Read on Twitter
Holy cow, the RIAA has gotten youtube-dl taken off Github. DMCA notice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md
I should say: Github has categorized the RIAA letter as a DMCA notice, but it's not really — that term generally describes communications sent pursuant to §512. This letter is about the §1201, the controversial anticircumvention rules.
The closest example to this RIAA/youtube-dl letter is the one MPAA sent Github to try to shut down Popcorn Time back in 2014. That one cited §512, but relied under the hood on a fairly extraordinary tertiary liability theory https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140711/18044627859/mpaa-stretches-dmca-to-breaking-point-with-questionable-take-down-request-popcorn-time-repositories.shtml
As anyone who has used youtube-dl knows, it is an extremely powerful and useful tool for format-shifting. It's super popular among archivists and has incredibly broad fair use applications. The RIAA stance here is pretty aggressive and out there.
This is a good explanation of the effective difference between a DMCA notice and what the RIAA sent https://twitter.com/bergmayer/status/1319729582329790465
This portion of the letter is dressed up like it's a DMCA notice, but that's sleight of hand. The "activity" that RIAA is claiming is unauthorized is hypothetical. And if a rightsholder were to authorize copying, that copying would (obviously) be authorized.
And this portion gets wacky. Anything that downloads Youtube videos is, per the RIAA, de facto infringing, independent of the intended use or (!!!) the underlying content.
Keep in mind that Youtube has long allowed creators to expressly offer their videos under Creative Commons licenses. Not that the RIAA cares, but tools like youtube-dl are how those licenses actually work
To say nothing of projects like FedFlix, @carlmalamud's effort to add public domain US government videos to YouTube. 217k followers and 78 million views, entirely public domain. Can't imagine how this figures into RIAA's legal analysis
This is the pernicious logic of §1201. Under “regular” copyright, RIAA would have to clear the low bar of showing copying and overcoming arguments like fair use. But with §1201, it can just say: the material was “wrapped” so circumvention is infringement. https://twitter.com/lawconflicts/status/1319745844481085441
I've written a full thread on how this isn't quite a DMCA notice, and why Github might've chosen to take down (and how it could leave down) the youtube-dl repos https://twitter.com/xor/status/1319755776043384838
One important consequence of this not being a proper "takedown" is that the "counter notice" procedures might not apply, strictly speaking. Of course, you could still have some kind of formal response from the developers, but it's a little different.
this was a good point, 2014 me https://twitter.com/xor/status/501212628979441666
