![Serious sam 3 headless kamikaze](https://loka.nahovitsyn.com/34.jpg)
![youtube dmca youtube dmca](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8e0GjS1Bxf4/maxresdefault.jpg)
![youtube dmca youtube dmca](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8vL4ygDrUug/maxresdefault.jpg)
#Youtube dmca tv#
But equally you can't blame TV networks for using RF to air their broadcasts knowing that risk is there. It's a bit like recording something on VCR from an RF signal there's nothing technically stopping you from doing that as recording a TV show is technically equivalent to watching it. Obviously it can be used that way but it's fair to say services like youtube-dl are using the protocol in ways it wasn't originally intended to be used rather than content owners serving content on a protocol that was always designed for distributing files.
![youtube dmca youtube dmca](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/in9oe-V_teU/maxresdefault.jpg)
The content itself is served over another protocol such as RTMP and that protocol is a streaming protocol (it sends chunked data) and it wasn't intended for downloading files and writing them to disk as a singular binary blob. HTTP is used to bootstrap the player, not to feed the content. If YouTube and the RIAA want it to work another way, then use a different protocol/medium and put the content behind a login and limit access. If a work is published this way then that's the expectation. > An http server serves files independent of the client/user-agent–that's how the web works. I'm not saying I agree with the take down notice (I don't) but something a great many techies on here miss is that not every argument can be won with science. Your point about this being an access tool (which actually makes no difference in terms of circumventing DRM anyway - which was the claim for the take down) also doesn't fly because this tool creates a file on your local disk so it's hard to argue that the intent is for that file to be temporary. The problem with youtube-dl is that having tests which work against copyrighted content and having the README describe usages against copyrighted content, it's much harder to argue that the intent of this is purely for copyleft content. They're both knives but one instance clearly carries a different intent to another. Likewise someone carrying a kitchen knife home, still packaged, from the shops is unlikely to be reprimanded compared to someone carrying a more decorative knife around. There's several different classifications of murder depending on intent. And two, to require users prove they are actual humans before being able to submit channel strikes.You're trying very hard to make a technical distinction but the problem is that this is a legal problem not a technical one and rightly or wrongly, legal definitions don't always align with technical ones.įor starters, intent is factored into the law. One, to assume the innocence of channels who are over a certain threshold of average like to dislike ratios and are in good standing. "We need more of this action to ensure a deterrent against these false strikes."įleischauer said there are two immediate fixes that he can see. YouTube sued a man called Christopher Brady in 2019 after it was brought to the company's attention that he had submitted multiple false copyright claims against Minecraft gaming YouTubers Kenzo and ObbyRaidz. "In addition, I would love to see YouTube take a stronger stance against this type of behavior." 'It's a constant guessing game' "There needs to be an option when you appeal, or an email you can contact to allow creators to report copyright abuse, since it is one of the more increasing ways that creators are being silenced by trolls or by people trying to stop criticism," said Swan.
![youtube dmca youtube dmca](https://dmcaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/dmca-header-video-takedown.jpg)
JustDestiny had the video taken down - called a DMCA takedown - by falsely claiming he owned it, and by sending a fake cease and desist. YouTuber LtCobra also had trouble when he made a video that was critical of another creator called JustDestiny for using photos of underage girls in his thumbnails. One of his biggest critics, Repzion, often has to appeal multiple false strikes on his videos. Onision, possibly the most vilified creator in YouTube's history, is known to abuse this system. A system called Content ID scans videos and flags any to creators where it sees their work being copied, so the creator then decides whether to make a claim depending on whether the video falls under fair use or not. But that's exactly the scenario today." 'YouTube doesn't listen'Ĭopyright claims can only be made within the YouTube platform, but that doesn't mean they are any less misused. "A channel in good standing for 5+ years, with never a strike or infraction and over 1,000 videos uploaded, shouldn't be immediately assumed guilty when several complaints come in about multiple different videos in a. "YouTube needs to stop treating their creators as guilty," he said.
![Serious sam 3 headless kamikaze](https://loka.nahovitsyn.com/34.jpg)