TorrentFreak's Latest News

Yout Files Refocused Lawsuit Against RIAA to Have YouTube-Ripping Service Declared LegalAndy Maxwell, 17 Sep 11:07 PM In 2020, the RIAA attempted to

Yout Files Refocused Lawsuit Against RIAA to Have YouTube-Ripping Service Declared Legal Andy Maxwell, 17 Sep 11:07 PM In 2020, the RIAA attempted to have YouTube-ripping tool youtube-dl removed from Github and in the wake of that, YouTube-ripping service Yout filed a preemptive lawsuit against the RIAA. Yout said that the RIAA's earlier efforts to have its homepage delisted by Google, on the basis that Yout circumvented YouTube's 'rolling cipher' technology, were wrongful and damaging to its business. Yout asked the court to declare its service legal on the basis that, contrary to the RIAA's allegations, its software platform is not designed to "descramble, decrypt, avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair" YouTube's so-called 'rolling cipher technology'. Over time the case became increasingly complex, with the RIAA seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed, Yout fighting back, and the RIAA countering. As a result, last month the presiding judge took the decision to dismiss the case without prejudice after both Yout and the RIAA brought up additional facts about how YouTube works. This gave Yout the opportunity to go back to the drawing board to file its second amended complaint. it has now done just that. Second Amended Complaint Yout's new filing still seeks declaratory relief relating to 17 U.S.C. § 1201 – the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. It also claims that the RIAA made misrepresentations that Yout is infringing under U.S.C. § 512(f) resulting in business disparagement and defamation. In many other respects the claims against the RIAA remain unchanged but, what stands out in particular, is the characterization of the Yout service, the explanation of how it operates, and the nature of YouTube's 'rolling cipher'. "This lawsuit involves Internet content that can be accessed using a web browser ('Web Content') using a unique hyperlink, uniform resource locator (commonly referred to as 'url'), or 'web address' that directs computing devices to such content, respectively, on the Internet," the second amended complaint (SAC) reads. "Some Web Content exists behind a pay-wall such that a person can only access the content after paying for the specific content or a broader subscription (eg iTunes). This lawsuit does not involve Web Content behind a pay-wall. Rather, this lawsuit involves content publicly accessible to anyone with a web browser and Internet connection." The SAC attempts to draw a line in the sand between services that are designed to grant access to content protected and/or encrypted to prevent unauthorized access and those that simply enable access to content that is already available to anyone. "[T]his lawsuit does not involve any Web Content that has been hidden from view by use of a cipher or other means of concealing content or meaning. Again, quite simply, this lawsuit involves Web Content publicly accessible by anyone with an Internet connection and a web browser," it notes. In keeping with the original complaint, Yout characterizes itself as a time-shifting service, in that it allows users to access content from YouTube, make a copy of that content on their local machines, and then access that content at a time and place of their choosing, without needing an Internet connection. Content owned by Yout's law firm is used as an example. Yout then moves on to the heart of the complaint – the RIAA's allegations that Yout decrypts, descrambles or otherwise circumvents protections put in place by YouTube. "YouTube Does Not Implement DRM Mechanisms" According to the SAC, YouTube does not implement Digital Rights Management (DRM) mechanisms used on protected media such as DVDs, for example. Instead, YouTube content plays on any HTTP user agent with a JavaScript interpreter, not simply on players that are specifically authorized to access the platform. Yout says that when YouTube plays content, it merely checks that the accessing browser has a JavaScript interpreter, such as those deployed by Yout, youtube-dl, and other tools that have no relationship with YouTube or the record labels. "By way of comparison, a DVD player has a secret key embedded in it that must be obtained from the rightsholders pursuant to a license, but a browser does not. YouTube doesn't license browsers to play YouTube. Therefore, even if the YouTube player source code is 'a process or a treatment,' it doesn't require 'the authority of the copyright owner' as required by the statute because it's already been provided to everyone in the world," the SAC notes. From here, Yout explains in detail how anyone with a web browser such as Chrome can download audio files from YouTube. In summary, Yout says that all it does is automate these steps, making life easier for the regular user who may want to download and store content for time-shifted consumption. YouTube's 'Rolling Cipher' Referencing the DMCA anti-circumvention notices sent by the RIAA in order to have Yout delisted from Google search, the ripping service says that if protection measures are put in place, it cannot help users download that content. "Contrary to [RIAA's] allegations, Yout's software platform is not designed to descramble, decrypt, avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair any technical protection measure or any technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected by the Copyright Act. In fact, any digital mechanism in place designed as anti-circumvention technology stops Yout users from recording and saving that protected work, thereby demonstrating Yout's compliance with any anti-circumvention protections in place," Yout notes. "Yout does not violate Section 1201 of the DMCA because it does not circumvent any technological measure on YouTube videos. Similarly, the 'rolling cipher' mechanism that the RIAA argues is employed by YouTube does not prevent copying of videos or other digital media. The term 'rolling cipher' is a misnomer and a term likely coined and relied upon by Defendants to argue that services like Yout are somehow breaching a protection that doesn't exist." Yout also