I'm surprised they have a valid case against YouTube rippers, yes they allow you to download a YouTube video but do they ever actually host the file they let you download because I'd peg that as...
I'm surprised they have a valid case against YouTube rippers, yes they allow you to download a YouTube video but do they ever actually host the file they let you download because I'd peg that as the step that breaks the law. Also its essentially playing whackamole and always has been so I'm surprised they still bother.
The interesting part about DMCA subpoenas is that it doesn't seem like it matters whether the case is valid or not, and a judge doesn't even review them. They just need to be submitted correctly,...
The interesting part about DMCA subpoenas is that it doesn't seem like it matters whether the case is valid or not, and a judge doesn't even review them. They just need to be submitted correctly, and are automatically granted (similar to how DMCA takedowns work). From this page:
Section 512(h) of the DMCA grants copyright owners the power to subpoena an internet service provider in order to obtain “information sufficient to identify” an anonymous infringer. Indeed, all a copyright owner needs to do to obtain a DMCA subpoena is file a formal request with a District Court clerk that includes: (1) a proposed subpoena; (2) a copy of a DMCA takedown notification that is directed at the allegedly infringing content; and (3) a sworn declaration stating that the requested information will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under U.S. copyright law. Assuming the DMCA subpoena request contains these three items, the clerk is required to expeditiously issue the proposed subpoena. Because no judge reviews a DMCA subpoena before it is issued and no formal litigation is initiated by filing a DMCA subpoena request, the DMCA subpoena offers a straightforward and low-cost means of identifying an anonymous infringer.
I'm surprised they have a valid case against YouTube rippers, yes they allow you to download a YouTube video but do they ever actually host the file they let you download because I'd peg that as the step that breaks the law. Also its essentially playing whackamole and always has been so I'm surprised they still bother.
The interesting part about DMCA subpoenas is that it doesn't seem like it matters whether the case is valid or not, and a judge doesn't even review them. They just need to be submitted correctly, and are automatically granted (similar to how DMCA takedowns work). From this page:
The EFF has written quite a bit about how easy it is to abuse this power. Here's just one example from way back in 2006: DMCA Subpoena Provision Still Endangers Privacy