Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by molmalo 2057 days ago
I was thinking the same thing: The next step following this line of thinking would be trying to ban all torrent clients, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted material.

This is crazy.

9 comments

Why stop with torrent clients? They should ban all browsers, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted materials!
Browsers?

We need to ban radios with tape decks and TVs with VCRs! The audio cassette and the VHS are bringing the downfall of the music industry with how easily they can be used to create unauthorized copies!

Oh wait.

i love how dead kennedys literally left one of their cassette tapes sides blank and printed "Home taping is killing record industry profits! We left this side blank so you can help." on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust,_Inc.#Artwork_...

Thanks for the throwback
I realize you're being sarcastic but with a line of logic like that, you have a bright career in Congress, should you want it.
Well, following their logic behind DMCA compliant, I guess fiddling long enough with developer's console on Chrome or Firefox would allow you to download potentially copyrighted material from youtube the same way youtube-dl does.

sed s/youtube-dl/firefox/g and voilà, DMCA for Firefox ready to submit...

Let's go further! Let's DMCA the Linux kernel because it runs Firefox/youtube-dl/curl/wget!

The logic behind the DMCA complaint is that youtube-dl is “marketed … for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted] work” [1], not that it “allows you to download potentially copyrighted material from youtube.”

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

But it wasn't. This was just a unit test.
A unit test is an example of how the program is intended to run. It's the intention.
The hell it isn't. A unit test is a bench test for one particular functional unit. It's a check function. If you accept that tests as carrying intent, then I demand every weapons researcher or biologist to be arrested this instant. Clearly they are only out to murder people. That is patently ludicrous.
No, it's not.

A unit test is there to allow the developers to test whether the program is producing expected output from certain inputs.

It doesn't demonstrate that it's intended for circumventing copyright.

They just picked examples to use for in test cases.

The Linux kernel does not have "youtube" in its name–it isn't advertised as a way to download videos.
So if youtube-dl had a different name it'd be ok?
I'm not a lawyer, and even if it was I could never tell you that anything would be "ok" in this kind of situation. But I suspect that it would be better off.
> Why stop with torrent clients? They should ban all browsers, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted materials!

We're talking about an industry that normalized rootkit DRM and persuaded pretty much all hardware manufacturers to implement expensive encrypted pipelines to lock you out from trying to even take a glimpse of content playing.

After a few years of working near this industry I really cannot overestimate how rentseeking and scummy every single part of it is. They will abuse you without a second thought if there's a cent to be made.

All computers with the option to install applications or unlocked/unlockable bootloaders can be used to make copies of copyrighted materials. And it certainly happens a lot.

But then, when secure boot came, Microsoft was forced to grant every owner of an Intel compatible computer the right to unlock it for antitrust reasons (luckily).

So were is the borderline between a legal tool and an illegal tool? Well, lawyers will find out...

In the meantime youtube-dl needs to be distributed some other channel. Which of course might raise the risk of back-doored or otherwise poisoned version floating around.

Why stop with browsers? With enough creativity you can use any network protocol to download copyrighted material, so they should just ban computer networks.
Because the law doesn't take kindly to "well, technically" arguments.
So what does it mean when someone says "he got off on a technicality"?

There have been plenty of cases where exactly that happened.

There's the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, and many are persuaded that when someone hasn't violated the letter of the law, they haven't violated the law.

Judges, lawyers, and juries will vary on this, but in many cases the letter of the law will carry the day, and people will in fact "get off on a technicality".

Because browsers and network protocols were not created with the primary purpose of violating copyrights...

Intent matters in the law.

After after all, two guns can be physically and functionally identical, but if one is purchased to be used in a conspiracy to commit murder then it's evidence of a crime, and the other gun is still just a gun.

Any input or output device
No joke -- if they could get the legislation signed into law they would be thrilled.

They could care less about side-effects and collateral consequences for adjacent technologies and use cases.

They would prefer it if you only used DRM input and output devices that only run approved code rather than general purpose devices that can run any code you can conceive of or download [1]

[1] "The Coming War on General Purpose Computation" https://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-...

Another abuse of DMCA on the frontpage earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24867212

Indian startup taking down dissent, whistle blowers and leaks using take down requests to youtube and social media.

Same for any kind of information exchange, like speech or the written word. Common sense says their argument doesn't hold water at all. Should courts decide in favor of the takedown that'd just go to show how broken our legal system is. Let's hope not.
And you don't even need a browser for that. Your operating system comes with TCP support and that in itself is enough. (OK, some of them may probably be willing to build in all kinds of restrictions, so maybe they can get a RIAA stamp.)
Let's just ban internet protocol, while at it. :)

On a bit more serious note I wonder how much internet traffic is used for "illegal" purposes?

Why stop with browsers? They should ban all computers, because they CAN be used to download and play copyrighted materials!
We need to ban oxygen. It CAN be used to download copyrighted materials!
>we need to ban boron/phosphorus

FTFY

I think we should just replace all humans with an Ethereum smart contract. No humans, violation of law.
The next step following this line of thinking would be trying to ban all torrent clients, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted material

Didn't the RIAA put up a considerable effort against torrenting in the early 2000's? I remember quite vividly them going after just about anyone who made music available, even if you owned your own songs and were simply uploading them to a web UI to listen to in the browser (Remember Muxtape?)

Hush, don't leak their master plan! Of course they'd love to just ban about anything that can potentially be used to commit copyright infringement. Of course that includes your web browser, too. Unless it can only visit a list of websites pre-approved by RIAA ;)
Why not just ban computers or even why not jail people who even think about using ytdl? These organisations like RIAA need reality check. Sadly there is no body to stand against their bullying and stiffling the freedom of speech.
EFF takes up these causes sometimes, right? This notice is hollow sabre-rattling, so I wouldn’t worry too much. What can RIAA do if somebody forks the project and hosts it in the Lithuania? Not much. Yell into a pillow, maybe.
youtube-dl needs to be regularly updated as streaming sites add new countermeasures to block it. If those updates can no longer be crowdsourced from a popular, reputable site like GitHub, the tool has a good chance of dying.
This is the crux of it; finding something that is both DMCA-proof and trustworthy/reputable enough to allow auto-updating will be a huge barrier :(
The RIAA would absolutely ban all torrent clients if they could. If one advertises itself as a way to download copyrighted material, they would try to pull the exact same thing.
What about chromium? They should take that down as well, imagine what children can see using that thing. `curl`, `wget` as well as gitlab - massive offender, random number generators - one of the biggest offenders, any worst nightmare you can imagine can be produced by it!
And don't forget the evil math people can use to hide their illegal content!
Well, we (Lithuania) have a law that works along these lines. When you buy any storage device a part of the price is a tax that goes to IP protection agency. The reasoning is exactly that: because you may store some pirated music or whatever on it. How was this bs passed I have no idea.
This happens in Spain as well. About how did it pass, I assume it's because lobbying.
Now that 4chan is behind bars, it's time to sue the Internet!
Nope, just to sue "the hacker known as 4 Chan".
Yes, would be messed up given the state of play upon gun laws.