They did a bunch of sites with similar tech shortly after. I can't help but think they are so out of the loop that they <i>just</i> found out the technology existed.
Besides the fact that DMCA was probably created specifically for the RIAA, is it possible for the EFF to push for the RIAA to be stripped of their right to use DMCA due to their abuse of it?
This was a fascinating writeup of one person's take on just how... strange a use for DMCA 1201 this was.
<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201023/19035045569/riaa-tosses-bogus-claim-github-to-get-video-downloading-software-removed.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201023/19035045569/riaa-...</a>
microsoft had a rare chance here to actually stand up for developers in a way that would gain them a lot of mindshare, goodwill and respect. i wish they would’ve taken it.
i certainly hope the Streisand effect brings the general public the knowledge that this program exists and proliferate its existence.<p>Whether the RIAA is acting correctly within the law or not is irrelevant to me. If they are indeed acting correctly within the existing laws, then i would call for civil disobedience against unjust and unfair law.
"DMCA 1201 says that it's illegal to bypass a digital lock in order to access or modify a copyrighted work."<p>No, 1201 says, among other things, that it is a violation of the Copyright Act (which may only carry civil liability, so not necessarily "illegal") to share the means to circumvent access controls to a copyrighted work. That is the part of 1201 the RIAA cited in its letter.<p>It is the sharing that is the alleged 1201 violation. Not any circumvention.
I'm always wondering about the coincidence of calendar proximity of google music moving to youtube music and that takedown that explicitly mentions VEVO
I'm surprised EFF bothered to say anything at all, now 13 days later. For those keeping score, Popcorn Time repo was only down for 15 days after RIAA's DMCA takedown.
This is mildly misleading. RIAA's argument is mostly about the marketing for use with copyrighted content. The statute clearly doesn't say what EFF is saying RIAA thinks it says, and I don't see any indication that RIAA actually thinks or claims that interpretation.