Court Rules That Ripping YouTube Clips Can Violate the DMCA (torrentfreak.com) 87
A federal court in California has ruled that YouTube creators who use stream-ripping tools to download clips for reaction and commentary videos may face liability under the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions -- a decision that could reshape how one of the platform's most popular content genres operates.
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.
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.
more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score:4, Insightful)
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:1, Troll)
Courts are here to serve the interests of capitalism. Anyone who disagrees is a communist. What we need is a new generation of Boy Spies of America [wikipedia.org] to root out treasonous behavior online.
Re: more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score:4, Insightful)
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 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 and the trial is specifically for determining if the rightsholder's rights were violated.
Don't want the potential of facing a copyright lawsuit? Make original content. YouTube explains this quite clearly: [youtube.com]
Creators should only upload videos that they have made or that they have permission to use. That means no one should upload videos they didn't make, or use content in their videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other Creators without permission.
As much as copyright laws could stand a bit of reform, the idea that someone can just copy your work wholesale and then fart at the end and claim it was their critique, is precisely why "fair use" is only a legally defensible position - not a loophole that lets you claim anyone else's content as your own with minimal effort.
Re: more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards no (Score:3)
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)
It directly acknowledges that it doesn't curtail fair use rights, however- it makes it illegal for you to exercise them if the work in question has DRM attached to it.
So under the DMCA, you have the right to fair use... but it's illegal if you use them in some cases.
It really is a stupid fucking law.
Re: more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score:5, Insightful)
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 usage, just the manner in which they believe the content was acquired.
is cusco's starlink down..? (Score:1)
it's even more nuanced than that.
the law will possible have to decide whether screen capture is itself a circumvention technology...
Could be an interesting precedent either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the plaintiff is not suing the usage, just the manner in which they believe the content was acquired.
On a philosophical point of view, can you address one without considering the other? It's an interesting thought experiment, if you lock down the playback behind the DMCA effectively fair use disappears for all content that isn't physically acquired.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be saying that all viewing is equivalent to downloading.
While that is true, the downloading is done via sanctioned methods.
Here's another thought experiment for you: If you just point a video camera at the screen along with your own eyes, is the recording camera somehow illegal while your brain is not? Also, what if you posted the captured, unaltered, video obtained through viewing back to YouTube? Would it then be illegal for the viewed content to be "downloaded" by the original creator? Could
Re: (Score:2)
17 USC 1201 explicitly states that light "received through a camera lens" is not circumvention [or at least a specific type of circumvention].
Re: more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards no (Score:2)
DMCA was always a loophole around copyright law. It was sold to stop people from selling circumvention methods. But really it is more often used against individuals where existing copyright law wasn't broad enough to apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use is not even in question in this litigation.
The DMCA makes circumvention of DRM technologies illegal. Even if you have a fair use- it is still illegal to, for example, break some encrypted DRM that controls its playback.
i.e., the DMCA essentially makes it possible for someone to curtail your effective fair use rights, and make it illegal for you to reclaim them.
If the content can be acquired without breaking any circumvention method (i.e., for example- a screen cap),
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards no (Score:2)
I'm not sure what fascism has to do with this??
Police exist to protect property. Courts exist to confirm the rights of a property holder. Modern contract law spawned from a need of joint ventures to raise money and limit liability. Such as when English business men hired ships to deliver raw materials from the Colonies and return manufactured goods from Great Britain. The source of our modern government and legal system is tied to the foundations of capitalism, an it's been that way for centuries, and shoul
Re:more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The complaints in the FAC allege they fraudulently failed counter-claims, and believe that they can call anything they want fair-use and bully the rightsholder into dropping the claim.
That alone presents several violations of the DMCA that have nothing to do with infringing on the copyright.
Their response to the FAC can be summarized as:
Nuh uh.
Nuh uh.
Nuh uh.
Get fucked.
Nuh uh.
The Judge, in denying the motion dismiss the S.1201 claims had to weigh a large detai
Re: (Score:3)
No, I think you are mistaken, but only due to a funny nuance in DMCA. The copyright owners do have standing (even though they didn't apply the DRM) and Youtube (who did apply the DRM) arguably doesn't!
Behold the legendary 1201(a)(3), where there are a pair of extremely unintuitive definitions, emphasis mine:
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically what the court said.
