LWN: Comments on "The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl"

Copyright law

dannyobrien — Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:57:47 +0000

Though note that DMCA 1201-like provisions exist in most countries now: see our blog post "the Github youtube-dl takedown isn't just a problem of American law".

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

Cyberax — Wed, 18 Nov 2020 08:13:14 +0000

I seem to recall that there's such a project. What was the name... something like "dork"..?

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

flussence — Wed, 18 Nov 2020 07:43:46 +0000

Yeah, if only there were some blockchain-based DVCS created as a response to gatekeepers using legal threats to shut down the collaboration tools of a well-known project…

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

Lennie — Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:54:20 +0000

As mentioned I hope they settle on the same protocol and an official helper gets added to git binary distribution.

Copyright law

farnz — Mon, 16 Nov 2020 08:39:34 +0000

The key change AFAICT (and I'm not a lawyer, nor based in the USA, so take this with a pinch of salt) is that case law has established that you need to show that damage exists before you can choose between actual damages and statutory damages. Statutory damages exist in US law to cover the case where the actual damages are hard to establish (pirates don't keep the greatest records), and it was a stretch to have them cover cases where no actual damages existed.

Copyright law

himi — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 23:23:57 +0000

There were statutory damage rules involved somewhere that meant you could be liable for fines even if there was no evidence of actual harm - I can't recall if that was associated with the direct infringement or with contributory infringement, but it was definitely used to target people who were just seeding torrents, and I'm pretty sure there were cases early on where people had to invoke the first sale defence to avoid liability for breaking some of the dumb-arse CD copy protection schemes that existed. But one of the things that came out of the early court hearings on this stuff was case law that imposed more reasonable restrictions on liabilities if there was no commercial motive behind the infringement, which put a stop to a lot of the ridiculous behaviour by the record companies.

The current state of the law is quite significantly different to what it was back in the early 2000s, not because of amendments to the written law, but due to the build up of case law and precedent.

DVD anti-copying measures

geert — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 18:25:56 +0000

So my dm-crypted hard drive does not contain any movies, as the RIA* cannot play them?
Well played ;-)

DVD anti-copying measures

giraffedata — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:45:13 +0000

I think I could make a case that the content protected by copyright is the movie, not the bits. A copy of encrypted bits that can't be played is not a copy of a movie, so encryption is a device that prevents copying.

Sometimes engineers, with their view inside the machine, have a rather different perspective on copyright law than authors and copiers.

Copyright law - making copies for personal use

giraffedata — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:32:51 +0000

I stand corrected, and thank you for the correction.

You know, I read that Wikipedia article just before posting and between then and when I hit publish, I forgot the result of the case.

Good thing it does not disturb my main point, since the only reason that case went to the Supreme Court is that recording TV broadcasts generally isn't allowed.

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

Paf — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 16:07:58 +0000

Sorry, tzafrir mentioned the other forge services aspect.

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

Paf — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 16:07:02 +0000

The problem the blockchain solves is essentially distributed agreement on transactions with resistance to tampering *in the context of ongoing distributed agreement*, ie, further transactions and modifications from anywhere. I don’t think the security problems it solves are really of concern for a code repository - there’s a single authoritative version from somewhere, presumably, and a limited number of folks who can change it. Just sign or encrypt the thing being distributed.

In fact, if you don’t need to solve those specific security problems, blockchain is a shit way of distributing stuff - it has *massive* overhead vs a distributed protocol without “proof of work” (or proof of whatever you’d like). If your fundamental goal is to get *data* around in a trusted manner - rather than do distributed agreement type things - blockchain is not a good answer.

We know how to build distributed services, I think the problem is practicality and combining distributed service with ease of finding things and all the other stuff - as you mentioned - that a system like GitHub provides.

Copyright law

ceplm — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 15:32:47 +0000

> So what if I use program Z or Y to store it locally, play it backwards, invert the color or whatever I want, as long as I don't redistribute it?

You get sued as long as RIAA decides they don’t like you. And who has more money to pay lawyers, you or RIAA?

DVD anti-copying measures

nybble41 — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 06:12:55 +0000

> …what prevents you from making a usable copy of the content on a flash drive or whatever is the encryption.

The encryption doesn't prevent you from making a copy of the (still encrypted) content of the DVD on a flash drive. It only prevents you from playing the video from that copy, since it would need to be decrypted first. The only official, licensed systems that can decrypt the DVD content for playback will not accept encrypted input from a flash drive, only from commercial DVDs, so having a bit-for-bit copy of an encrypted DVD on a flash drive doesn't help. Still, CSS would be more accurately classified as protection against unauthorized *playback* rather than unauthorized *copying*.

Copyright law - making copies for personal use

Cyberax — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 05:48:36 +0000

> No, you cannot legally make a copy of a TV broadcast under US copyright law, even for personal use.
You absolutely can. Time-shifting was ruled legal by the SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting#History_in_th...

