[megous]

> The case is more nuanced than it looks from the outset. In this case YTDL is executed on the provider's premise not on the users machines. So you are not distributing a tool, you are providing a service that scrapes videos from YouTube.

So the rule is that you can't (as a user of Kapwing) use a computer you don't own (and are just renting in some capacity) to download your own videos? Or to download videos for "fair use" use cases?

I mean who cares where the software runs?

[DanBC]

> So the rule is that you can't use a computer you don't own (and are just renting in some capacity) to download your own videos? Or to download videos for "fair use" use cases?

One of the (many) reasons the DMCA is bad is because it makes using your existing rights harder. You've mentioned "fair use" here. But the submitted article is talking about:

> (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

> (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

You can't use your right to fair use if the IP holder has implemented an access control, because the DMCA makes circumventing an access control unlawful.

The fact that the IP industry was able to implement a law that interferes with free speech shows how out of control they are.

[megous]

Sad. Who decides which law has priority though, when the laws are in conflict?

Apparently http clients are not banned by this law even though they are necessarily "part of a product" that is designed to circumvent protection,... And they are the main thing doing the actual copying. This law is still not achieving it's full potential. :D

In the same vein, there's conflict between exceptions offered by one law (fair use), and bans by this same law (software to exercise this right).

I guess the courts decide, but in practice courts don't run around looking for conflicts in laws to decide on their own, to make laws more followable by normal people, but they just decide cases brought forward by seomeone. And that someone is usually someone who benefits the most out of some particular outcome, and is thus able to pay for the case.

The whole system seems a bit prejudiced in how it works.