[neuronflux]

Assuming the content is public, why would they need a subpoena?

[chordalkeyboard]

you mean "because they could just use youtube-dl to download it?" I think that's why we are arguing that ytdl is a tool with legal and moral purposes and should remain accessible.

[echelon]

Is availability on a locked, walled garden "public"?

I think we can tell what the RIAA thinks about that.

[JAlexoid]

RIAA doesn't dispute that it's public.

Being public doesn't mean publicly owned. It means publicly accessible... Like your local shopping mall.

[cheeze]

Because the RIAA has shown that this specific tool can't be 'public'.

If we have to play by those rules, LEO should too. Boo hoo if it's harder.

[bonoboTP]

> RIAA has shown

They haven't shown anything. They made a claim. We'll know what rules we have to play by if it comes to a court ruling.

[cheeze]

I mean, GitHub took it down, no?

[feanaro]

Why would that have any bearing on the validity and legality of RIAA's logic?

[inqb]

You can claim anything, too. GitHub only checks if the Takedown is valid in format with necessary information provided.

[bonoboTP]

Has someone abused this to harass big-name Github projects with takedown notices?

[ekianjo]

They follow the DMCA process.

[efreak]

The RIAA isn't part of the government.

[feanaro]

What if this tool remains public in a different part of the world? Are you going to wall off from the rest of the world so you can no longer see the tool and pretend it doesn't exist?