This (and the thousand clones) is neat, but it completely misses the point. Youtube-dl is the kind of software that needs frequent upgrades to stay in sync with the Youtube API. If it doesn't have...
This (and the thousand clones) is neat, but it completely misses the point. Youtube-dl is the kind of software that needs frequent upgrades to stay in sync with the Youtube API. If it doesn't have a good place for development, it will die very soon.
(Not a lawyer, this is my lay understanding.) The authors of youtube-dl (probably any of them individually?) are the only people with standing to send a counter-notice or sue. However, it's a very...
(Not a lawyer, this is my lay understanding.)
The authors of youtube-dl (probably any of them individually?) are the only people with standing to send a counter-notice or sue. However, it's a very safe bet that the EFF or similar legal aid groups are salivating at the opportunity to bring the hammer down on the RIAA for this, and would readily offer pro-bono representation.
Striking down the DMCA takedown could be a huge win. It might mean the various large tech companies would have to be more stringent on policing copyright violations (if takedown goes, likely safe...
Striking down the DMCA takedown could be a huge win. It might mean the various large tech companies would have to be more stringent on policing copyright violations (if takedown goes, likely safe harbor goes with it), and that would likely drive large swaths to smaller platforms.
Even better if the whole DMCA could be dismantled, but that's probably too optimistic.
(Again, not a lawyer.) Noooooo no no no no no. Removing the safe harbor would be a disaster. Instead of sending takedowns, copyright trolls would send cease-and-desists, or just file lawsuits;...
(Again, not a lawyer.)
Noooooo no no no no no. Removing the safe harbor would be a disaster. Instead of sending takedowns, copyright trolls would send cease-and-desists, or just file lawsuits; smaller platforms, rather than proliferating, would be effectively impossible, since in order to function without immediately being litigated out of existence, a platform would have to be able to negotiate with rightsholders and probably establish Youtube-style content fingerprinting.
Large portions of the DMCA are a regressive, anti-innovative catastrophe (everything to do with reverse engineering, for instance), but the safe harbor/takedown provisions are actually effective and forward-thinking. They provide a means for rightsholders to get infringing material removed in which (assuming the platform complies) nobody is liable for the infringement. The major issue is that the penalty for filing a false takedown (civil cause of action for the affected party, which requires them to have the will and means to prosecute) is far too lenient—there should be criminal penalties, to the point that organizations which file false takedowns should be risking their existence.
After more consideration, I think you are largely right, with a few caveats: Safe harbor only protects the platform, not the users. The various takedown issuers rarely follow up on users merely...
After more consideration, I think you are largely right, with a few caveats:
Safe harbor only protects the platform, not the users. The various takedown issuers rarely follow up on users merely because it's harder to do with less payoff.
And my stance is the DMCA is so incredibly flawed that losing safe harbor would be worth getting rid of the rest.
I think while losing safe harbor will hurt existing platforms, it will also force a fracturing of the tech monopoly platforms. Companies won't as easily be able to play whack-a-mole on a plethora of new gray-area services. It could serve to fracture the tech monopolies without direct intervention. Especially if the new platforms are federated and/or decentralized.
Finally, Google won't let the USA go too long without any sort of safe harbor....it would be very expensive for them.
Edit:. I think what I'm trying to say is the net pre-dates the DMCA. It was more of a wild west, and the commercialization was enabled by safe harbor. I'm still out on whether that was a good thing or not.
This (and the thousand clones) is neat, but it completely misses the point. Youtube-dl is the kind of software that needs frequent upgrades to stay in sync with the Youtube API. If it doesn't have a good place for development, it will die very soon.
Very interesting. Could some open-source foundation counter-sue? How likely is that?
(Not a lawyer, this is my lay understanding.)
The authors of youtube-dl (probably any of them individually?) are the only people with standing to send a counter-notice or sue. However, it's a very safe bet that the EFF or similar legal aid groups are salivating at the opportunity to bring the hammer down on the RIAA for this, and would readily offer pro-bono representation.
That's my read FWIW.
Striking down the DMCA takedown could be a huge win. It might mean the various large tech companies would have to be more stringent on policing copyright violations (if takedown goes, likely safe harbor goes with it), and that would likely drive large swaths to smaller platforms.
Even better if the whole DMCA could be dismantled, but that's probably too optimistic.
(Again, not a lawyer.)
Noooooo no no no no no. Removing the safe harbor would be a disaster. Instead of sending takedowns, copyright trolls would send cease-and-desists, or just file lawsuits; smaller platforms, rather than proliferating, would be effectively impossible, since in order to function without immediately being litigated out of existence, a platform would have to be able to negotiate with rightsholders and probably establish Youtube-style content fingerprinting.
Large portions of the DMCA are a regressive, anti-innovative catastrophe (everything to do with reverse engineering, for instance), but the safe harbor/takedown provisions are actually effective and forward-thinking. They provide a means for rightsholders to get infringing material removed in which (assuming the platform complies) nobody is liable for the infringement. The major issue is that the penalty for filing a false takedown (civil cause of action for the affected party, which requires them to have the will and means to prosecute) is far too lenient—there should be criminal penalties, to the point that organizations which file false takedowns should be risking their existence.
After more consideration, I think you are largely right, with a few caveats:
Safe harbor only protects the platform, not the users. The various takedown issuers rarely follow up on users merely because it's harder to do with less payoff.
And my stance is the DMCA is so incredibly flawed that losing safe harbor would be worth getting rid of the rest.
I think while losing safe harbor will hurt existing platforms, it will also force a fracturing of the tech monopoly platforms. Companies won't as easily be able to play whack-a-mole on a plethora of new gray-area services. It could serve to fracture the tech monopolies without direct intervention. Especially if the new platforms are federated and/or decentralized.
Finally, Google won't let the USA go too long without any sort of safe harbor....it would be very expensive for them.
Edit:. I think what I'm trying to say is the net pre-dates the DMCA. It was more of a wild west, and the commercialization was enabled by safe harbor. I'm still out on whether that was a good thing or not.