows the page with the video in the way allowed by the creator of the video. Which means in the YouTube page, with any ads, Amazon affiliate link, etc that the content owner includes. Youtube-dl gives us just the content, without the ads, links, etc that provide revenue to the creator of the content.
So no, they don't do the same thing. We're going to need a better argument. I'd love to hear a better argument; like I said I like youtube-dl.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, a browser does do the same thing, it just does even more crap that you might not want (downloads ads and other junk around the video).
You can use an ad blocker extention to stop the browser from doing the parts you don't want. Or if you're really smart, you can open the "Inspector" feature and grab the video URL from your browser's network connections log.
youtube-dl just makes things a lot more convenient and automatic, with a lot less bloat too.
Re: (Score:2)
If youtube-dl just did the same thing as Chrome, we wouldn't have nay need for youtube-dl. So obviously it doesn't something different.
It does the same thing only less. Youtube is fundamentally a link identifying a video and a website that opens a javascript video viewer that then proceeds to get fed a list of URLs to multiple different content sources (video, audio, and subtitles) and then this client side media player plays them as it downloads and even has the ability to selectively pick where to start.
youtube-dl does exactly the same thing sans video player and the ability to pick where in the video to start downloading.
Specifically, a browser shows the page with the video in the way allowed by the creator of the video.
No it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was the info I was looking for on the subject of copy protection. Great comment, thanks!
Re: (Score:3)
"Well, actually..."
The DVD CCA, the agency bringing the suit, expressly did not make a DMCA claim. Rather, they attempted to take down copies of DeCSS using a dubious claim of trade secret violation.
DeCSS began life as a decoder that used deciphering keys extracted from the Xing DVD player software. The "logic" was that, since the Xing player was distributed with a EULA whi
Re: fuck the fucking fuckers (Score:2)
The DMCA says the encryption has to be effective. What that means is open to interpretation by the courts which IMHO have been far too willing to rule that completely ineffective encryption is in fact effective.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to suggest that ROT-13 is probably sufficient 'encryption' to trigger DMCA protections but then I got to thinking... ROT-26 is probably enough.
/s
Everyone needs to look up "circumvention" (Score:2)
"Circumvented."
One of the interesting things about DMCA is that it defines circumvention, such that it might not mean what people think it means. Turns out that you can have very well-designed and super-strong DRM, and you can still completely RE it and utterly defeat it, and that won't be circumvention if the copyright holder is ok with it (or if the work in question is PD).
Re: (Score:2)
Technically true. For example, Navajo langauge was used as a radio communications cypher in WW2 by US military.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that was literally a cypher. One that Japanese failed to break, because they had no access to anyone who could translate Navajo.
Human languages make for excellent cyphers specifically because they are effectively algorithms with countless exceptions that are taught to speakers separately. And so, they are relatively hard to crack considering their relative simplicity.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like YouTube did break it on a regular basis. Every couple months the software would stop working until you grabbed an updated version.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a cron job that did youtube-dl -U every day because of this
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but on purpose? We'll never know.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was on purpose it would've broken far more often, or be broken in much more interesting ways that make updating it take much longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it though? What protection is there? It adds a download feature that Youtube (purposefully) lacks. But yes the RIAA needs to take it up with Youtube and not this guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: fuck the fucking fuckers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me. I won't address trade secrets, patents, or other parts of the law (not that anyone is bringing them up), but within the context of DMCA, here is something extremely important:
It's not Youtube's protection.
It's the video's copyright owner's protection. Youtube does not have any say in this.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrap it in a MP3 extension (Score:5, Funny)
and post it on Napster.
Isn't code considered free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
What gives anyone the rights to ban code under DCMA statutes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't code considered free speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's Github (Microsoft) not wanting to waste money on a lawsuit or piss off possible business partners. The code is still out there.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding of the DMCA was that they are legally required to take the material down immediately and then wait for a counter-notice.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a typical DMCA notice, with the notice/counternotice mechanic, liability protection for intermediaries and such. DMCA notices ares used in situations where copyright violation is alleged. But RIAA isn't saying youtube-dl violates their copyright (i.e. they didn't write youtube-dl and then watch in anger as people copied their code).
What RIAA did here is a more traditional (in the sense that even before DMCA happened, this sort of thing was common) cease and desist demand. It just so happens that
Re: (Score:3)
What gives anyone the rights to ban code under DCMA statutes?
Money. Lots of money.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the DeCSS argument was that the code had functionality (even if that was a bogus argument), therefore in effect the DCMA supposedly acting upon the "functionality" portion of the code. However uncompiled code has no functionality, and is nothing more than a cookbook on how to do something which definitely gets free speech rights.
Let's say youtube-dl was to publish code that was partially incomplete, but then give you instructions on how to e.g. obtain the rotating cypher yourself,
And it's already back up (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not back up. Or if it is, it's down again.
