RIAA Tosses Bogus Claim At Github To Get Video Downloading Software Removed
from the mumbo-and/or-jumbo dept
The RIAA is still going after downloaders, years after targeting downloaders proved to be a waste of time and a PR catastrophe. It's not actually thinking about suing the end users of certain programs, but it has targeted Github with a takedown notice for hosting youtube-dl, a command line video downloader that downloads videos from (obviously) YouTube and other video sites.
Not that this is going to be any more effective than suing file sharers. The software has been downloaded countless times and forked into new projects hosted (and distributed) elsewhere.
Github has posted the RIAA's takedown request, which looks a lot like a DMCA notice for copyright infringement. But it isn't actually targeting infringement. As Parker Higgins pointed out on Twitter, the RIAA -- after saying a bunch of stuff about copyright infringement -- is actually claiming this software violates Section 1201 of the DMCA, which deals with circumvention of copyright protection schemes.
The request lists a bunch of Github URLs as "copyright violations." But these aren't actually copyright violations. A little further down the RIAA gets to the point.
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. We note that the source code is described on GitHub as “a command-line program to download videos from YouTube.com and a few more sites.”
So, it's not really about copyright infringement. The RIAA tries to blur that line a bit by saying the source code includes a short list of videos the program can download -- all three of which are videos owned by major labels. Then the RIAA goes a step further, basically claiming that any software that can download YouTube videos violates Section 1201 of the DMCA and only exists to engage in copyright infringement.
The source code is a technology primarily designed or produced for the purpose of, and marketed for, circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted sound recordings on YouTube...
[T]he youtube-dl source code available on Github (which is the subject of this notice) circumvents YouTube’s rolling cipher to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted audio files, in violation of YouTube’s express terms of service,and in plain violation of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §1201.
This suggests the primary use of youtube-dl is to violate the law. There are plenty of non-infringing uses for this software, including the downloading of CC-licensed videos and those created by the US government, which are public domain. Basically, the RIAA is mashing up the takedown notice provision of DMCA 512 to try to remove code it claims (incorrectly) is violating DMCA 1201... while ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling in Sony v. Universal that says that tools with substantial non-infringing uses (in that case -- oh look! -- a video recording tool) is not by itself infringing.
Making blanket statements like these is irresponsible and misleading, but that's the sort of thing we've come to expect from entities like the RIAA. It's the same questionable claim the MPAA made back in 2014, when it demanded third-party hosts remove Popcorn Time repositories because the software could be used to engage in copyright infringement. It didn't make sense six years ago. It doesn't make any more sense now.
Added to all the stupidity is the fact that the RIAA appears to be threatening anyone even loosely-connected to the youtube-dl project. A couple of contributors to the project over the years have reported they've received legal threats from the RIAA for working on unrelated code and maintaining the repository.
The RIAA is welcome to continue its mostly-fruitless fight against copyright infringement. But it needs to do so honestly and do it without causing collateral damage to people who haven't engaged in infringement. The RIAA has no claim here. Github isn't engaging in infringement or circumvention. The software isn't either, not until someone uses it to accomplish this. If the RIAA has a problem with end users, it needs to take its complaints to them. This is just more bullshit being brought by an entity with enough heft it will rarely be challenged, even when it's in the wrong.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 1201, dmca 512, downloading, recording, youtube-dl
Companies: github, riaa, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright infringement is just the excuse used to attack the publishing and distribution of music where it does not control the music. They and the MPAA consider self publishers as pirates because they they do not get control the content, and where the profits go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond infuriating. I wish Microsoft wouldn't roll over for these BS letters. I really hope the team relocates to Gitlab or somewhere. If they ever have a legal battle they've got my money. It's ridiculous that we're essentially fighting for the right to own VCRs again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They roll over because they do not want to spend millions of dollars to prove that each one is BS. They is of quick way of winning in court, and it costs to fight all the way to the Supreme court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keep in mind that Microsoft is a member of the RIAA, and founded the very similar BSA. They're hardline copyright maximalists and always have been. Bill Gates was probably the first person to call people thieves for copying software—4 years before Congress made software subject to copyright at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's worth bearing in mind that it's not even a decade ago that Microsoft were trying to destroy the very concept of open source software. That they've been forced to change their tactics and embrace FOSS, at least publicly, it should be no surprise that the company that built its fortune on aggressively proprietary software might not take the hard line free approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody's expecting that. Rejecting bogus copyright claims wouldn't count as "hard line free", though; just "reasonable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does the RIAA even have standing here? Circumventing YouTube's download limitations is a case for... YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I understand it, the claim of standing hinges on certain video thumbnails that the youtube-dl team displayed in screenshots of the program — specifically, that by displaying the thumbnails, the youtube-dl team violated RIAA-held copyrights. Or something like that. Whatever the reasoning, it’s bullshit.
