![\"yout](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/yout-logo.jpg\"){kind=logo}
Downloading audio and video is prohibited by YouTube\u2019s terms of service but there are numerous \u2018stream-ripping\u2019 sites available on the web that do just that.<\/p>\nDownloading audio and video is prohibited by YouTube\u2019s terms of service but there are numerous \u2018stream-ripping\u2019 sites available on the web that do just that.<\/p>\n
These services are a thorn in the side of music industry outfits, who see them as a major piracy threat. The operators of these stream-ripping tools disagree and point at the variety of legal uses instead. <\/p>\n
At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest stream-rippers took matters into his own hands. Instead of hiding in the shadows like some competitors, Yout.com owner Johnathan Nader sued the RIAA<\/a>, asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare the service as non-infringing.<\/p>\n The case has been ongoing for nearly two years and Yout.com has filed two amended complaints that addressed earlier shortcomings and refined the legal arguments. At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether Yout\u2019s service violates a provision in the DMCA that prohibits the circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs). <\/p>\n Yout.com argues<\/a> that YouTube doesn\u2019t have meaningful technical protection measures; so there is nothing to circumvent. In just a few steps, anyone can download audio and video from the site without additional tools. <\/p>\n This argument was reiterated at a court hearing in late August, where the RIAA\u2019s request to dismiss the case was on the agenda. Yout\u2019s attorney Charles Mudd maintained that anyone can manually download video and audio from YouTube, concluding that there are no effective technological protection measures in place.<\/p>\n The RIAA saw things quite differently. The music group cited the DMCA, which points out that a technological measure is considered a TPM if it, \u201cin the ordinary course of its operation\u201d, requires a process or a treatment to access copyrighted video or audio. That\u2019s the case with YouTube\u2019s \u2018rolling cipher\u2019 technology.<\/p>\n In an order released on Friday, Judge Stefan Underhill sides with the RIAA. The Judge clearly spent a lot of time reaching this decision which is apparent from his 46-page ruling, which goes into great detail on YouTube\u2019s protection measures.<\/p>\n To grant Yout a judgment that its service doesn\u2019t violate the DMCA, it needed to show that YouTube\u2019s videos are not protected by a \u201ctechnological measure\u201d that \u201ceffectively controls access\u201d to copyrighted works. Or alternatively, that Yout does not circumvent an effective technological measure.<\/p>\n After weighing the evidence, Judge Underhill concludes that YouTube\u2019s relatively basic \u2018rolling cipher\u2019 protection is indeed a technological measure. It doesn\u2019t involve any DRM or encryption, as Yout argued, but that\u2019s not required by law.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough the DMCA reflects Congress\u2019s intent that scrambling and encryption are technological measures per se, scrambling and encryption do not constitute an exhaustive list of technological measures. <\/p>\n \u201c[The] allegations that YouTube does not have a DRM regime nor any \u2018password, key, or other secret knowledge\u2019 do not compel the conclusion that YouTube lacks a technological measure, just that it lacks the specified technological measures,\u201d Judge Underhill adds.<\/p>\n The court doesn\u2019t dispute that people can use a regular browser to download audio and video files from YouTube. However, that requires them to go into the browser\u2019s developer tools and manually modify a signature value. <\/p>\n At the end of this manual process, people can freely access the audio and video files on YouTube. However, Yout goes a step further as it can also combine these two files again. <\/p>\n \u201cYout does not allege that YouTube freely gives videos with their audio. Indeed, Yout clarified at oral argument that Yout creates combined audio\/video files using ffmpeg software, which is not alleged to be part of the steps Yout \u2018automates\u2019 in the Second Amended Complaint.\u201d<\/p>\n Based on these and other arguments, Judge Underhill concludes that Yout failed to show that there \u201cis nothing to bypass\u201d or that YouTube lacks a \u201ctechnological measure,\u201d as defined under the DMCA.<\/p>\n Whether this protection measure is effective is another question. Yout argued that, since people can do what it does using publicly available tools, YouTube has no effective protection in place. However, the court again disagrees.<\/p>\n \u201cImportantly, even if the YouTube technological measure can be circumvented, it may still be effective. There is a legal consensus that the fact that a person may deactivate or go around a TPM does not mean that the technology fails to offer \u2018effective control\u2019 because so holding would render the DCMA \u2018nonsensical,\u201d Judge Underhill writes.<\/p>\n All in all the court concludes that the evidence weighs in favor of the RIAA. While YouTube\u2019s protection is relatively easy to circumvent, Yout is designed to make this bypass process even easier.<\/p>\n \u201cI agree with the RIAA that Yout\u2019s circumvention entails bypassing YouTube\u2019s technological measures and modifying YouTube\u2019s \u2018signature value\u2019 to facilitate unauthorized access to a downloadable digital copy. <\/p>\n \u201cBecause that bypass and modification constitute a \u2018process,\u2019 I conclude that Yout does not plausibly allege that it does not circumvent the YouTube TPM, within the meaning of section 1201(a),\u201d Judge Underhill adds.<\/p>\n Based on the above, Judge Underhill dismissed the case without allowing Yout to amend its complaint. This is a clear setback for the YouTube-ripper, but it doesn\u2019t mean that all is lost.<\/p>\n Responding to the verdict, Yout\u2019s attorney Charles Mudd says that it doesn\u2019t come as a complete surprise. At the same time, he stresses that the legal battle isn\u2019t over yet as Yout plans to take the matter to the appeal court.<\/p>\n \u201cYout expected this result from the District Court and appreciates Judge Underhill providing this early opportunity to bring the issues before the Second Circuit. We believe the District Court\u2019s ruling erroneous and flawed on a number of grounds, and we look forward to arguing our position on appeal,\u201d Mudd notes.<\/p>\n The RIAA didn\u2019t immediately reply to our request for comment. However, it\u2019s clear that this outcome will give the RIAA more confidence to pursue these types of cases going forward. <\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of Connecticut District Court Judge Stefan Underhill\u2019s order on RIAA\u2019s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf)<\/a><\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nDoes YouTube Have TPMs?<\/h2>\n
Court Sides with the RIAA<\/h2>\n
Automating Circumvention<\/h2>\n
Effective but Not Perfect<\/h2>\n
Case Dismissed<\/h2>\n