look... i love the project and everything, but philip is just plain in the wrong and doesn't want to admit it.
That averred infringement is a specific claim. Though weak, it's the strongest specific claim RIAA makes.
Hagemeister's comment establishes that minimal copying is performed in the testing itself, contrary to RIAA's claim.
The infringement does not occur in the source code or test suite itself, it occurs inccidental to testing functionality of the software (that is, it is inherently functional, not expressive), the copies made fall within existing limitations to exclusive rights (§112, §117, §512(a) and (b)), and tests (1), (3), and (4) of §107 fair use.
RIAA's standing on anti-circ §1201 is separate from this question, poorly justified, and likely lacks standing.
"Hagemeister's comment establishes that minimal copying is performed..."
bottom line... they are still downloading and copying the file, regardless of what for or how much which is exactly what the RIAA is claiming. you can cite whatever it is you want, the fact is that youtube-dl is DEAD wrong in what they are doing.
The third test is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Again, Hagemeister establishes that a bare minimum copying is performed, sufficient to verify code function. A fact which would overwhelmingly tend to a fair use finding.
you can cite whatever it is you want, the fact of the matter is, that those test cases are going to seal their doom. any lawyer worth their salt can use those as evidence of them writing specific code to target and bypass security protections so they can download copyrighted works.
i can guarantee within the upcoming weeks we will see a lawsuit filed against everyone involved in youtube-dl... and guess what, they are going to lose that case.
From TFA.
Doesn't this apply to all browsers too? A browser has to actually download the copyrighted work to play it back, regardless whether it's "streaming" it or not. Chunks of the file get downloaded and those protections will have to be bypassed to be able to play it back, no?
We know that different media players rely on youtube-dl to be able to play back videos from YouTube. Are they not allowed to be able to play back YouTube content then?
Any statement that includes this phrase can be ignored as bad legal advice.
This doesn't make any sense to me as an attack on a fair use defense.
Fair Use is, by definition, an affirmative defense against copyright infringement. To invoke it, you assume (even if arguendo) that the copying did take place. Fair Use is a legal justification of the copying, not an argument that copying did take place.
So, pointing out that copying took place and spiking the football as if that's the end of the conversation is nonsensical if you're arguing against a Fair Use defense.
And the intent of tests is to test the functionality of this software.