And although the program (and its source) can be found elsewhere thanks to archivists, GitHub still has a copy of youtube-dl available (as of the time of this posting) in an unlikely place. To quote a post from the Fediverse: “Someone used the bug GitHub refused to fix, that allows you to add a commit to a repo you don’t control...to upload YouTube-dl to the DMCA request repo on GitHub.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More likely that they're "inducing" copyright infringment per Grokster. It was stupid of the youtube-dl developers to refer to any restrictively-copyrighted material in their code/documentation, particularly MAFIAA stuff. Probably not illegal, but the RIAA will have better laywers than they do, and will be able to cause them trouble for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(golf clap)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, someone forked that particular copy of the code to its own repo and I (among others) have forked that repository. The youtube-dl code is spreading quite a bit around GitHub now. I've even seen it posted to Twitter as a pair of encoded images that can be decoded with a few commands listed in the same tweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pointless
I can download any Youtube video that has Embed turned on with just VLC and a Linux command line. Are the powers that be going to ban VLC and Linux?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pointless
They would certainly like to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pointless
"Are the powers that be going to ban VLC and Linux?"
They would certainly love to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pointless
"Are the powers that be going to ban VLC and Linux?"
They've tried that multiple times in the past, and some of those Usual Suspects have tried to produce that exact effect - a ban - as collateral damage in a few suits and lobbied-for legislation.
Consider that we're talking about the type of people who, in order to impose control over information they consider theirs, have tried to abolish many aspects of free speech and property ownership online. Going after the digital equivalent of screwdrivers isn't even a stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it maybe time for just everyone sharing code to block the IP range of the RIAA? Or maybe just add the TOS that "This site is not for use by anyone affiliated or associated with the RIAA." Not this this would have any legal bearing, but then again, neither do most RIAA claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right... I'll bet most of these people are funding the RIAA. They've been hostile to music fans for 20 years, but the fans keep giving them money, and bands keep giving them power by signing up. If we can't stop that, a few people with 1990s-BBS-style disclaimers aren't going to do shit.
(Nevermind that Github is owned and operated by an RIAA member. Microsoft can't exactly block all Microsoft IPs.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA is really wasting their time here. The average user today doesn't even know how to open a command window, let alone type in a command to download videos. The average user needs a video tutorial to tell them how to unzip a file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slobs.
There are zero good reasons to force the end user to memorize a fuckload of cryptic keyboard polka dances just to do a basic and mundane task like downloading a video. What the RIAA was scummy, but if you insist on people using an interface that belongs in the 1991 time capsule you dug it out off then you deserve whatever misfortune befalls you and your project. Hopefully whatever program comes next will lead by a better example by not being a lazy sack of shit and including a proper GUI interface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slobs.
Counterpoint - maybe they don't want people like you to use their software, so they create interfaces aimed at knowledgeable people who want to use it for something beneficial?
"using an interface that belongs in the 1991 time capsule"
You want to know how I know that you don't know anything about how modern servers are operated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slobs.
Counterpoint - maybe they don't want people like you to use their software, so they create interfaces aimed at knowledgeable people who want to use it for something beneficial?
Counter-counterpoint: When you arbitrarily gatekeep beneficial technology with an obnoxious autistic interface you cut off your own market share, and thus cut off your own ability to influence the tech world in a positive way.
I'm guessing you're probably a Linux cultist. Newsflash numbnuts, the shitty condescending attitude of fart-huffers like you towards the end user is precisely the reason why proprietary software like Windows keeps kicking your ass. Technology is meant to make our lives easier first and foremost, and if you insist on walling out the majority of your potential userbase with a metric fuckton of autistic bullshit then M$ and others will be all too eager to cater to their needs instead.
Gatekeeping computer freedom is selfish, narcissistic, and completely and utterly morally reprehensible. And you are the lowest of the lowest scum of the earth for encouraging it.
You want to know how I know that you don't know anything about how modern servers are operated?
"MUH SURRRRRVURRRRRS!!!"
Every. Fucking. Time. Apples and oranges cheeto-breath. You can't compare something as complex as running a server to something which should be as simple as entering a URL, maybe toggling a few options, and picking a resolution. Nor do nearly as many people have a need or desire to run a server than they do to download a video.
Your next line is: "But Android runs Linux, so Linux is a huge success." As if fucking Google is an even remotely trustworthy steward of privacy and freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slob
"Counter-counterpoint: When you arbitrarily gatekeep beneficial technology with an obnoxious autistic interface you cut off your own market share"
Counter-counter-counterpoint: People who make FOSS for a hobby don't give a crap about marketshare, and will not go out of their way to service a market that can't be arsed to work out how their computer actually works under the hood. If someone wants to create a tool for a pro user, they don't want to spend an extra bunch of hours creating a GUI to attract people who will then complain because they couldn't work out what the options meant.
"I'm guessing you're probably a Linux cultist"
I get paid a decent amount of money to manage a much larger level of infrastructure than a Windows GUI would allow me to. Which makes me adverse to the kind of person who whines because someone didn't put Fisher Price buttons on top of the programs they use to operate their computer.
"the reason why proprietary software like Windows keeps kicking your ass"
You'd be amazed at how untrue that is once you get out of the desktop market.
"You can't compare something as complex as running a server to something which should be as simple as entering a URL"
Yet, you depend on people who understand how your computer works to tell you how to do such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass
There are times when a command line is useful in Windows; notable in describing how to fix a problem. Giving a command to be entered via a command line is far simpler than describing how to reach and use an obscure facility buried deep in a menu and tabe system of a GUI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slob
"I'm guessing you're probably a Linux cultist. Newsflash numbnuts, the shitty condescending attitude of fart-huffers like you towards the end user is precisely the reason why proprietary software like Windows keeps kicking your ass."
You mean those proprietary software OEM's who couldn't produce a functional stable system to save their lives until they started incorporating open source such as Linux under the hood of their systems?
I always find it remarkable that everyone who whines and moans about proprietary being superior to open source always ends up producing a proprietary GUI driven mainly by open source.
"Every. Fucking. Time. Apples and oranges cheeto-breath. You can't compare something as complex as running a server to something which should be as simple as entering a URL, maybe toggling a few options, and picking a resolution."
You know how I can tell you haven't the faintest clue how "complex" running a server is? It's literally just a case of installing Apache, entering a few paths, maybe toggling a few options, and picking...well, you rarely need to have a server running graphics so it's even less complex.
Yes, design matters to the consumer but the paint job will always remain the least important part of the car.
"Your next line is: "But Android runs Linux, so Linux is a huge success." As if fucking Google is an even remotely trustworthy steward of privacy and freedom."
...says the blithering idiot who probably types this shit in on an open-source browser with a logo on top, has that text transmitted through a network of servers running apache linux and delivered to a webpage run on a linux machine.
