[conspire] (forw) [DNG] [OT] YouTube archivism targeted

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Carl Myers (cmyers at cmyers.org):

> This attack on yt-download is ridiculous and we should fight it with every fiber
> of our being.  I've used yt-download for completely valid reasons for both
> personal and work projects.
> 
> Attacking a tool because it *could* be used to violate copyright is an
> affront to everything open source represents.  I can't even fathom
> what basis this attack could be using, the videos are served by
> youtube's servers and downloaded by other software (browsers) all the
> time, all this software does differently is save the files locally for
> later viewing.  That's not against any laws afaict?

You will probably find it instructive to read the DMCA takedown request,
which GitHub, Inc. kindly makes available (redacting the RIAA
functionary's personal details), here:
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md

This is an _utterly standard_ DMCA takedown request.  This is _exactly_ 
what has been the shape of USA domestic copyright law for over 20 years.
If you are surprised by this -- and I'm not being critical of you, Carl,
as this is weird stuff and not everyone's a law geek as I am -- then 
this should serve as a wakeup call.

Many, many pieces of general-usage software have been successfully
attacked in this way as 'circumvention devices'.  To understand the
law's operation, I recomment looking up and making sure you understand
that legal term of art.

In case it is not obvious, GitHub, Inc. / Microsoft is not being a bad
actor, here.  I as operator of a Web site that occasionally includes
public content, such as mailing list postings, have to be prepared to
handle DMCA aka 17 U.S.C. section 512(c)(3) takedown requests, too.
As you will see in the "Legal notices" at the bottom of
http://linuxmafia.com/ , I _am_.  Quoting:

  3. Copyright policy: This Internet host respects copyrights, promptly
  removes materials from this host that are credibly claimed via proper 17
  U.S.C. section 512(c)(3) notification to infringe valid copyright claims
  or to be the subect of infringing activity (or that this Internet host's
  management becomes aware of infringing copyrights), and terminates
  access to users who repeatedly infringe copyrights. Please bring claims
  of alleged copyright infringement to the designated agent's attention
  (above).

Let's say that mailing list member Joe User posts to Conspire, say, the 
text of an ultra-brief short story.  A week later, I receive an e-mail
from the claimed short story author, or a representative of the claimed
author, asserting that the posting was in violation of copyright.
Provided the request has enough of the required pieces of information
specified in 17 U.S.C. section 512(c)(3), it is very strongly in my
interest to comply with the takedown request and expunge the short story
from Mailman archives.  Why?  Because doing so protects me as an
Internet service provider within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. section
512(k)(1) and 512(i) -- what is called a DMCA 'safe harbour'.  In timely
complying with the alleged author's demand, I am harboured against
getting named as a co-defendent in a copyright infringement tort action
against Joe User.

Making and distributing a 'circumvention device' is officially and
definitively a violation of copyright under terms of DMCA.  This is why
the RIAA flack's complaint diligently detailed how he used youtube-dl
to pull off of YouTube an independent copy of three RIAA-represented
authors' songs, in a way that fails to comply with the song authors'
grant of a viewing right under YouTube Standard license, which
authorises only streamed viewing and not retention.

Seriously, make sure you understand the breathtaking power-grab Our
Lords in Hollywood and their pathetic little lapdog the RIAA pulled in
making possession and use of 'circumvention devices' a violation of 
copyright tort law (and, in some cases, crimes).  

Affront to everything open source represents?  Yes.  Absolutely.
And this is _exactly_ the world we (in the USA) have inhabited since
DMCA took effect on October 28, 1998.