Note on the #youtubedl DMCA takedown this night.
In a very unusual turn RIAA justifies the takedown request with EU/German law and claim US analogy to EU rules. (the attachment with a copy of the Hamburg court rule they refer to somehow not linked, one can only guess that this links to §95a UrhG).
The DMCA takedown process which leads to many bogus takedowns does not matter to us at all.
HOWEVER, we do not allow hosting stuff that is illegal in the EU/Germany and/or contains proprietary copyrighted code (we are a free software platform)
In case of youtube-dl the situation is not really clear (if it cracks a copy protection it might be illegal in Germany, and that is how some people argue).
And I am not a lawyer ;)
@arh @ashimokawa @shom @af If we get "asked" by official German authority, a court, we of course have to adhere to the order. However, this is not happening just by some letter from some individual or corporation.
This is the difference to the US DMCA takedown process, where any individual or company can issue a takedown request with immediate effect, and then the burden of proof is on the side of the project.
@codeberg @arh @ashimokawa @shom @af no offense, I love you guys, but I do not believe that your position on this one matters much. This needs to go to court and we need a decision that kicks the RIAA in their place (and, perhaps, in the nuts). But again: this is just my position, and this does not matter much, either. In the end, only a court ruling will fix this in the long term.
that's a relief. By U.S. export and sanctions law (which some countries such as Germany comply with sometime) you may be forced to stop selling to us Iranians which is impossible even now because of banking sanctions but anyway you don't have to block the connections and/or cut the access.
Same happens with us in GNU but we have no problem here. Do you own a lawyer to help you with this stuff if similar thing happens?
FSF owns a lawyer and with the help of that lawyer, FSF and GNU are open to us Iranians but they can't sell us stuff, which is not the case because they don't sell anything. I'm even a part of GNU myself and also an associate member of FSF.
But Codeberg sells. If USG complains to German government to force you stop us from buying products from you, you can stop that but by law you're not forced to block our IPs and connections.
If you own a lawyer, that lawyer can help you with the matter. This is all hypothetical and you currently don't need it obviously but I'm telling you just in case. For now, European services such as you guys are our only hopes to remain part of the world as almost all U.S. services are now blocking us because of our nationality.
@arh @codeberg @ashimokawa Codeberg e.V. is the "eingetragener gemeinnütziger Verein" (~ registered non-profit association) in Germany, which means that we can retrieve donations & a yearly fee for registered members, which have certain benefits like voting rights or the possibility to get elected for various positions.
Due to us being non-profit, we can't really sell products or services, except under very strict restrictions.
@ashimokawa there is no cracking of technical protections. It just pulls the files via HTTP that would usually be pulled via the Madia Player. If the files employ DRM it won't work. You can see this with TVNow which has a mixture of protected and not protected videos and only the latter can be downloaded via YouTubeDL
I think the process of getting the obfuscated actual video URLs counts as protection for some.
1. the use of example URLs in the source code that lead to copyrighted works
2. RIAA trying to classify de-obfuscation of publicly-available URLs as a form of DRM circumvention.
@ashimokawa @shom @codeberg Neither can hold up in court -- even in the USA -- because they can't prove they own the URLs themselves and DRM requires some involvement of a private key in order to restrict usage since if everything is available to the public, it's considered public domain, not private.
At least, that's our understanding. We are also not a lawyer.
@KitsuneAlicia @ashimokawa @shom fwiw it held up in the Hamburg court they are presumably refering to (protection of obfuscated URL only, full text http://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/jportal/portal/page/bsharprod.psml?showdoccase=1&doc.id=JURE180006255&st=ent)
@codeberg Btw: which Hamburg court order do they talk about?
@datenschutzratgeber there were several, possibly 308 O 3/08
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!