undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthaumasiotes5y ago0 comments

>> 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.

0 comments

7 comments · 3 top-level

CrazyStat5y ago· 2 in thread

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.

The EFF has a write-up about it [1].

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-take...

thaumasiotesOP5y ago

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying jfrunyon's comment is stupid.

gamblor9565y ago

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.

jfrunyon5y ago· 2 in thread

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.

petre5y ago

"DRM does not work, so we'll back it up with a few laws criminalizing DRM circumvention." Reminds me of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg

ascar5y ago

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.

2 more replies

jfrunyon5y ago

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.)

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2... says:

> 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

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse