Strategically / tactically, the most interesting aspect of the RIAA attack on youtube-dl to me is that it puts Microsoft on the spot to show its true colours. Is it Friend of Free Software, or Copyright Maximalist?
You're right, but anyone who expected anything but a reflexive takedown for a copyright request from a big corp hasn't been paying attention.
It's infinitely more convenient for these hosting corps to keel over to the first legal notice over third party content, and I think you'd gain more insight into behaviours looking at when they don't roll over vs when they do.
@polyphonic @dredmorbius there’s a way that DMCA works. the first notice, the site *has* to take the content down, regardless of its merits. then the content owner can dispute the notice as illegitimate, which in this case, it is since the code contains no copyrighted materials, and circumvention tools aren’t covered by the DMCA.
@dredmorbius well given that it isn’t a dmca notice and the prior distinctions. it’ll be interesting to see how microsoft responds.
though i will admit, i think the view of corporations ethical responsibilities being similar to individuals’ is naive- generally- not mentioning this as a specific criticism of anyone here.
corporations are sort of legally and ethically obliged to act like antisocial psychopaths, even when they’re made of reasonable ethical people
@zens This is precisely why the strategic aspect is so interesting.
I absolutely expect Microsoft to decide and act based on its assessment of long-term direct benefit. And that question, vis-a-vis copyright, and specifically 17 USC 1201 anti-circumvention, is very much in question.
Ethics plays a minor role.
@zens Incorrect. Safe-harbour provisions (512), which do not apply in this action (1201), would be lost in the specific action.
Q: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?
A: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.
It still seems to me github has nothing to gain by resisting, whether it's a technically legal stance they can take or not.
Microsoft does not benefit from taking a stand here. Companies only care about ethics when it helps them. This is exactly what anyone looking at history should expect.
@polyphonic Microsoft claim to have staked their future on Free Software.
How believable this is can be argued, of course.
The company paid $7.4 billion for GitHub in 2018, a $5.4 billion premium over the service's 2015 valuation.
@polyphonic I believe there've been corporate challenges, though I don't have reference to any offhand.
@dredmorbius Also interesting: Given they're now arguing that YouTube is DRM, did they need to get the W3C to standardize EME?
@dredmorbius Seeing them cite DMCA 1201 against YouTube downloaders which I can watch without using EME or other plugins, leaves me questioning where the lines are being drawn on what qualifies as DRM.
I guess this highlights that DRM is really a legal construct masquarading as a technological one!
@dredmorbius "Encrypted Media Extensions", it's a somewhat recent & controversial Recommendation from the W3C that allows websites to stream audio & video through non-standard "Content Decryption Modules" (DRM) like Google Widevine & Apple Fairplay.
On the internet, everyone knows you're a cat — and that's totally okay.