And Google is, compared to what came before Android, indeed a shining beacon of privacy and freedom. Are you even aware you're either condemning smartphones in general or advocating Apple?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slobs.
youtube-dl [URL]
Wow, that's so cryptic. How will I ever remember that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slobs.
Back in the 80s, if you wanted to use a computer, you had to learn how to enter commands.
On the other hand, a command line program can be used in scripts to do things that a GUI program can't.
For something more complicated, like an emulator, where you have dozens of options that need to be set to use it effective (I'm looking at you MEDNAFEN!), a GUI makes sense, but for something simple, the command line is often better. Yes, it has a lot of options you can use, but typically;
YouTUbe-DL.exe [URL]
Will get the job done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slobs.
Nothing is stopping a software expert such as yourself from adding the GUI. Go ahead.. it's open source.. the code is waiting for you to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slobs.
You guys know there's already a GUI for Youtube, right? It's at youtube.com, and I'm told it's popular. If it's missing some features like downloading, complain to those "lazy" developers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Programmers who don't include GUIs are lard-ass slobs.
"There are zero good reasons to force the end user to memorize a fuckload of cryptic keyboard polka dances just to do a basic and mundane task like downloading a video."
Yeah, there's no reason to include a GUI into a raw kernel of any kind either.
The engine which drives Chrome and EDGE is just about identical and because there's no ready-made advanced GUI it's easy for any manufacturer or frisky armchair coder to DIY their own.
But hey, sorry that the original programmer didn't see fit to try to build the core tool to end user specifications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The average user today doesn't even know how to open a command window, let alone type in a command to download videos."
The joy of open source is that anyone who wanted to created a GUI to use with this backend would be free to do so, then this argument is moot.
Fortunately, the other joy of open source is that anyone can fork and redistribute this project outside of GitHub, and from what I understand they are doing exactly that.Which is good news for the people who use such tools for the thousands of other uses that don't involve pirating music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not exactly a GUI, but I created a Windows Batch script to present a menu-driven interface for using YouTube-GUI. It allows you to download either one URL at a time, or give it the name of a text file containing URLs to download them in batch mode. You can also set the number of retries per file and the number of simultaneous downloads in batch mode.
I had ideas for a bunch of other stuff I wanted to add to it, but like many things, I kind of lost interest in expanding it, mainly because I'm not exactly an expert programmer and I ALWAYS run into problems that take me ages to figure out, mostly due to the the oddities of Windows scripting.
Most of the time, I use a simpler script that just tries to download the 720p videos from YouTube, or just a generic download option for videos anywhere else. I don't just let it try to download the best videos from YouTube, because sometimes the file sizes are huge.
I also made one just for downloading the audio.
I meant to merge all the scripts into one, but the prospect of adding everything I want and making sure it all works properly is daunting. It took me forever just to figure out how to get the big script to display the number of remaining URLs to downloaded in batch mode!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legality?
Is what I get get others to acknowledge.
English is a strange language and even the lawyers are having fun with this idea.
A realty company sent out a flyer to come to a Meeting and Win a prize while sitting and listening to their spiel, for a few hours.
The advert suggested you could Win 'This AND that'.
I called and questioned then about 'This and That', as I know the word AND is inclusive, meaning I get Both.
The person on the phone debated with me the meaning, and I suggested THEY LOOK IT UP. And Talk to a lawyer when others ASK for BOTH Gifts.
Once you get ahold of a judge, and have them listen to you and MAYBE another person for a week, 2 weeks, a MONTH of debate. They are looking for Anyway to get out of it.
Would love to give each side 1 day to declare and Then let the judges decide. NOT 6 months of finagling, and adjustments to the claims and demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IANAL, but the RIAA lawyers are not dummies. AFAICT, the fact that it's not a standard DMCA takedown demand is a red herring. The point was to confer "red flag knowledge" of likely infringement. This is the more insidious option, because it bypasses the counternotice and reinstatement process. Like a standard notice, it effectively forces Microsoft/GitHub to choose between keeping their safe harbor by removing the content or fighting a court battle over the content's focus on circumvention/infringing uses, despite its non-infringing uses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"IANAL, but the RIAA lawyers are not dummies."
