Court Rules That Ripping YouTube Clips Can Violate the DMCA (torrentfreak.com)
- Reference: 0180736646
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/02/05/1924252/court-rules-that-ripping-youtube-clips-can-violate-the-dmca
- Source link: https://torrentfreak.com/ripping-clips-for-youtube-reaction-videos-can-violate-the-dmca-court-rules/
U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss in Cordova v. Huneault, a creator-versus-creator dispute, finding that YouTube's "rolling cipher" technology qualifies as an access control measure under section 1201(a) even though the underlying videos are freely viewable by the public. The distinction matters because it separates the act of watching a video from the act of downloading it.
The defense had argued that no ripping tools were actually used and that screen recording could account for the copied footage. Judge DeMarchi allowed the claim to proceed to discovery regardless, noting that the plaintiff had adequately pled the circumvention allegation. The ruling opens a legal avenue beyond standard copyright infringement for creators who want to go after rivals. Reaction channels have long leaned on fair use as a blanket defense, but plaintiff's attorney Randall S. Newman told TorrentFreak that circumventing copy protections under section 1201 is a separate violation unaffected by any fair use finding.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/ripping-clips-for-youtube-reaction-videos-can-violate-the-dmca-court-rules/
The court DIDN'T rule (Score:5, Informative)
This was not the outcome of a case, merely a judge deciding not to grant the defense's request for a dismissal. Sure, there's the remote possibility that the defendant could lose this case from the DMCA angle, because [1]fair use under the DMCA is kind of a mess. [eff.org]
It's important to point out that "fair use" has never been a trump card you can play to have a copyright lawsuit immediately dismissed - it is only a legally defensible position. It only feels like fair use offers a shield of protection, because most of the time rightsholders don't want to waste money fighting a legal battle they aren't likely to win. But, when you've got a stubborn YouTube content creator with an axe to grind and the money to pay their lawyer(s), the court is unfortunately going to have to go through the entire process of legal wrangling before they get to the point of determining that it was in fact, fair use.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/what-really-does-and-doesnt-work-fair-use-dmca
Re: The court DIDN'T rule (Score:2)
Exactly this. I'm not sure whether " mountain out of a molehill" or "tempest in a teapot" is a more appropriate description of this article on torrentfreak. Defense tried the "nothing to see here, move along" motion and the judge wasn't buying it.
"Can" is the operative word (Score:3)
All the judge has ruled is that the claims can proceed to the next steps of litigation. No decision as to whether any violation has actually occurred has been made. Such motions to dismiss the case is standard pretrial practice (and such motions are typically denied, as the judges prefer to rule on the merits of the case). So nothing to see here, move along.
Why is this different (Score:2)
than using a VCR to record television. That was deemed legal like 40 years ago, right?
Re: Why is this different (Score:3)
It depends. Were you recording the game without the express written permission of the NFL?
Re: Why is this different (Score:2)
cause the additional "on the internet" changes everything.
Re: (Score:1)
Back then they at least pretended that laws mattered to corporations and rich people. Today they don't bother hiding because fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?
Re:Why is this different (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. However the social construct of laws has fallen apart. Laws are only for little people. It's a free for all if you're rich or powerful.
Re: (Score:3)
This is actually one YouTube content creator suing another. As far as the standards of rich and powerful go, they're probably pretty low on the totem pole.
Re: (Score:2)
I presume back in the day you weren't re-uploading your VHS tapes to YouTube with your face in the corner making commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
> I presume back in the day you weren't re-uploading your VHS tapes to YouTube with your face in the corner making commentary.
No, but I replayed them at porno theaters, which served as a kind of porn hub.
Re: Why is this different (Score:2)
If you published your VHS recordings, you'd be in trouble. Exactly same here.
Re: (Score:1)
because you recorded it for your own use, you didnt make 100,000 copies and share them with everyone/
Cory Doctorow was right (Score:2)
Even though this is still very preliminary, I think it reaffirms Cory Doctorow's position that countries should repeal the DMCA-like laws that they were strong-armed into passing by the US government (which itself was bought and paid for by US corporations.)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I hate most reaction channels. Apart from a select few, most don't add anything of value and they probably divert traffic away from the original videos. So meh... no good players here.
This means you must know the chain of custody... (Score:2)
if you can't just record your own screen which requires no circumvention -- because in the past the data was encrypted -- that means to use anything anywhere ever you must know if it had previously been encrypted.
This is such bullshit.
"You can have it, you just can't obtain it" is such a bad idea to ever have in law.
Make it fair (Score:2)
Meanwhile the DMCA has a perjury clause that is completely unenforced, heavily favouring abusive automated takedown notices and penalising those who are operating under legal fair use. The courts are a joke on this.
This will not greatly impact this sort of content (Score:2)
Not being able to download the video to insert into your commentary doesn't prevent you from simply playing the video segments while recording your commentary. Harder to get properly timed edits, but it's more of a hassle than a blocker.
And of course, the court hasn't even ruled on this yet, so it might be moot.
This is flawed (Score:1)
This won't hold as long as the attys keep getting paid. Not news
more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score:3, Informative)
courts should probably get on the business of learning what computers are and what they can do, rather than continuing to be great lumbering dinosaurs holding back progress
guess what morons, the basic functions of a computer do render all your greedy models obsolete
imagine the society we could have if we could only get the legal system to stop protecting cartels and monopolies and aspiring (and in some cases ongoing) criminals
Re: more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score:2, Troll)
Courts are here to serve the interests of capitalism. Anyone who disagrees is a communist. What we need is a new generation of [1]Boy Spies of America [wikipedia.org] to root out treasonous behavior online.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Spies_of_America
Re: (Score:3)
> Courts are here to serve the interests of capitalism.
This is actually how copyright disputes work. For example, even though GPL software is freely available online, it is still possible to violate the GPL [1]and get sued by the GPL foundation [fsf.org], because it is a license enforceable under copyright law.
In this case, the defendant took someone else's content and used it for what they claim are fair use purposes. The fact that it was freely available on the internet is, as much as it may come as a shock to some people, irrelevant. You can still get sued for that an
[1] https://www.fsf.org/news/2008-12-cisco-suit
Re: more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards no (Score:2)
DMCA isn't copyright law even if it has the word copyright in it, it is it's own animal that ignores the long established practices of fair use and transformative works.
Re: (Score:2)
Per TFA, the plaintiff claims that the defendant used circumvention technology to download the stream. The defendant claims they didn't -- they just used screen-capture.
Yes, the plaintiff's claim is based on copyright infringement, but through a violation of the DMCA, not through use of their content. I think the case will hinge on whether the plaintiff can prove this.
There is such a thing as fair use, and this case really doesn't have anything to do with it. Why? Because the plaintiff is not suing the usag
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're confusing capitalism with fascism. But hopefully you're actually being sarcastic.
Re:more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score:5, Insightful)
Courts interpret laws they don't write them. The DMCA is clear. And it's clearly one of the worst laws this country has passed in probably a century. The problem is not the judicial branch it's the legislative.
Re: (Score:2)
> The DMCA is clear.
But is it clear that the defendant violated the DMCA? I predict the plaintiff will be unable to demonstrate this. The defendant has already denied doing so.
We'll see what discovery turns up.