RIAA's YouTube-DL Takedown Ticks Off Developers and GitHub's CEO (torrentfreak.com) 58
An RIAA takedown request, which removed the YouTube-DL repository from GitHub, has ticked off developers and GitHub's CEO. Numerous people responded by copying and republishing the contested code, including in some quite clever ways. Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well, offering help to get the repo reinstated. TorrentFreak reports: Soon after the RIAA notice took YouTube-DL offline many developers spoke out in protest. They believe that the music industry group went too far and started to republish copies of the code everywhere. Over the past several days, we have seen hundreds of new forks and copies appear online. These were also posted to GitHub, where YouTube-DL forks remain easy to find and continue to be uploaded. The code was also posted in some places one wouldn't expect. For example, there's still a copy in GitHub's DMCA notice repository, which some people find quite amusing. And the list of pull requests can be quite entertaining in themselves.
One of the most creative responses we've seen was posted to Twitter by @GalacticFurball who encoded YouTube-DL into images that can be easily shared, encouraging others to share these as well. "I would also suggest that you save and repost the images, as one single source kind of defeats the point. Maybe start a hashtag trend or something. Make songs, and poetry. Get that data out there." This triggered even more creativity, with people finding alternative means to share the code online, all to counter the RIAA's takedown request.
Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO Nat Friedman wasn't sitting still either. While the Microsoft-owned developer platform had to respond to the takedown notice, Friedman himself actively reached out to YouTube-DL's developers to help them get their project reinstated. The CEO joined YouTube-DL's IRC channel hoping to connect with the owner of the repository so he can help to get it unsuspended. "GitHub exists to help developers. We never want to interfere with their work. We want to help the youtube-dl maintainers defeat the DMCA claim so that we can restore the repo," Friedman told TorrentFreak, explaining his actions. GitHub's CEO suggested that YouTube-DL won't be reinstated in its original form. But, the software may be able to return without the rolling cipher circumvention code and the examples of how to download copyrighted material.
One of the most creative responses we've seen was posted to Twitter by @GalacticFurball who encoded YouTube-DL into images that can be easily shared, encouraging others to share these as well. "I would also suggest that you save and repost the images, as one single source kind of defeats the point. Maybe start a hashtag trend or something. Make songs, and poetry. Get that data out there." This triggered even more creativity, with people finding alternative means to share the code online, all to counter the RIAA's takedown request.
Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO Nat Friedman wasn't sitting still either. While the Microsoft-owned developer platform had to respond to the takedown notice, Friedman himself actively reached out to YouTube-DL's developers to help them get their project reinstated. The CEO joined YouTube-DL's IRC channel hoping to connect with the owner of the repository so he can help to get it unsuspended. "GitHub exists to help developers. We never want to interfere with their work. We want to help the youtube-dl maintainers defeat the DMCA claim so that we can restore the repo," Friedman told TorrentFreak, explaining his actions. GitHub's CEO suggested that YouTube-DL won't be reinstated in its original form. But, the software may be able to return without the rolling cipher circumvention code and the examples of how to download copyrighted material.
Takedowns are supposed to be scrutinized (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Takedowns are supposed to be scrutinized (Score:5, Informative)
Takedowns happen all of the time, even automatic ones, that doesn't mean they will survive scrutiny should things end up in court... as some should.
Great semi-recent example: Akhila Hughes (Wikipedia calls her an American writer, comedian, YouTuber, podcaster, and actress) posted a video to YouTube titled "We thought she would win" which involved her filming at the Clinton campaign HQ on election night of 2016, starting with excitement, and then reality hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
YouTuber Carl Benjamin (who Wikipedia calls a British anti-feminist YouTuber who is better known by his online pseudonym Sargon of Akkad) cut down the video quite significantly and uploaded it to his channel titling it "SJW levels of awareness": https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Hughes filed a takedown, YouTube accepted it, taking down the video, Benjamin counter filed and the video was restored. Hughes hired herself a pretty bad lawyer (in my opinion) who made some major errors out of the gate, got a new lawyer, and a few years later not only had her entire lawsuit thrown out, but is on the hook for $30,000+ to Benjamin in fees and costs.
