Google removed our website from search because it uses YouTube-dl

Of course, you better be sure that you are in the right if you're gonna do that though.

The regulator should notice that serving sketchy DMCA notices is a form of denial of service. An consequently, if the DMCA is ruled to be unfounded, there should be heavy pubishment for the issuer as well as the enforcer (Google in this case).

>The DMCA takedown request has resulted in over 300 of our pages being removed from Google Search

Note that google regularly removes millions of pages due to DMCA requests. But I can still easily find kapwing.com in google results, so it's not like they removed the domain.

- Google recorded half of the planet with cameras scanning license plates, addresses, faces. You see those blurred in Google Maps, but the license plates, faces, are not blurred in the internal data at Google. I am still to see confirmation of data correlation not occurring.

- They scanned the Wifi MAC addresses associated with physical addresses "by mistake".

- They scanned public records of companies, and associated them publicly and sometimes the private address of the owner, and invite you as the owner to "take ownership" of their google map data...

No, but when Google scraped the Internet, nobody did anything about it.

The value they added by making everything searchable was so great.

Giving content creators platform flexibility is clearly a threat to YouTube.

Double standards are twice as good.

One of the (many) reasons the DMCA is bad is because it makes using your existing rights harder. You've mentioned "fair use" here. But the submitted article is talking about:

> (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

> (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

You can't use your right to fair use if the IP holder has implemented an access control, because the DMCA makes circumventing an access control unlawful.

The fact that the IP industry was able to implement a law that interferes with free speech shows how out of control they are.

I'll approximate: Contract violations are okay if they result in no damages. Courts determine damages by harm done. This comes down to a lot of detailed issues, including things like intent. Licenses are more complex, and I'll ignore issues like statutory damages.

A lot of licenses are GPL-compatible because although the terms differ in phrasing, the GPL has provisions which are substantively the same (e.g. attribution versus copyright notice). Courts won't care.

MIT signals one intent, and AGPL signals another. That's a big difference. I have code under AGPL, GPL, and MIT, and in the case of the AGPL code being ripped off by copilot, it undermines a lot of the purpose of having licensed the code as AGPL if others can use it without that license. For the MIT code, a lack of copyright notice+attribution would typically be mild annoyance at best.

A court would pick up on that, and act accordingly.

- Purpose and character of the use

- Nature of the copyrighted work

- Amount and substantiality

- Effect upon work's value

I feel like that provides a valid ethical framework in both cases.

For example, if my AGPL code is taken and ends up in another open-source project, just without attribution, I'm okay with it. If it's used for a father-son duo making an awesome thing for Burning Man, unaware of where it came from, I'm fine with that too. If it's used by a large commercial organization to compete with my open0source project, I'm not okay.

I don't feel bad using SD at home for personal use. It's a lot of fun. I would feel bad, for example, using it to make advertisements or Hollywood films. I don't feel bad about most non-commercial and educational settings.

Your line might be a different place, but there's a line somewhere, and it's not all-or-none.

I, for example, have some views about Copilot, and think that there's a case for saying that it violates copyleft code licenses. I...do not have a view about art, mainly because I literally have no idea how copyright works in the art world, or if there's something similar to copyleft; so I usually don't comment on the AI-generated art stuff that seems to be popping up left and right.

However, when it comes to a different group such as artists, also many people seem to believe stable diffusion/DALLE-2/midjourney et al. are "just weights in a neural network and the neural network is generating art based on its understanding of text and style".

[citation needed]

People on $internet_site doing A and people on $internet_site doing B does not mean that the same people are doing A and B.

(Of course the DMCA is still problematic for grey areas and spurious claims, like here.)

No they don't. If Google decides not to sue (which frankly seems likely given the precedent it risks setting), then they have to put the material back up.

I don't think the economics of write-once-run-anywhere are going to change anytime soon. so WASM is a welcome shift closer to the metal, I'd say.