Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Rochus 2058 days ago
The presumption that anyone in some test has accessed material on youtube that might not be allowed to be downloaded in the USA does not justify the removal of the project's repositories, as it was done with the support of Github.

EDIT: If this were legal, any communications program that was used for a disputable action once (so each browser), could be closed off from the public as well.
1 comments
gamblor956 2058 days ago
If this were legal, any communications program that was used for a disputable action once (so each browser), could be closed off from the public as well.

No, because that's not the test under 1201. The test is whether the tool is designed and/or offered for the purpose of circumventing copyright. If it's designed for other purposes but can incidentally circumvent copyright, that's fine. (For example: calibre is designed to organize ebook libraries, and offers itself for that purpose. They make no mention of the separate plugins that can be used to crack Amazon DRM.)

link
Rochus 2058 days ago
> The test is whether the tool is designed and/or offered for the purpose of circumventing copyright

It is not more designed and/or offered for this purpose than any other communication tool. At least I didn't see an evidence. The fact that it could be used is not sufficient. The goal of the whole exercise was probably more to set an example and to intimidate people a bit.

EDIT: That is probably why they called in the RIAA, which is quite peculiar. The RIAA is no copyright collective, is it?

link
gamblor956 2058 days ago
It's literally designed to download content from sites that don't allow downloads. It's not even remotely the same thing as a browser or other communication tool.

I don't understand the RIAA bit.

link
Rochus 2058 days ago
> It's literally designed to download content from sites that don't allow downloads

That's not per se illegal. First there are countries where it is not illegal to download copyright protected content for personal use. Second even in countries where this was illegal (but where it is by no means clear what the difference between "download in the browser" and "download in another tool" should be) Youtube contains content which is CC-BY licensed (see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/user/RochusKeller) which can be legally downloaded and used.

> I don't understand the RIAA bit.

RIAA is no copyright collective (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_collection_s...), but just an industry organization. In order to be able to represent the rights of the IP owners in court or in actions like the present one, the organization needs appropriate powers of attorney. This must also be provided for in the statutes. This is not the same as lobbying. If I was a representative of the other party, the first thing I would doubt is that.

link
boomboomsubban 2058 days ago
>It's literally designed to download content from sites that don't allow downloads.

Any video you watch requires you to download it, the only difference from a browser is how it stores the file. And section 1201 does not outlaw tools used for circumventing copyright, it outlaws tools used to circumvent copyright protection.

link
feanaro 2057 days ago
> It's literally designed to download content from sites that don't allow downloads.

You can't simultaneously offer a video for people to watch and still "not allow downloads". What you actually mean is that they do not explicitly offer a downloading feature. That's true, but that's what the tool is for and it's not in itself illegal.

link