Hughes argument more or less boiled down to the fact that Benjamin's video contained only her footage (~1/5th of the original video) and offered no commentary, criticism, parody, etc which would provide it protection under fair use.
If one is willing to play the legal game, there is a chance of success, but it is expensive, and then only if you've got a good case and lawyers. Benjamin sought to raise 40k British pounds to pay for his lawyers (but raised a bit more), and now ends up with a tidy profit, getting paid back for court and lawyer costs.
She has taken these repeated losses about as well as one might expect: https://www.gofundme.com/f/hel... [gofundme.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Often that comes down to a simple paraphrased line attributed to United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: "I know it when I see it", be it hard core porn, or not hard core porn... in court.
And that's the bugger about so much of this. It's easy to throw legal threats around... "take this down or I will sue!", often that is enough to get the result desired... sometimes some are willing to push back an
Re: Takedowns are supposed to be scrutinized (Score:2)
One significant test centres on the essence of copyright: the ability for the owner to exploit their work. Essentially, your use shouldnâ(TM)t diminish the ability of the owner to exploit their work. In the case of Sargon it would be difficult to argue that people interested in her video would have seen Sargonâ(TM)s excerpt as an alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the law on copyright infringement has only very narrow exceptions. Fair use is an affirmative defense argument - you basically are saying you did the crime, but that there are mitigating factors. And the problem with that is the mitigating factors are all subjective el
Re: (Score:3)
134... in the month of October 2020 alone it seems: https://github.com/github/dmca... [github.com]
209 last month: https://github.com/github/dmca... [github.com]
It would be interesting to have a bot go back and see how many of these takedowns remain in effect, and how many were reversed on (in some way) to allow the repo to return.
The full list is up at https://github.com/github/dmca [github.com]
Fuck RIAA (Score:2)
Takedowns are supposed to be scrutinized, and ponies ride up high in the sky.
Fuck RIAA.
Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well
Why doesn't he refuse to honor it then? His legal dept has deeper pockets than this poor, abused developer right?
Of course he's annoyed. His business is software developers. He's going to take their side, whatever that means.
Meanwhile, is the source for github.com published? I don't see the problem, considering his stance.
Re:Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well (Score:5, Interesting)
Because refusing the request could see them lose their safe harbor protection under the DMCA, which is kind of a big thing.
Instead here is what will happen:
The developers will file counter notice saying their the software does not violate the DMCA, at which point GitHub will restore access. If the RIAA disagrees, they are free to sue the developers, who would no doubt have plenty of people willing to contribute to a GoFundMe, simply because it's the RIAA who is on the other side.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why doesn't he refuse to honor it then? His legal dept has deeper pockets than this poor, abused developer right?
This, he just said that so all the non-corporate developers (people forced to use github) will not abandon ship. As CEO he could have done something, but as usual he ran.
Remember github is now owned by microsoft, and they have more money and lawyers than almost any entity
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well (Score:5, Informative)
To the point of "donwloading copyrighted work". This is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] It's an open to the public video. It's in held in the variable named "_TESTS" So the "downloading" is a view of a copyrighted work MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BY THE RIGHT HOLDERS to test. You can't sue someone for viewing something you've made publicly viewable as PER the DMCA. Because that means I could make a work, upload it, link you to it, then sue you for it.
Re: Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft would look like massive hypocrites if they simply rejected the RIAAs request, when they, inevitably, issued the next bullshit dmca takedown request of their own.
To quote the article:
"GitHub exists to help developers. We never want to interfere with their work. We want to help the youtube-dl maintainers defeat the DMCA claim so that we can restore the repo," Friedman told TorrentFreak
Which means, they already look like massive hypocrites by acting on the DMCA. If you're going to look like massive hypocrites either way, why not do the good thing while you're at it?
