![\"yout](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/yout-logo.jpg\"){kind=logo}
When the global music industry declared YouTube-ripping platforms public enemy number one and responsible for most music piracy online, the stage was set for legal showdowns.<\/p>\nWhen the global music industry declared YouTube-ripping platforms public enemy number one and responsible for most music piracy online, the stage was set for legal showdowns.<\/p>\n
Stream-ripping platform Yout took the initiative in 2020 by suing the RIAA, hoping that the court would declare its service non-infringing. The battle to convince the judge centered on YouTube\u2019s \u2018rolling cypher\u2019 and whether it should (or should not) be considered a Technological Protection Measure (TPM). <\/p>\n
Under the DMCA, unauthorized circumvention of a TPM amounts to copyright infringement, so it was up to Yout owner Johnathan Nader to satisfy the judge that his platform does not amount to a circumvention tool. In 2022, Judge Stefan Underhill concluded that since Yout\u2019s evidence failed to meet that standard, the case would be dismissed and the RIAA would emerge on top.<\/p>\n
Based on his firm belief that YouTube-ripping tools do not violate the DMCA, Nader took his case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. No stone was left unturned in his 92-page opening brief<\/a>, with Nader claiming that the lower court\u2019s dismissal was premature. <\/p>\n Arguing that the Yout platform amounts to a modern VCR with just as many non-infringing uses, once again Yout explained how anyone with a browser can download videos from YouTube for time-shifting purposes. The service doesn\u2019t save any of that content on its own servers either, every decision lies with the user.<\/p>\n Yout\u2019s arguments inevitably focused on YouTube\u2019s \u2018rolling cypher\u2019 and its characterization as a technological protection measure. The RIAA\u2019s position couldn\u2019t be more clear but the system actually belongs to YouTube; did the company design the mechanism to limit copying? If not, that could put the RIAA\u2019s claims in a different light, Yout informed the court.<\/p>\n In an answering brief filed this week, the labels waste no time in drilling down to what they believe are the fundamental issues.<\/p>\n \u201cThis case involves Yout\u2019s illicit stream-ripping service. YouTube provides users with streams of music videos, not free downloads. YouTube\u2019s users can watch and listen to music videos for free on its ad-supported service, but those users do not get access to the digital files that contain the record companies\u2019 valuable copyrighted works,\u201d the brief begins. <\/p>\n \u201cAs its name suggests, Yout enables its users to gain unauthorized access to the digital music files from YouTube and download copies. The purpose of Yout is to bypass YouTube\u2019s technological restrictions on accessing the digital copies of works streamed on YouTube.\u201d<\/p>\n The RIAA claims that Yout\u2019s users have no need to buy legal music subscriptions or visit ad-supported streaming services. Yout, meanwhile, \u201cpays nothing to the owners of the copyrighted content that is plundered.\u201d<\/p>\n Referencing the district court\u2019s opinion, the RIAA describes it as \u201ccorrect on all counts\u201d and in line with findings by courts outside the U.S. that stream-ripping technology is unlawful. That leads directly back to the fundamental questions in the case on which the parties fundamentally disagree.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/ul>\n These questions have been answered many times since this process began in 2020, with Yout insisting there is no TPM and the RIAA arguing the opposite. In the labels\u2019 answer dated May 4, they cite Yout\u2019s explanation of what happens on YouTube and its subsequent actions as a service.<\/p>\n \u201cFirst, Yout alleges that YouTube employs a \u2018signature mechanism\u2019 that requires \u2018read[ing] and interpret[ing]\u2019 JavaScript to \u2018derive[] a signature value\u2019,\u201d the RIAA says. \u201cThat is a description of an effective technological measure.<\/p>\n \u201cSecond, Yout alleges that its service uses a process for avoiding or bypassing this technological measure by, among other steps, \u2018modif[ying]\u2019 the range of numbers in the \u2018signature value,\u2019 and thereby gaining unauthorized access to the \u2018download[able]\u2019 \u2018file[s]\u2019 that comprise the music video.