I have become convinced that the RIAA lawyers emerge from their crypts every few years, generating a slew of copystrikes to justify their retainer fee.
Some guy wrote a tool to intercept the keys for level three on windows. Most streaming services offer only low-quality streams with level three, but big G dmca'ed the repo and most forks. Mirrors are still up all over, though; here's one: https://github.com/kipyegonmark/widevine-l3-decryptor
They are looking for that one time where people are either not paying attention or are too exhausted to care. What is the saying? We have to win every little battle, but all they have to do is win once.
> generating a slew of copystrikes to justify their retainer fee.
Considering how they were able to change social media to favor the copyright owners, I'm betting whoever is paying them feels the fees are justified.
This software makes it easy for people to download copyrighted movies and the RIAA attorneys (at least some) are acting in good faith to prevent people from breaking copyright law and causing their client damages. Can someone argue against me please?
(genuinely contribute to discussion by arguing against my own biases, call me a moron instead of downvoting)
Creating or providing a tool and using a tool are not the same action. Likewise, since there are legal fair use scenarios of copyrighted materials (short clips, criticism, satire, academic, etc) so even using the tool isn't inherently against the law and the person creating or providing the tools can't know and legally doesn't need to know the end user's intentions.
Copyright lawyers working for the highest profile abuser of copyrights absolutely know the very basics of copyright law and are therefore acting in bad faith.
So, similar to Popcorn Time then WRT providing vs using? The RIAA lawyers are bringing cases that are disingenuous, because they already know they're covered by fair use?
So to pick a worst case scenario, a pirate uploaded _Spiderman_ to Youtube with the intent of letting people get _Spiderman_ for free using this software. In that case, it's the uploader that's legally liable? Does the RIAA have a case?
Drug paraphernalia has a specific use (or at least, let's assume that for the sake of argument), but youtube-dl is more like a crowbar that has legal and illegal uses.
If I have a crowbar I can legally use it all day long for construction purposes. As soon as I'm caught breaking into a house with a crowbar, it's classified as burglar's tools. At no point is the hardware store or crowbar manufacturer liable for a burglary for selling me a crowbar.
I don't know what the laws are on possession, but before marijuana was legalized it was far, far easier to buy a bong than the weed to smoke in it. I'm wracking my brain to try to think of a piece of drug paraphernalia that is illegal to sell or illegal to possess in the absence of the drugs themselves.
In the state I live in it's illegal to to be in possession of any paraphernalia. Thats why you cant buy a bong anywhere, but can buy a water pipe at every corner store headshop.
That being said it's a petty misdemeanor that does not result in any jail time until your third infraction.
That piracy causes client damages is a debatable point. Studies have shown those who pirate software, movies, television, etc., will rarely use or consume that content if they didn't pirate it. I know way back when, when I pirated stuff voraciously, if I couldn't find something I just never read/saw/used it. Not once in my life have I spent days or weeks trying to pirate something only to turn around and pay for it. Some (not all) studies even show that in the case of software, piracy in some cases leads to legitimate use, i.e. purchasing.
Now there's no doubt that piracy violates copyright law. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing, whether the laws in question are just, etc., until the end of time. But it's not a foregone conclusion that piracy has any negative economic impact on copyright holders.
Git+your OS make it easy to acquire this software,
Your browser and OS collude together to make it easy to run it,
The elecric supply to your house makes it easy to run the computer that runs the OS,
...
Do you really want a world where this scumbags should go after everything that "makes it easy" to do illegal activities?
By this right, Zoom/ Google Meet / Teams have screen recording that would allow for this as well. How deep should we go down this hypothetical rabbithole?
Even if we take that as a given, my response would be: "Yes, so what?"
The software also a long list of legitimate uses, as was demonstrated by the various prominent users that spoke up.
I can use the camera on my phone to record a copyrighted movie, and thus circumventing the DRM, or just use a device like this: https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-USB3HDCAP-Video-Capture-... (analog VGA is probably preferred here, for lack of HDCP support).
And that is only necessary if we're talking about some modern DRM that makes your OS work against you, so you can't directly capture with OBS or something.
An awful lot of tools provide the opportunity for their users to break the law, and yet we still sell those tools and place the onus of following the law on the users. While guns are the obvious example, lockpicks are widely and freely available, as are a whole host of other items with which one could commit nefarious deeds.
Copyright law seems to be one of the only areas in which the fact that someone Could use a tool to commit a crime seems to be grounds for criminalizing the tool and not the act.
