I think this is just once again an example of the interests of corporate ownership running counter to creative culture ala “Everything is a Remix”. Music samples, fan fic, fan art, reaction vids, etc.. are natural artifacts of culture. Corporations want to harvest the value of these artifacts without allowing the free flow back into the commons that provides fertile soil for these things to exist in the first place. It’s as unhealthy to culture as strip mining is to the environment.
This gives me conflicted feelings. Reaction videos are one of the dumbest kinds of garbage slop content polluting YouTube, so, while I hate the DMCA, I'm kinda glad about this outcome?
Argument is that circumventing access controls for downloading is a DMCA violation, even if the resulting download is used for fair use reasons (reaction video or otherwise).
Agreed. This is where I find (certain parts) of the counterargument for this particular case interesting and am curious to see what the actual ruling eventually is once all of the final arguments are made.
It had always seemed to me the (normal) YouTube video itself has no protection mechanisms applied, counter to the claim that's what the rolling cipher is about. Certain types of "protected" videos (movies, TV, etc) with Widevine and the like sure, but on normal videos there's nothing implemented for protecting the actual content from being captured or replayed. The rolling ciphers mentioned are implemented at the layer of and seemingly only for protecting the delivery because, of course, YouTube wants to be able to say 3rd party clients (which bypass any form of revenue and user behavior data they get for the cost of providing the delivery) are breaking their protections.
The video stream played in the browser does not have any such rolling cipher protections and it seems a stretch to try to argue recording the screen recording is bypassing what those are meant to protect, but it'll be interesting how the court perceives this here.
What a moronic take. You end your sentence with a ?, so it looks like you want an answer. Here is the answer: Don't watch the reaction clips. No one is forcing you to watch them.
I think this is just once again an example of the interests of corporate ownership running counter to creative culture ala “Everything is a Remix”. Music samples, fan fic, fan art, reaction vids, etc.. are natural artifacts of culture. Corporations want to harvest the value of these artifacts without allowing the free flow back into the commons that provides fertile soil for these things to exist in the first place. It’s as unhealthy to culture as strip mining is to the environment.
This gives me conflicted feelings. Reaction videos are one of the dumbest kinds of garbage slop content polluting YouTube, so, while I hate the DMCA, I'm kinda glad about this outcome?
This will be used to take down yt-dlp (again) so it is not at all an outcome to be glad for.
yt-dlp is a blessing
Argument is that circumventing access controls for downloading is a DMCA violation, even if the resulting download is used for fair use reasons (reaction video or otherwise).
Agreed. This is where I find (certain parts) of the counterargument for this particular case interesting and am curious to see what the actual ruling eventually is once all of the final arguments are made.
It had always seemed to me the (normal) YouTube video itself has no protection mechanisms applied, counter to the claim that's what the rolling cipher is about. Certain types of "protected" videos (movies, TV, etc) with Widevine and the like sure, but on normal videos there's nothing implemented for protecting the actual content from being captured or replayed. The rolling ciphers mentioned are implemented at the layer of and seemingly only for protecting the delivery because, of course, YouTube wants to be able to say 3rd party clients (which bypass any form of revenue and user behavior data they get for the cost of providing the delivery) are breaking their protections.
The video stream played in the browser does not have any such rolling cipher protections and it seems a stretch to try to argue recording the screen recording is bypassing what those are meant to protect, but it'll be interesting how the court perceives this here.
3 replies →
What a moronic take. You end your sentence with a ?, so it looks like you want an answer. Here is the answer: Don't watch the reaction clips. No one is forcing you to watch them.