All that's happened is a motion for preliminary dismissal was rejected. This happens at the beginning of basically every court case - the plaintiff files a complaint, the defendant files an answer, and the defendant also files a motion to dismiss saying "this isn't worth the court's t
Re: (Score:2)
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
Courts generally should not rule until they hear both sides especially when facts are in dispute. In this specific case there is a dispute as to whether the defendants downloaded the videos using third party tools (which is a DMCA violation) or they live streamed the videos (which is not a violation). In situations where facts are in dispute, the court must determine the facts unless both parties agree on the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you don't know what the DMCA is without telling us. The DMCA was created explicitly for this purpose, to allow technology to become a legal way of hamstringing legitimate "free use" of copyrighted material. Instead of arguing the merits of the use itself, they get to claim you illegally circumvented a protection mechanism to obtain the materials. Unfortunately the court's ruling is correct both technically and as to the spirit of the law, so no this ruling does not mean that they need to "learn wh
Re: (Score:1)
So society is harmed by monopolistic practices of copyright holders and most of the rightful holders aren't even the original creators.
The question of whether the current copyright duration is reasonable sparks ongoing debate. Proponents argue longer terms incentivize creators and protect rights holders, while critics highlight the limitations they impose on public access and innovation. Striking a balance between rewarding creators and promoting the public interest remains a complex challenge, considering
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 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.
Re: The court DIDN'T rule (Score:2)
"Can" is the operative word (Score:3)
Why is this different (Score:3)
Re: Why is this different (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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:Why is this different (Score:4, Informative)
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:Why is this different (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: Why is this different (Score:3)
If you published your VHS recordings, you'd be in trouble. Exactly same here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Look forward to this judge's opinion getting slapped down, even if Google tries to throw their weight behind it. (The news media won't stand for it, and they'll be more than happy to take
Re: (Score:2)
The judge here is an idiot.
No. You are ignorant.
S.1201 very clearly makes anti-circumvention a crime regardless of fair-use. See DeCSS, Sony's case against George Hotz, etc.
The problem with this world is that people like you are too stupid to realize shit you read on some fucking blog is just some dumbfuck's opinion.
First Amendment requires fair use (Score:2)
S.1201 very clearly makes anti-circumvention a crime regardless of fair-use. See DeCSS, Sony's case against George Hotz, etc.
The Supreme Court ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) that the fair use defense makes the copyright statute compatible with the First Amendment. If some part of the copyright statute prohibits someone from exercising fair use with respect to a particular work, that's likely to invite more First Amendment scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) that the fair use defense makes the copyright statute compatible with the First Amendment.
Yes. This was a very obvious outcome, even if there were 2 dissenters.
If some part of the copyright statute prohibits someone from exercising fair use with respect to a particular work, that's likely to invite more First Amendment scrutiny.
Agreed. However, a claim of fair use does not imply a first amendment claim.
Radio stations would love it if it did, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use would disagree. What's being challenged here is the ability to download a file from youtube, which has fair use considerations. (Ripping a clip for reporting / transformative purposes.) The judge here is an idiot. He may as well go tell the local news that they can't reuse footage from others in their reporting.
Specifically in this case, the issue is if downloading was done using unauthorized third party tools. Legally speaking both parties disagree whether that happened. Also the judge did not issue a final decision; the judge ruled that there are enough issues for the case proceed by not dismissing the case.
Look forward to this judge's opinion getting slapped down, even if Google tries to throw their weight behind it. (The news media won't stand for it, and they'll be more than happy to take this to the Supreme Court. I'd imagine the EFF will want in too.).
There have been no opinion issued thus nothing can be slapped down. Again the court only decided that there are enough issues for the case to proceed at this point in time. Why would SCOTUs involve themselves
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasting the reaction to the recording, or any other details of how it was used, is irrelevant to the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA. It's the circumvention itself which is illegal under that law regardless of the reason.
You could circumvent the DRM it then immediately delete the recording unused and, if proven, you'd still have violated the DMCA section 1201. It's incredibly restricting and dumb, as even something in the public domain is unlawful to copy if you need to bypass copy protection to do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reaction content is intended to be watched by many parties (and is often monetized). When you used a VCR to record a TV show to watch later, you weren't displaying the recording at a public venue where you charged admission.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind the MPAA / RIAA claimed in court that if someone wanted to continue using the analog hole, that they should point a camera at the screen. So this is basically a case of "Oh, but we didn't mean for you to actually do it....." To which I say: "So, you didn't want me to actually pay for the content...." (No poin
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse, if screen capture is illegal then so is using your eyeballs.