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n From proceedings thus far it\u2019s clear that the parties do actually agree on some details, albeit not for very long.<\/p>\n In the RIAA\u2019s first point detailed above, both sides agree that Yout uses Javascript to \u201cderive a signature value\u201d to enable the video download process. The part where they disagree is whether YouTube\u2019s use of the cypher was for copyright protection purposes right from the beginning.<\/p>\n To find out, Yout would like to involve YouTube, which might even help to support the RIAA\u2019s claims. Ultimately, the RIAA doesn\u2019t want that to happen because it says that YouTube\u2019s intent doesn\u2019t matter.<\/p>\n \u201cYout raises a scattershot of arguments for reversal. None of them succeeds. For example, Yout argues that discovery is necessary to determine whether YouTube \u2018inten[ded]\u2019 the signature value mechanism to be a technological measure under the DMCA\u2026but YouTube\u2019s intent is irrelevant under the statute,\u201d the industry group says.<\/p>\n While that is technically correct, a senior Google attorney is on record<\/a> in Europea saying that the measures were implemented to protect copyright holders. Whether that also applies to the United States is unknown.<\/p>\n At 68-pages long the RIAA\u2019s answer is certainly detailed but if YouTube\u2019s intent is irrelevent under the statute in the United States, the same doesn\u2019t seem to apply when it comes to citing court decisions in jurisdictions thousands of miles away.<\/p>\n \u201cYout has faced anti-circumvention lawsuits outside the United States, where courts and law enforcement have uniformly concluded that Yout\u2019s service violates those countries\u2019 equivalents to the DMCA,\u201d the RIAA\u2019s answer notes, citing an injunction application in Denmark.<\/p>\n The labels also mention a case<\/a> they launched against German hosting company Uberspace, which hosted the website<\/em> of youtube-dl but not the software itself; that was available via a hyperlink to another site.<\/p>\n For perspective, Denmark blocks pirate sites, including YouTube-ripping platforms. Germany blocks pirate sites too. The United States does not. Also relevant is the fact that youtube-dl is hosted on Github in the United States. When the labels\u2019 attempt to take it down failed, no lawsuit followed in the United States, where the DMCA actually has jurisdiction.<\/p>\n That GitHub is mentioned in the RIAA\u2019s answer is interesting. The coding platform filed an amicus brief<\/a> in the current case back in February. <\/p>\n Highlighting the importance of browser extensions such as Dark Reader, Google Translate, and OpenDyslexic, GitHub voiced concerns that the district court\u2019s ruling could put developers at risk of criminalization if the DMCA is interpreted too strictly.<\/p>\n \u201cYouTube\u2019s decision not to provide its own \u2018download\u2019 button, however, is not a restriction on access to works. It merely affects how users experience them,\u201d GitHub informed the court.<\/p>\n GitHub\u2019s assertion that the court\u2019s interpretation of section 1201(a)<\/a> amounts to a control on how a person experiences content, rather than a control on access, is dismissed in the RIAA\u2019s brief.<\/p>\n Translation or accessibility tools would not run afoul of section 1201(a) because they are \u201cunlikely to involve a signature mechanism at all, let alone modifying that mechanism to provide access to an underlying digital file for a copyrighted work.\u201d<\/p>\n In its conclusion, the RIAA says that Yout\u2019s own allegations establish that its service violates the DMCA and, as such, the Court of Appeal should affirm the the district court\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n The RIAA\u2019s answering brief is available here<\/a> (pdf)<\/em><\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n <\/center><\/p>\nRIAA Returns Fire<\/h2>\n
RIAA: Courts Say Stream-Ripping Technology is Unlawful<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"yout-circ\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/yout-circ.png\")
<\/p>\nYout Wants to Hear YouTube\u2019s Take<\/h2>\n
Dozens of Pages of Background<\/h2>\n
RIAA Mentions GitHub<\/h2>\n