Most of the artists and music companies are there YouTube Share their music with the public for free.

The popular video platform has become an important propaganda channel, It generates billions of dollars in advertising revenue each year.

however, There is one downside to this success story. Millions of people without permission, Use what's called streaming ripping (stream-ripping) Website from YouTube Download music tracks. YouTube The terms and services prohibit this activity, But people can use hundreds of online tools from easily YouTube Up "rip" And download content.

By the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) The music companies represented are aggressively fighting what they see as a major piracy threat. But the operators of these streaming rip-off tools have pushed back, Various legal uses are pointed out.

Yout with RIAA

2020 End of the year, The operator of one of the largest streaming rip-off sites has taken matters into its own hands. Yout. com The owner of Johnson．Nade (Johnathan Nader) Not hiding in the shadows like some of his rivals, He sued RIAA, Asked a federal court in Connecticut to declare his services non-infringing.

Last fall, The district court decided to dismiss the case, RIAA Win victory. Stephen．Underhill (Stefan Underhill) The judge ultimately held that, Yout The company failed to prove that it did not circumvent YouTube Technical protection measures. It also makes the related claims of slander and commercial defamation moot.

Yout He didn't give up. Nader chose to appeal the verdict, Because he thinks YouTube The rip tool is not in violation "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA) . in RIAA After a request for court costs or attorney's fees is denied, Yout The lawyer of 2 They filed their opening statements at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

Key issue

The case essentially revolves around two issues, Both sides have completely different answers. These issues will ultimately be decided Yout And whether similar streaming ripping services operate legally.

－YouTube Whether technical measures are in place to effectively control access to copyrighted works?

－If the answer is yes, Yout Whether the service circumvents these controls?

In his opening statement, Yout detailed YouTube There is no effective protection. It's not just streaming rip-offs that make this kind of assessment——Yout You have obtained GitHub And the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Support of, They filed a supporting amicus brief.

Copyright Alliance support RIAA

Earlier this month, RIAA These arguments were answered in a detailed brief. According to the music industry group, Yout Is a kind of "Illegal streaming media ripping service" , It actually allows people "bypass YouTube Technical limitations of" .

RIAA It's not the only assessment. recently, The Copyright Alliance filed an amicus brief in support RIAA, The appeals court was asked not to change the lower court's decision.

The Copyright Alliance is a non-profit organization, Representing all rights holders, And has close ties with industry organizations. In his amicus briefs, The Copyright Alliance warned, Overturning the current court ruling would have devastating consequences.

The copyright Alliance wrote: "Yout Illegal streaming ripping software is a major threat to copyright holders and to the public. If the court accepts it Yout The arguments of the company and its supporters, The protection of many business models would be undermined, Resulting in less, not more, public access to copyrighted works. "

Freedom of speech

The Copyright Alliance details it DMCA Legal history of, And said Congress intended to use the No 1201 Article of safeguards to protect freedom of expression, Not to harm that right.

support Yout People might say, This technology can promote creativity, But the copyright Alliance argues the opposite. They think, Unlimited access to copyrighted content ultimately leads to less output for creators, Impairing freedom of speech.

The Copyright Alliance added: "Mass abuses impede freedom of expression in several ways. Being denied a fair return, Copyright owners have less incentive to create and distribute expressive works, Especially works in digital format. In addition, The shadow of rampant piracy can discourage copyright owners from creating or partnering with new platforms and services, These platforms and services can provide a wider range of creative works to the consuming public. "

Rubeus．The Goldberg process

The brief highlights, Yout Clear violation DMCA Anti-circumvention clause, All the counter-arguments fail, include YouTube The view that technical protection measures are simply ineffective.

Streaming media ripping tools to support this view, It shows that anyone can easily download it with a regular browser YouTube Audio and video, No special tools are needed. however, The copyright Alliance points out, This Ruben．Goldberg style (Rube Goldberg-like) The multi-step process does not help his argument.

Briefing notes: "Yout Try to show, YouTube Users can already go through an intricate, Roup．Goldberg-style process to acquire copyrighted works, That's actually true 'Lack of validity' The refutation of the argument. No doubt, Yout The service ignores No 1201 Clear terms and key purposes of the article, All this ultimately hurts the interests of consumers. "

Rehash old arguments

Yout and EFF The amicus brief also emphasized, Streaming media ripping tools have many legitimate and fair use purposes. Such as, They are crucial for some journalists, It's also useful for creators who use them for future work.

Yout argue, Its service can be equivalent to a VCR, And cited Betamax case. from YouTube Downloading content is just that "Time shift" .

The Copyright Alliance also disputes these arguments, Point out that these arguments are not valid, Because those arguments have been defeated many times in court.

The alliance wrote: "Yout and EFF The position in this lawsuit is nothing more than decades of opposition DMCA An alternative model for filing court challenges that have no merit. These arguments simply repeat old ones that the courts have rejected for decades, False argument. "

Whether the appeals court will agree with these arguments remains to be seen. Circumvention cases are not new, though, But none of these American cases have been studied in detail Youtube Rip problem. (Be compiled from torrentfreak. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng

disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.