Jesus fucking christ, you really are stupid.
Shut the fuck up, and scamper off.
No court of law considers the neuronal representation of media you look at to constitute a statutory fucking copy. Nothing in the Copyright Act or DMCA, by any fucking stretch of the imagination, supports such an asinine and dumbshit edgelord take.
The defendant acts and talks just like you do, and that's the actual reason they're going to be split in fucking half by the Plaintiff's cock in this lawsuit. If they had actually ac
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the text [cornell.edu]. Control F and type "access" and you will find definitive proof that the law, as written, likely does support asinine and dumbshit edgelord takes. Congress decided asinine and dumbshit edgelord takes are so good, that they enacted asinine and dumbshit edgelord law.
It's right there in the text: "access." (Do you think I'm making this up?)
DMCA does include a lot
Re: (Score:2)
than using a VCR to record television. That was deemed legal like 40 years ago, right?
1) The DMCA didn't exist 40 years to spell what was illegal and legal. 2) People using a VCR were generally using the TV content for their personal use at home; they were not reposting the contents on the Internet with their reaction. They were not making money on VCR tapes by watching them at home. 3) YouTube has very specific terms of service when using them that a user has to agree. Downloading videos using third party tools is clearly spelled out as a violation.
That being said if a person was recording
Re: (Score:2)
In a traditional copyright world (i.e. the actual situation 40 years ago) it's no different.
In a post-1998 copyright world, the difference is DMCA.
Cory Doctorow was right (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Cory Doctorow was right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This means you must know the chain of custody... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This case isn't to that point yet, due to a mix of incompetence and arrogance by the defendants.
The FAC alleged anti-circumvention as prohibited in S.1201, and the defendant went "Fart noise. Nuh uh."
Instead of "Fart noise. Nuh uh.", that would have been the place to say, "We do not rip directly from youtube and decrypt, we copy our entire screen, for which no protection is trying to prevent by our estimation.", which quite possibly would have led to the judge di
Make it fair (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the only perjury possible in a take-down notice is for not actually being an authorized agent of the copyright holder. Simply sending a take-down for something that is clearly fair-use isn't a perjury issue as long as your authorized to be enforcing that copyright. You could be held liable for damages to the alleged infringer if it was done knowingly, but that requires enough damages to exist to the alleged infringer to be worth them suing over.
The counter-notice to put stuff back up after an
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA's perjury clauses are a complete joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Of a copyright holder. Maybe things have improved, but it used to be that you couldn't upload a recording of your own performance of classical music by a long-dead composer without getting takedown notices relating to other, commercial, recordings of the same work.
This will not greatly impact this sort of content (Score:3)
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)
It's all part of the plan. (Score:2)
Until I can collect damages from companies ... (Score:2)
... actively preventing me from watching videos I legally purchased from them (DVD region code), the DMCA-crowd can print out their DMCA on sheets of plywood and shove those up their butth0le. Without lube.
Standard Youtube License (Score:2)
You also grant each other user of the Service a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display, and perform it)
reactions (Score:2)
Playing==Downloading (Score:2)
Bzzt. Just a minor technicality, but the word is "accessing" not "downloading." DMCA makes no distinction whatsoever between viewing vs downloading. The word it uses is "access." Playing a video without authorization from the copyright holder is every bit as covered by DMCA as downloading a video without authorization fr
Counterpoint: FAIR USE (Score:2)
The DCMA is dumb.
What needs to happen (Score:2)
Is the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, aka DMCA, need to die in fire. The anti-circumvention clause, which Cory Doctorow has been beating the drum on ripping out for Canada, and for the EU, needs to die.
I can see watermarks of some sort on documents, so if you find it copied *for sale* (i.e. scraped and stolen books), make it easy for the rightsholder to sue, but being able to fix your own tractor (or printer, or whatever), is how the wealthy get wealthier.
Don't care (Score:2)
I'm just going to violate the DMCA even harder every single day.
What about quoting an e-book... (Score:1)
Since the claim here is not about copyright, but about violating the DMCA, if I quote from a book published as a DRM'd e-book, then I am circumventing DMCA and can be sued. The quote is clearly fair use, but technically (as the judge reads it) I am circumventing the DRM locking the e-book - by copying what I read! At this point (at least!) the DMCA would be infringing on free speech.