Copyright law - making copies for personal use

giraffedata — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 05:05:41 +0000

No, you cannot legally make a copy of a TV broadcast under US copyright law, even for personal use.

The "fair use" exception for making copies for personal use is for making an additional copy of something of which you already own a copy. It doesn't cover creating a copy from a public performance. (It wouldn't cover making a copy of a friend's DVD for your own personal use either).

A famous court case shortly after the invention of the home video recorder tested the limits of that restriction and resulted in a ruling that you can't record a TV program even if you're just going to watch it once the next day and then delete the copy.

DVD anti-copying measures

giraffedata — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 04:41:25 +0000

So that's what prevents making a physical copy, but what prevents you from making a usable copy of the content on a flash drive or whatever is the encryption. That's the technological measure you have to circumvent to make that kind of copy.

If the encryption just stopped you from playing the DVD, I don't think DMCA would have much to say about it.

What takes most people by surprise about DMCA is that if you circumvent the encryption just to play the DVD, not to copy it, you're still in violation of the DMCA, because you are circumventing a technological measure that also prevents copying.

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

pabs — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 03:02:09 +0000

Seems like there are multiple git remote-helper implementations for IPFS:

https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/git-remote-ipld
https://github.com/cryptix/git-remote-ipfs
https://github.com/monadic-xyz/ipfs
https://github.com/larsks/git-remote-ipfs

Some discussion of git on IPFS:

https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/git-on-ipfs-links-and-reference...

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

tzafrir — Sat, 14 Nov 2020 16:57:02 +0000

Is the problem a centralized repository (given how easy it is to recover using local copies) or other infrmation such as pull requests and bugs?

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

terminalnode — Sat, 14 Nov 2020 16:19:14 +0000

Not entirely sure how it works, what it's limitations are etc, but there is a token (on the ethereum chain I believe) called gitcoin.

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

ghorbanian — Sat, 14 Nov 2020 15:06:16 +0000

Has anyone looked into using block-chain to decentralize code repositories?

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

k8to — Sat, 14 Nov 2020 14:54:05 +0000

Someone committted the entire sourcecode to the DMCA project via a bug that github has refused to fix as a form of protest of both parts.

The RIAA, GitHub, and youtube-dl

Lennie — Sat, 14 Nov 2020 13:59:35 +0000

Some IPFS options also exist.

https://radicle.xyz/ is the most advanced is my guess.

I hope those get developed further.

My guess is we need good protocols on how to do storage on IPFS for git data, possibly part of regular git program long term.

Copyright law

ldearquer — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 22:37:34 +0000

> I was saying, I always thought the copyright law is all about distributing copies. Once you have an original, you can *not* > make copies and distribute them. But you can make (private) copies and keep them for yourself (for your car, etc).

s/copyright law/status quo of copyright law plus applicable private copies exeptions (existent in most jurisdictions)/

Copyright law

Wol — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:04:55 +0000

It's not "further restrictions imposed by the DMCA". The default position of copyright law is you cannot make any copies full stop. Not for personal use. Not for backups. Not even temporary copies required to run programs.

That's why things like software licences appeared - so people could legally run their programs. And all the exemptions about personal copies.

The DMCA was an attempt to criminalise what was already illegal - making unauthorised copies of commercial DVDs. (Made all the more complicated by the American concept of "fair use" and people saying "making backups is fair use".)

Cheers,
Wol

Copyright law

jem — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 17:07:29 +0000

I'm not German, but this Wikipedia article lists surcharges on DVD media, external hard drives, MP3 players, PCs, Mobile phones, set-top boxes, scanners and printers, etc.

This is a bureaucratic system, and unfair to users which don't use these products for storing copyrighted material. The system also doesn't make sense with dwindling prices per gigabyte on external media. If the charge is ~2 cents per gigabyte for CD-R, then, for the same price per byte, it ought to be 200 € for a 10 TB hard drive. How about 20000 € for some future 1 PB media? Should cloud storage also be affected?

The same system was also used in Finland until the end of 2014, at which point it was abandoned completely.

Copyright law

anselm — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:48:44 +0000

AFAIR the GEMA surcharge on CD-ROM media applied to “audio-quality” CD-ROM blanks (which are otherwise identical to standard CD-ROM blanks). I don't think anyone uses these any longer.

Historically, CD-ROM blanks were not exclusively used for copyrighted music – when the idea was new, CD-ROMs were popular as backup media, for sharing family photographs with relatives or sending them off to be printed, etc., and people reasonably objected to having to pay GEMA for the privilege of storing their own stuff on their own CD-ROM blanks.

Copyright law

ldearquer — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:18:01 +0000

> What do you mean by "redistributing". The exception in English law says you can have copies AS LONG AS YOU ALSO HAVE THE ORIGINAL.

That was my whole point. I see I failed to word it properly :)

I was saying, I always thought the copyright law is all about distributing copies. Once you have an original, you can *not* make copies and distribute them. But you can make (private) copies and keep them for yourself (for your car, etc).

