Hacker News Reader

Comment by hyperdimension | Hacker News Reader

If three tests from youtube-dl got the RIAA angry, I can't imagine this will be up for long.

EDIT: didn't notice it was gitlab rather than github. I'm still rather interested.

I don't think gitlab* vs github matters. All public sites in the US and allies need to have a mechanism for DMCA removals, or they lose their safe haven status (which allows them to not be legally liable for what their users do with respect to copyright). Losing safe haven status is a death sentence.

* by this I mean gitlab's own instance of gitlab. Of course, you can host your own, and then its up to you how you respond.

But this was "created for educational purposes"

DMCAs are a shoot first, talk later kind of deal. Or rather take it down first, file counterclaims, and see if the other party responds, then put it back up they don't.

Counterclaims are an international poison pill though, as by doing so you agree to having the case adjudicated under U.S. jurisdiction.

Think twice. Don't let clever legal tricks like were pulled with DMCA catch you out.

Just clone it and move on

DMCA take downs don't delete stuff stored client side on your computer, I fail to see what all this discussion is even about

If it looks hot, just clone it and forget about it

That's fine for a book, but not software (like youtube-dl) that is always written against the moving target of the real world.

git clone && move on

works perfectly fine for me

They meant that sites like YouTube change from time to time in ways that break youtube-dl so without updates your copy will stop working some day (same thing could apply to Spotify)

> DMCA take downs don't delete stuff stored client side on your computer

Github Desktop project mangers are taking notes, don't give them ideas!

IANAL but doesn’t the DMCA takedown system only apply to distribution of content itself? No RIAA member has the ownership rights to this software. It probably is illegal but I believe another legal mechanism other than a takedown notice is required.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong. This is a layman’s understanding.

There's also a provision in the DMCA law about "circumventing copyright law"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

Which you could argue this falls into.

Yes the DMCA prohibits circumvention but I’m asking if a takedown notice is the correct legal remedy for such violations? I thought notices were just for content distribution.

I don’t think the RIAA can touch this.

After all, fuck-capitalism added this prominent disclaimer:

> This program was created for educational purposes. It is not intended to be used otherwise

/sarcasm

Pro-tip: Intent matters to the courts. Intent is really hard to show, since the prosecution has to prove the internal state of your mind when you did the thing.

Focus on plausible deniability when you do this sort of thing. I, for one, still own a Cowon iAudio, and can’t wait to format shift my legitimate subscription to it so I can use my high-end wired headphones.

Maybe if they could cast the repo as satire, they'd have an even stronger case?

Satire has historically performed much better in courts than "educational purposes" has, so you might be on to something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com