Re: Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well (Score:4, Insightful)
Late to this party but.. Microsoft buying and being in charge of an enormous host of free, open-source software. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well (Score:5, Interesting)
But a) youtube-dl does NOT circumvent the rolling cipher, please stop being a shill for the RIAA.
I'm not being a shill for anyone. I said it was mentioned in the summary. It was.
b) if a company decides to NOT honor the DMCA takedown, they're effectively saying "this is not legit and we are willing to go to court to defend that it isn't." And what's so bad about a GIANT corporation like MS doing that? It would probably be the one truly good thing they've ever done. But no, they can't even bother to do that.
If Microsoft was going to go to court over something DMCA related, they would likely want to do it over a case that would have a wider impact on future cases. As a company, there is little reason to open themselves up to being sued over potential infringement when a favorable ruling would likely be relatively narrow in scope.
To the point of "donwloading copyrighted work". This is the video in question:
That is only one example of one artist mentioned in the takedown. There were other claims relating to other artists. I'm not saying all of RIAA's claims are valid, but as a company it would be incredibly stupid for Github to open themselves up without having all the information. It makes a lot more sense for them to take it down, and putting it back up if the claim was contested. They can then also choose to side against RIAA, if they feel the need to, if it ever goes to court.
Re: (Score:2)
They have all the information. Literally. They've been hosting it.
youtube-dl has substantial non-infringing use, and therefore it is legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But a) youtube-dl does NOT circumvent the rolling cipher, please stop being a shill for the RIAA.
I'm not being a shill for anyone. I said it was mentioned in the summary. It was.
b) if a company decides to NOT honor the DMCA takedown, they're effectively saying "this is not legit and we are willing to go to court to defend that it isn't." And what's so bad about a GIANT corporation like MS doing that? It would probably be the one truly good thing they've ever done. But no, they can't even bother to do that.
If Microsoft was going to go to court over something DMCA related, they would likely want to do it over a case that would have a wider impact on future cases. As a company, there is little reason to open themselves up to being sued over potential infringement when a favorable ruling would likely be relatively narrow in scope.
To the point of "donwloading copyrighted work". This is the video in question:
That is only one example of one artist mentioned in the takedown. There were other claims relating to other artists. I'm not saying all of RIAA's claims are valid, but as a company it would be incredibly stupid for Github to open themselves up without having all the information. It makes a lot more sense for them to take it down, and putting it back up if the claim was contested. They can then also choose to side against RIAA, if they feel the need to, if it ever goes to court.
You're missing my points. Which are:
a) The DMCA is obviously incorrect, as per both current evidence and previous track-record with RIAA's DMCA notices. Why are you assuming the DMCA is correct or repeat it as if it's fact? That would be like believing a pathological liar for the 20324378th time. Just so we don't lose the plot. The point is youtube-dl DOES NOT CIRCUMVENT DRM OR THE ROLLING CIPHER. In fact, if you read the code, what it does is exactly what one should do to, as requested by the code, to dec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop trying to paint my opinion with a color of your choosing. I'm done with your idiocy. This isn't a statement about any of your claims, just your attitude.
Wait, so you're admitting my evidence are correct, my statements are sound. But because my attitude is to your disliking, I'm the idiot? ...what? What are you, 5?
Re: Meanwhile, GitHub's CEO is "annoyed" as well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
it downloads anything from youtube
Including copyrighted songs?
Well, 2 things.
1. That defense doesn't, and hasn't worked. The fact that TTB also linked to Linux distributions didn't save it from legal trouble.
2. Everything on YT is copyrighted. The fact that Bob's Cooking Channel isn't suing doesn't say anything someone else's right to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
> 2. Everything on YT is copyrighted.
Creative Commons is based on copyright.
Streisand effect. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
You may have used it without knowing though.
