Fuck Bill Clinton for passing the DMCA
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
79 points (98.8% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
67352 readers
805 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
🏴☠️ Other communities
FUCK ADOBE!
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
this will kill yt-dlp if it succeeds
Oh fuck off.
A site cannot send someone a video and then be mad that they still have it.
These ripping tools can be used to convert YouTube music videos into MP3s for example. This is seen as a major problem by the music industry, which has and is taking legal steps in response.
You used to be able to record radio or TV broadcasts with zero consequence. The DMCA, from it's inception through to it's implementation has caused nothing but problems if you aren't a studio executive
Just remember. The laws aren't broken. They're functioning as intended.
If they could have fined or arrested people for recording cassettes off the radio they would have.
We have learned that a pretty significant number of the liberties that we enjoy only exist because it would be too much work to take them away.
We are seeing that will facial recognition and free speech and public assembly now.
Reaction youtube is the lowest common denominator for stuff like this, but if this ruling succeeds, that will be a pretty big problem for the ecosystem as a whole.
Setting a precedent where it is punishable to show part of another video in your own without getting permission for it will make the platform far more restrictive, especially for content that offers valuable critique. Having to actually argue fair use for publicly available content is a step backwards for everyone, even if it means there will be less low-value content out there.
..So you don’t “rip” the video, you point your camera at the display and record the segment you want to use for commentary or critique, leaving a section of the display bezel in the shot so it is beyond reproach. If the use of a specific technology is the issue, go old school. A pain in the ass, definitely, but not a rip that can be sanctioned.
my issue with what would happen if this ruling solidifies is the precident that it causes.
I could not care less about reaction videos, they are really low effort videos that I don't understand why are so popular.
My issue entirely is that if the plaintiff wins in this case, it's effectively saying any type of downloaded video on youtube would classify as circumventing DRM, which would open an avenue aside from a fair use violation for studios to go after content creators for.
Look at lets plays for example. Those operate almost entirely on fair use clauses. I fear that if we start ruling that recording or downloading videos that your computer is able to decode (as this is all that the youtube downloader is doing, just instead of it going to the client its sending to a file), that means by same principle, recording a video game that contains DRM would also be considered circumventing a DRM. Which would outlaw lets plays.
This is a very bad precedent regardless of if its just low quality trash reaction videos or not.
I do not understand these vids. I was watching woodworking and bad new house inspections shorts, as one does, and a bearded guy in an orange vest popped in. All this man did was make facial expressions at other vids of construction accidents made by other people. He superimposes himself on someone else’s video and makes faces. Tons of views. Including mine, looking at his page, trying to figure out why this is a thing. The algorithm then tried to feed me more. Had to “not interested” the front page for a couple reloads to scrub that crap.
What is wrong with people that this is what they seek? There’s no content in this content.
Maybe I’m just old.
In cases like that its literally just them stealing the content and tricking people (like you) into watching it because you were actually looking for the information in the video he is "reacting to".
This happens a lot with crafts and things because people who are good at doing crafts and building shit aren't necessarily good at marketing their video content (if they are even interested in doing so).
Like with most other forms of content, there's a variety in the quality.
Admittedly, I do watch a few reaction channels. They're mostly covering content I enjoy and the reaction portion is usually one part. They react then discuss it and I usually enjoy the discussion more than the reaction.
This is trying to make downloading YouTube videos illegal.
IMHO reaction videos should be illegal. Not because of the dmca but because they are annoying as f
I don't mind the ones where a professional points out everything wrong with a show about their profession.
I am sure there are exceptions but from what I can tell about my limited time spent on YouTube there is far more things that are pointless regurgitating and content creation to have created content kinda videos out there. Ymmv
I would filter the word "reaction" but I like chemistry videos. So instead, whenever I see a reaction video, I block the entire channel.
Replace “reaction videos” with “brown people” and you might understand why it’s a bad idea to outlaw annoyances
What? How can you compare people to reaction videos?
And that thin-veiled message about "brown people" being an annoyance. . . . are you doing this on purpose?
I'm fascinated by this huuuge strawman.
Does screen recording count as circumvention with 3rd party tools? It make take a while longer, especially for high quality videos that chop up the content, but YouTube reactors could be safe.
And how do they prove that it was ripped, and not just screen recorded? It wouldn't look different, right?
"the defendant and many others have used screen recording to copy content. "
Ah, the defense pointed out this exact same thing. This isn't a final ruling, we'll see what the judge thinks about screen recording.
It would rule if someone would just throw copyright lawyers into a pit
What if you downloaded your own videos to post to Odysee or PeerTube now in an attempt to at least have them on a non-Google platform? Will that be a DMCA violation even if you're the one who made those videos in the first place?
Similarly, could something like this also put the existence of alternative video platforms like the aforementioned Odysee and PeerTube at risk too?
Also, could this have implications for fan works now too?
What if you downloaded your own videos to post to Odysee or PeerTube now in an attempt to at least have them on a non-Google platform? Will that be a DMCA violation even if you’re the one who made those videos in the first place?
No, because they're your videos and you can use them however you want.
What would be the case if instead of using a third party tool to download the video you just record the video using your phone? Would that count as an "circumvent tool"?
That’s the problem with this distinction. Screen recording tools can create a file that is functionally identical to a downloaded file so it’s just a judge that doesn’t understand what’s going on. That’s scary.
Indeed
It is. Or well, it can be. You have to provide “commentary” if i recall, when you show a clip. And there are limits to how long those clips can be
30sec IIRC.
There are no objective criteria in fair use law.