No, they're not dummies, they get paid a lot of money for doing this stuff no matter the actual business outcome to their clients or the innocent victims of their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know about you, but their track record doesn't seem to indicate this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Related to the killing of Google Play Music app and pushing the YouTube Music app? I have used youtube-dl and a side benefit is I don't get the ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they waited until Github was owned by Microsoft to bitch about code on Github that can download videos from youtube?
Sure that's not a naked cash grab against a large corporation at all. Clearly this is about merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analog hole
While youtube-dl is useful for purpose, you can achieve the same outcome via the analog hole or similar. Using in-built tools on windows.
And they have no chance of succeeding in proving that sound recording software or software to record what's on your screen (e.g. games) violates anything relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analog hole
And for a while both Vista and Windows 10 did contain the necessary background operations to regularly scan your PC for programs allowing such operations. Fortunately never fully implemented, but a few of the scummier operators out there, like EA, still have their Origin client scan every file on your computer for...NO possible above-board reason.
Microsoft had to jettison their initial projects of policing their consumers because they knew damn well how hard it could come back and bite them in the ass, but that doesn't change the fact that every major player in this type of mess has a raging hateboner against dual-use.
Let's not even open the door on Sony's part in this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUCK M$
Do you really think M$ gives a shit about any of us, at all? AT ALL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUCK M$
"Do you really think M$ gives a shit about any of us, at all? AT ALL?"
Nope. I don't think any sane person does. They ARE, however, somewhat woken up about the fact that these days there's a fine line they have to tread unless they want a significant part of their market to migrate to Linux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA should issue DMCA takedown to Google for Chromium source code that allows users to download copyrighted content from YouTube for playback in the browser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Downloading is killing Streaming!
Personally, I use youtube-dl to grab videos that are FREE TO STREAM... but my internet connection is such shit that I can barely stream anything at 480p... So I download it (however long it takes) and then watch it locally later.
Also, if you just happen to be using an OS without a modern browser, a ported copy of youtube-dl and a media player can still let you watch youtube and other video links!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Downloading is killing Streaming!
or you have a 'modern' browser... with as many as possible of the built-in backdoors turned off (like JS).
youtube-dl was very useful for viewing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube appears to be taking advantage of the fact that YouTube-DL's GitHub page has been taken down so that people can't report issues. Already I'm seeing bunches of videos that won't download.
I looked for an alternative fork, but the only one I saw with Windows executables (I have no idea how to compile the source code myself) complains of a missing python DLL file, so I can't even run it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So google the missing DLL name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I did and the typical solutions had to do with compilation options and Python installations, neither of which apply in my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious as to why your Python installation wouldn't be applicable. Maybe the executable has been compiled in such a way that it still needs certain Python components to run, and the fact that you don't have Python installed is what's causing the errors?
In theory this shouldn't be necessary but it's not unheard of for developers to miss dependencies from their compile and not notice because they have the required packages installed on their own machine. If you're not willing to go further with that particular issue, I'm sure that other options will become available as more people are looking for alternate forks as you are and demand increases for pre-compiled binaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have Python installed. As it turns out, the problem is that the executable just won't run on my system because of my outdated version of Windows, it just didn't give me one of the typical errors that indicates this. Apparently the developers want to support it, but it hasn't yet been added. They did post instructions for how to compile the source code, but I haven't yet tried it. I haven't had the best luck trying to compile software in the past.
I mainly wanted to use that fork because it has an active Github page and I wanted to see if it had the same issues as the official YouTube-DL and if so, report them. However others had already reported the same issue.
And, the official version had an update on 11/01/2020, so the issue with downloading certain videos seems to have been corrected (for now).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]