YouTube-DL is used by many other bits of software. The advantage is that any time YouTube makes a change YouTube-DL is updated within hours and all the software that uses it can also be updated quickly.
I use it to back up videos I find interesting because I've noticed that they sometimes get taken down or made private.
This looks like another step (Score:4, Interesting)
When you ask to play music from a certain genre on Google Home within the last 2-3 months, the selection really doesn't match what you're asking for, and seems to play more obscure tracks. The YouTube app also no longer supports Chromecasting just audio to speakers. Google Play Music has been shut down in favor of YouTube Music, which really shakes you down to sign up for their premium service -- which Google rarely tries to do on any of their other products. There's GSuite and Google One storage, but those ads are a lot lower-key. For a while as well, Youtube Music didn't allow you to Chromecast your own uploaded audio, and without a premium membership, you can't ask your Google Home devices to play audio uploaded to your own Youtube Music account.
I suspect this is pressure specifically and recently coming down on YouTube, and on music. I bet other people can come up with more examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Just use Plex. Run it on a raspberry pi that you've got tucked away somewhere and put all your own music on it. Both Google and Amazon spying assistants have supported skills that will play your own content with simple voice commands. You can either buy Plex or run the free version.
https://www.plex.tv/ [www.plex.tv]
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't matter that everyone is sharing the code for this plugin. Over the weekend YouTube made some tweaks to prevent it from working. It appears YouTube is bending to the RIAA for the sake of their YouTube Music service.
Re: (Score:3)
The tool breaks every once in a while and normally gets fixed right away. I doubt YouTube is doing anything special here, it's just that the devs aren't able to patch it like usual.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears YouTube is bending to the RIAA for the sake of their YouTube Music service.
Youtube had to work hard to avoid getting shut down for facilitating mass copyright infringement. They still have to demonstrate that they're acting in good faith towards the copyright holders with funding.
So they're not bending for the sake of their music service, they're bending for the sake of their entire platform.
Sadly the people that lose out are the small copyright holders who can't use the service without the media cartels commercially exploit their work.
I'm still looking for a decent alternative to
RIAA membership (Score:3, Informative)
Few (if any?) actual artists are members of RIAA "Recording Industry Association of America." It's a front organization for record companies, not actual artists themselves. They make it sound like they represent artists. That's the equivalent of a pimp claiming to represent sex workers.
https://www.riaa.com/about-ria... [riaa.com]
Reminds me of the old days of slash and decss (Score:2)
For a while people protested here on slash over decss. It was posted EVERYWHERE here.
Re: (Score:3)
Back then we no one really cared if s senator was R- or D-. If they supported some obnoxious copyright extension bill, they were fair game. Back in that era I remember being in America having a long AFK conversation with a real person who was something of a right wing gun nut. I mean he was definitely right wing, deeply suspicious of the government (can't say without good reason in his case), conservative and had guns. Lots of guns (I eventually did some target shooting with them). You might know the sort,
So, RIAA declares war to the Internet again... (Score:4, Interesting)
Congratulations RIAA, you just declared war to the internet (again). And you more than anyone else knows perfectly how well that ends...
More than ever, the concept of selling music is doomed, and this only enrages whatever was left of people still willing to buy music, from labels.
Artists earn their share from concerts, and their own merchandise like t-shirts, but never from labels. So its not like you hurt the artists, only the labels (parasites) when you defy the RIAA.
So go ahead, let the battle begin. Try destroy youtube-dl RIAA, maybe it is about time you finally collapse and disappear, your existence and that of your employers is obsolete: Neither artists nor public needs the middleman anymore.
Play music on your radios, who cares? Only online streaming matters. Disc sales means nothing, only views. You want to monetize this by force, but you cannot stop a legion of people willing to rebel against your tyranny. Many artists have already denounced you and the world counterparts in many other countries.
A random stranger singing or playing their instrument online can earn more in one hour than your overpaid/overmarketed mass produced clones can make in a month.