So, you can make copies, but not distribute them

So I thought youtube-dl use was OK as long as I don't make copies and distribute them. Because I was not aware of further restrictions imposed by DCMA.

Copyright law

anton — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:54:54 +0000

The surcharge is reality, and we also pay it on hard disks, printers and probably many other things. And your GEMA and our AKM gets the money (based on the theory that they represent all the authors, artists, etc.) and distributes some of it to its members.

Copyright law

anselm — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:56:34 +0000

To me, "redistribution" means giving copies to friends etc. They don't have the original (I do), so those copies are illegal!

Here in Germany we get to give an (unspecified) limited number of copies of music CDs we own to friends and family (not random strangers). In theory there's a surcharge on CD-ROM burners and blanks that is distributed to the artists, composers, music publishers etc. as compensation.

Copyright law

Cyberax — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:56:13 +0000

It's not quite as simple. RIAA can sue individuals who break CSS to watch DVDs. But it's likely to be tossed out with prejudice, since RIAA won't be able to show any damages.

What they _can_ do is suing the software publisher that created the tools to work around CSS.

Copyright law

Wol — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:20:30 +0000

What do you mean by "redistributing". The exception in English law says you can have copies AS LONG AS YOU ALSO HAVE THE ORIGINAL.

To me, "redistribution" means giving copies to friends etc. They don't have the original (I do), so those copies are illegal!

If I have both the original and the copies (the only legal possibility), then that's not redistribution! And if I give the original away, I have to destroy the copies as they are no longer legal.

Cheers,
Wol

Copyright law

himi — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 22:55:06 +0000

There are lots of things you can get away with if no one realises you're doing them, and there are things you can get away with if no one cares because it has no impact on the rest of the world. The specific provisions of the DMCA (and the conventions that they implement) are targeted at cases where the vendor has tried to stop you from doing things via some technical mechanism, but you've worked around that restraint - it gives the technical mechanism implemented by the vendor the force of law, even if no one ever knows that you're doing it, let alone it having an impact on the rest of the world. You still have the protection of obscurity - if no one ever knows you did it they can't do anything about it. But if the technical mechanism you're circumventing includes a phone-home provision then you're screwed even then.

As the experience with CSS on DVDs demonstrates, it doesn't even have to be an effective mechanism, and it doesn't have to give any consideration to other parts of copyright law which might make it entirely legal to work around the mechanism - basically, they can take you to court and demand large sums of money (based on penalties intended to deter commercial pirates), and you then have to make a positive case to justify your particular personal use case.

Copyright law

ldearquer — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 22:16:46 +0000

> The DMCA criminalizes this if you are circumventing access controls

OK, that explains a lot to an ignorant folk like myself.

Does it mean, in US, it is not legal to - just saying - record with a camera whatever is being played on your own TV set, on your own home, through your paid subscription or whatever, to keep a copy for yourself?

To me it sounds like forbidding nose picking :)

Copyright law

ldearquer — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 22:07:19 +0000

If the law incorporates an exception for private copies, it is pretty much all about redistributing.
Granted this exception may not be common across jurisdictions.

Copyright law

mathstuf — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 21:01:24 +0000

> The "unread comments" page does rather hide context ... :-(

There is an option (which I use) to include the parent comment of any new comment thread for at least some context.

Copyright law

nybble41 — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:57:11 +0000

It's not that the commercial DVDs are uncopyable so much as the blank, writable DVDs lack the specific storage region needed for the CSS keys. As such, you can't burn an encrypted DVD image to regular retail DVDs (such that the resulting DVD can be played back) regardless of where it came from—that includes not only copies of commercial discs but even ones you created yourself. The anti-copying measure isn't actually in the commercial discs but rather in the blanks. It doesn't prevent anyone from extracting a bit-for-bit image of an encrypted DVD, but that doesn't do you any good unless you have the industrial equipment necessary to produce discs with the CSS keys included.

Copyright law

Wol — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:29:30 +0000

That may be true. But the OP I was replying to said copyright law was not about copying ... ??? (And I did quote him, didn't I?)

And I did say *I* couldn't copy a CD ... :-)

The "unread comments" page does rather hide context ... :-(

Cheers,
Wol

Copyright law

rsidd — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:22:42 +0000

True, laws differ across jurisdictions. This is about an American law (DMCA) and American companies/associations (RIAA, Google/Youtube, Microsoft/Github).

Copyright law

Wol — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:28:13 +0000

No :-(

They mess about with a lot of stuff, and commercial DVDs won't copy - I've tried.

Cheers,
Wol

Copyright law

Wol — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:26:40 +0000

The RIAA has no jurisdiction over copyright law. And it doesn't apply here either (hint - the second A stands for America - a *foreign* country).

Until Parliament legally sanctioned copying that sort of stuff for personal purposes, it was illegal. "fair use" is something that doesn't exist in Berne, so that was no use ...

Cheers,
Wol