Re:And it's already back up (Score:5, Informative)
There are other repos: https://github.com/rbrito/pkg-... [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to ban code that exists in a distributed version control system is among the dumbest things imaginable. Not to mention the Streisand effect...
RIAAtard's "Logic" (Score:2)
So I can watch a video on a public site but I can't download it to watch it offline ?
**Facepalm**
Re: RIAAtard's "Logic" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It also won't happen with embedded links or on anyone running an adblocker. But all of that is irrelevant. "Download it like that" is not an offence against the copyright act. You're getting that data completely unencrypted one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
"Download it like that" is not an offence against the copyright act.
Technically, yes it is.
E.g. in the UK section 28 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Acts 1988 explicitly states the right to create a permanent copy "does not include a copy which has been borrowed, rented, broadcast or streamed, or a copy which has been obtained by means of a download enabling no more than temporary access to the copy."
Thank goodness!! (Score:2)
I'm so glad they removed it. I feel safer already, don't you?
Now carry on, Citizen, and remember to Code Responsibly.
Fraudulent DMCA takedown notices are illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
A DMCA takedown notice must include a statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that you own the content that is being reproduced. They don't own youtube-dl. They're trying to circumvent the courts by abusing the DMCA process to take down content that they do not own.
If they think that the software's primary use is to help people violate their copyrights, they can sue its authors and try to convince a court to rule in their favor. The DMCA takedown process is not applicable to their complaint.
Re:Fraudulent DMCA takedown notices are illegal (Score:5, Informative)
A DMCA takedown notice must include a statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that you own the content that is being reproduced.
This is factually incorrect.
The DMCA notification must include, and I quote from the text of the law [cornell.edu], "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
That is, the only part stated under penalty of perjury is that the notice was authorized by the rights-owner, not that the content actually infringes.
Re: (Score:2)
A DMCA takedown notice must include a statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that you own the content that is being reproduced. They don't own youtube-dl. They're trying to circumvent the courts by abusing the DMCA process to take down content that they do not own
If that's true, then let's hope the EFF will step in.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't issuing a DMCA notice; they're issuing a C&D. The C&D just happens to be motivated by RIAA's belief that youtube-dl violates DMCA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's also incorrect. The lawyers don't allege they own the source code. They're arguing that the source code circumvents DRM. The supposed DRM is Youtube's "rotating cypher" that takes the video identifier string from the URL and returns the URLs of the actual video data. Unfortunately, the DMCA does not make a distinction as to the quality of any supposed DRM, so a court might side with the RIAA lawyers in this. This is more similar to the DMCA being weaponized to take DeCSS source code offline, whi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A valid DMCA takedown is not a general "take that off the internet now now now or we'll sue you;" it must contain specific elements.
What they sent wasn't a DMCA takedown notice. It lacks the legal weight of a true DMCA takedown notice. All it amounts to is a cease-and-desist; they're threatening to sue if their demands aren't met.
Re: (Score:2)
I find this whole argument entirely pointless.
The DMCA notice and takedown process provides a standardised way of notifying and responding to copyright infringement claims.
The DMCA further legislates on tools that enable copyright infringement. A legal notice citing that part of the DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright infringement process.
It has if anything greater legal weight. "We believe you are breaking the law, and the DMCA does not protect you as a service provider in this instance" i
Re: (Score:2)
Right the rolling cipher is meant to prevent hot-linking not direct access w/ the client-side javascript.
A tool or code which has a substantial lawful use is less likely to be considered a circumvention device under the 17 U.S. Code 1201 (The DMCA)
And from the notice"We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members" , which I'm fairly certain is entirely untrue or was inadvertent. I.e. they picked a random playlist that later
Re: Fraudulent DMCA takedown notices are illegal (Score:2)
Yes it does the DRM has to be "effective" but does not define what that actually means leaving it open to the courts. Unfortunately judges are clueless on the mechanics and have rulled FOR is effective which is laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, it's not a DMCA takedown notice. Instead, it's a threat that they'll sue github if github doesn't stop manufacturing, importing, offering to the public or otherwise providing tools that violate DMCA.
Whether youtube-dl actually violates DMCA is hard to say, though. Got money for lawyers to argue it? If you've got the gold, you can make the rules.
Whatever happened to 'fair use'? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Queue of man waving bundles of cash, with dollar bills falling like confetti and flashy "MONEY" at the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
They're using the circumvent the technological protection measures clause, I don't think there's an established fair use exception for that (I'd be happy to be shown otherwise).
Why do I use youtube-dl? (Score:4, Interesting)
First, it's a really versatile product. Its capabilities are way beyond YouTube. But the reason I found it and started using it a few years ago was a simple one. I cannot play YouTube on my iPhone with the screen off so I can listen with the phone in my pocket.
I probably wouldn't have even known about youtube-dl if I could just listen, even with the ads.
The next thing I found useful was to download for flights. Again, if YT had allowed downloads with the ads, I wouldn't have taken the time discover such a great tool.