Let me leave these videos here, maybe someone in the RIAA might remember when this was made and get a clue of what is going to come:
From MC Lars: Download this song [youtube.com] 2006
Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke's on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the New Artist Model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
From "Weird Al" Yankovic Don't Download this song [youtube.com] 2009
Don't take away money
From artists just like me
How else can I afford another solid-gold Humvee
And diamond-studded swimming pools
These things don't grow on trees
So all I ask is everybody please
Re: (Score:2)
More than ever, the concept of selling music is doomed, and this only enrages whatever was left of people still willing to buy music, from labels.
Um hello there. I'm not enraged. I still buy music now and then. Sometimes MP3s, sometimes even records (I went full hipster and got a record player. No I don't think it has better quality than digital music, and even if I did, my player isn't really hi fi, I just like records, I think they're fun, I like being disconnected from the internet and digital world in g
Does the RIAA have jurisdiction in very country? (Score:1)
Is there no safe haven? No bullet/bombproof servers? Are there no obfuscated protocols safe from spying? The internet is supposed to route around the damage. Why is that not happening?
Re: (Score:1)
Dammit! every country!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the RIAA is very country. They're also western, pop, rock, etc.
Hail Hydra! (Score:2)
Nat F (Score:1)
Strange (Score:1)
Github is not on your side (Score:1)
GitHub's CEO is Satya Nadella (Score:2)
Nat Friedman is just some guy with a desk who doesn't understand that things have moved on.
Host on GitHub and you host on Corporation Street and the landlord will cooperate with the Corporate Police when they come knocking.
Host it somewhere else... (Score:2)
Go find a country that doesn't have DMCA style laws (or better yet, one that doesn't give a stuff about enforcing the copyrights of western "capitalist" media companies and wont care when organizations like the RIAA or IFPI come knocking), get some hosting in that country and host youtube-dl (and other tools the media companies want to kill) on it in a location that even the mighty RIAA can't really touch.
The best form of advertising in an DMCA takedown (Score:2)
Congratulations, you took a relatively obscure Python script and advertised it to the world!
When YouTube-DL finds a new home, and it will, the reach of the tool will be huge.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not dead, this will just turn in to a de-coupling game. There will need to be a specific claim made about what part of the product violates the law. The offending part will be decoupled and removed to a server in a country where no one cars about the DMCA or RIAA. We have see this time and time again with Handbrake decoupling libdvdcss, ShowEQ decoupling libEQ.a etc....
It is just a minor annoyance, a speed bump. YouTube-DL will be back even bigger, badder, and stronger.
Thanks RIAA! (Score:2)
The burden should be on the reporter (Score:2)
While the fact they're taking steps to have it reinstated is great, it misses the point that an organization was able to come in with no proof of wrongdoing or actual damages incurred, only allege the possibility of misuse, and have an established project taken down before any defense could be presented. If they really wanted to act in the interest of both parties, they could set up a private forum where these issues can be brought up and rectified before public disclosure - it's not like this doesn't alrea
DMCA is seriously broken (Score:1)
DMCA hands over a government function to private actors, and in addition fails to ensure any real due process.
In a democracy, here is how it should work. The complainant files an action with a court of appropriate jurisdiction, asking for an injunction. That injunction either is or is not granted, depending on the situation, like any other injunction. Then there is a hearing and if necessary a trial.
Fascism consists in private enterprise acting as government.
This is Really Damned SImple (Score:3)
The RIAA may likely respond with, "Youtube-dl violates anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, and therefore blah blah blah bitch whine kvetch..."
To which Github responds, "Even if that is shown to be true, the takedown process you invoked is only permitted for alleged violations of copyright. Since, by omission, you admit youtube-dl contains no infringing copies of your members' works, we are restoring access to the repository. We are further referring this incident of willful abuse of the DMCA to the US District Attorney."
You'd think, given how much the RIAA and MPAA paid to have the DMCA drafted and rammed through Congress, that they would know how their own law worked. Evidently not...