I'll be sure to protect my current copy.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that youtube makes changes frequently, and youtube-dl has to be tweaked from time to time to do that. If they can take down the central development (and bug tracking) of youtube-dl, then I don't think it will continue functioning beyond the end of the year.
Personally I watch a lot of youtube content, but I do it all using mpv, which uses youtube-dl. If I can't do it that way, then I will watch a lot less content because I can't stand the browser interface, and endless stream of ads these days
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why its considered a circumvention tool.
Re: Why do I use youtube-dl? (Score:3)
Easy fix, especially when combined with ublock origin:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
Really? (Score:2)
When are these idiots going to learn that it isn't about them? I use this tool all the time, and have never even considered downloading a music video. Even the small effort of copy/pasting into a terminal for youtube-dl is enough effort that I would only do it for 'useful' and 'valuable' content. Music videos have never hit that bar.
Download my channel (Score:3)
OK, there's nothing most people would want to download on my channel, but maybe you're eccentric and all my videos are Creative Commons (YT doesn't offer WTFPL2) and I encourage reuse via youtube-dl.
That's the point of Creative Commons.
You know what else is made by Microsoft and can be used to copy music? Windows. Probably the #1 most common tool.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, COPYING data exactly, bit for bit, is a fundamental function of every computer ever made. The X86 instruction set even has several built-in opcodes for such a task. Asking a computer not to be able to copy something is like asking a calculator not to be able to add. The RIAA and DMCA are both ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really cool you license your content using CC. Would you also be willing to authorize the public to defeat technological measures which limit access to your content? Because it's your authorization as the copyright owner, not Youtube's or anyone else's, which most impacts the DMCA issue being discussed here.
Downloading music from Youtube? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I occasionally check out music on Youtube, and I use youtube-dl to do that, using mpv which doesn't keep the download. But I rarely actually download a song. I mean what's the point? It's on youtube already and it's already free. I've got android apps that can play youtube music without the video through streaming anytime I want.
The RIAA's belief that youtube-dl promotes music piracy is laughable, frankly. Come on guys. The days of a song getting ripped off of youtube and placed on a peer to peer network are long gone. Why would a person bother to do this? You yourselves put the song up for free on youtube. Even if someone did download it, how are materially damaged by that? Twice free is still free. Unless they are claiming that not watching an ad along with the free music is now piracy. Or maybe they think that listening to music without watching it's associated rubbish video is piracy? The mind boggles.
Re: (Score:2)
You yourselves put the song up for free on youtube.
I think their logic here is similar to Spotify and other streaming services: we allow you to listen via streaming only, so we have all the control. Pay us (by listening to ads) and maybe we don't take it down any time soon.
However, I don't see how they can have any legal control over home recording -- we've already discussed this regarding radio and home taping decades ago. Of course, redistribution is another matter, but that's not what youtube-dl (note the DL part) is for.
a copy here https://github.com/ericalbers/ewe-tube (Score:2)
https://github.com/ericalbers/... [github.com]
Class A example of what's wrong with github (Score:2)
sigh
Time for Gitlab in Tor. (Score:3)
If they can take it down, it's not good enough. Time for a Gitlab or similar that is hosted in Tor. It's code, it isn't inherently bad. It isn't doing anything, it's just text. If guns don't kill people, but people kill people, then code doesn't steal content, people do.
Re: (Score:2)
its the same problem for the whole internet. its just annoying when its stuff you like that gets censored.
Youtube is censored. Github is censored. Google search is censored. Bing is censored. Facebook is censored. Twitter is censored. Paypal and most payment providers censor too. Banks do it too. The list goes on and on and on.
Note that I believe it's fine to remove illegal materials. But youtube-dl isn't. When all services are owned by big corp and near monopoly with no way to find alternative, the censors
OK, but... (Score:3)
So, nothing of value was being threatened.
20+ alternative repos in 3,2,1... (Score:2)
Nice. You get a D for effort.
And on we move.
If you're still giving money to RIAA companies... (Score:2)
I hope they re-host it soon (Score:2)
Not just youtube. Works with pornhub too (Score:2)
Substantial non-infringing use? (Score:2)
My internet connection isn't fast enough to stream videos in 4k60, so I use youtube-dl to download them, watch them on a local media player, then delete them afterwards.
I'm pretty sure that is legal, in the same way that it is legal to tape a TV show and watch it later.
fucks my pen? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not arguing copyright infringement. They're arguing defeat of a Technological Prevention Measure; of which 'fair use' is not an established exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've wondered why seemingly no one has set up a github clone under something like tor? Seems perfect to me to attract a large number of users that request a comparatively small amount of data and isn't too picky about high latency. Looking at the tor repository it seems to be hosted on a public site so perhaps I'm missing something. I don't think youtube-dl is the first piece of code to be removed from github I believe there was some kodi plugins as well and there might be others.
Re: (Score:2)
Not relevant, and the RIAA isn't representing YouTube and doesn't make that claim.
Re: (Score:2)