suggests that in respect of YouTube, 'rolling cipher' is a term being promoted by the RIAA but in practice, it's not a DRM or technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected by the Copyright Act. Alleged Damage to Yout's Reputation Yout says that prior to the RIAA's campaign to have YouTube-ripping platforms delisted from Google using the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, public perception was that these services were legal. Thanks to the RIAA, however, third parties now believe that Yout is an illegal platform. The ripping service raises the analogy of a VHS tape that can be used to record MTV or an educational broadcast from PBS, noting that the technology used by Yout does not in itself constitute a violation of the DMCA. In summary, Yout wants its platform declared legal by the court, specifically under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Yout also wants the court to hold the RIAA liable for knowingly misrepresenting infringement in its DMCA notices to Google and seeks compensation for the RIAA's allegedly false statements relating to the Yout platform and the nature of its business. Yout's second amended complaint can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. RIAA and Rightscorp Counter Renewed 'False and Fraudulent' DMCA Notice Claims Ernesto Van der Sar, 17 Sep 11:38 AM Under US copyright law, Internet providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers "in appropriate circumstances." In the past such drastic action was rare but, backed by several court orders, ISPs are increasingly being held to this standard. Music Companies sued RCN Internet provider RCN is also under legal pressure. Two years ago, the company was sued by several major music industry companies including Arista Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, and Warner Records. The music companies alleged that RCN wasn't doing enough to stop subscribers from pirating on its network. Instead of terminating accounts of persistent pirates, the Internet provider looked away, they argued. The stakes of these liability lawsuits are high. Internet providers face hundreds of millions of dollars in damages claims, while tens of thousands of Internet subscribers are at risk of having their accounts terminated. "False and Fraudulent Notices" To avoid trouble, several ISPs have launched counterattacks in court. This includes RCN, which accused the RIAA and its anti-piracy partner of sending 'false and fraudulent' DMCA notices. These notices shouldn't serve as evidence for disconnections. This countersuit initially failed. A New Jersey federal concluded that RCN failed to show that it was financially hurt as a direct result of any incorrect notices. However, the court left the door open for more detailed allegations. Amended Countersuit A month later, the ISP filed updated complaints against the RIAA and Rightscorp. As requested, these included more details on how the alleged false and fraudulent notices required the company to make additional costs. For example, RCN mentioned that it has to hire outside attorneys to analyze Rightscorp's complaints. This includes Rightscorp's refusal to add a digital signature to its DMCA notices. In addition, the ISP argued that it had to spend extra resources on modifying and maintaining its DMCA takedown system, so it could handle Rightscorp's "non-compliant" piracy notices. To state a proper claim under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), there has to be some form of injury that can be directly linked to the alleged fraud. While the updated allegations are indeed more detailed, both the RIAA and Rightscorp believe that they're still lacking. RIAA Denies Involvement In a new filing to the court, RIAA stresses that the new claims still fail to show any direct and substantial injury. In addition, the organization notes that, even if that was the case, it's not responsible. The contested notices were sent by Rightscorp who acted on behalf of record labels, not the RIAA. '[I]t is beyond dispute that Rightscorp never sent infringement notices on behalf of Movants. Indeed, RCN concedes that Movants have never hired Rightscorp to monitor BitTorrent or send notices on their behalf. "Thus, Movants did not personally participate in Rightscorp's practices and plainly lacked unbridled control over them as a matter of law," the RIAA adds. Rightscorp Says RCN is Responsible for Extra Costs Rightscorp can't possibly deny its involvement but the anti-piracy group also asks the court to dismiss the allegations. Among other things, the company argues that RCN fails to show that it made extra costs that are directly related to the contested notices. While RCN may have hired an attorney to review Rightscorp's notices, that wouldn't be any different than analyzing copyright infringement complaints from other parties, Rightscorp argues. Also, any extra costs that were made in relation to Rightscorp's refusal to digitally sign its piracy notices are RCN's own responsibility, since the ISP itself came up with this requirement. "[T]his purported injury is the result of RCN's decision to impose its own formatting requirement, which is not required or even suggested by the DMCA," Rightscorp writes. No Private Investigator's License RCN also alleged that Rightscorp doesn't have a private investigator's license, even though it acts like one. Tracking alleged pirates without a license violates California and New Jersey law, the Internet provider said. In its motion to dismiss Rightscorp admits that it operates without a license. However, the company doesn't believe it needs one and it characterizes RCN's claim as a "pretextual jab." Even if a license would be required, Rightscorp fails to see how this caused financial damage to RCN. "Assuming for the sake of argument that Rightscorp needed a private investigator license, RCN's amended countercomplaint has failed to allege an economic injury caused by Rightscorp's declination to obtain one," Rightscorp counter. The above is just a small selection of the arguments and claims made by all parties. After all sides were heard, it is now up to the court to determine whether RCN's amended complaint can move forward or will be dismissed. — A copy of RIAA's motion to dismiss, filed at the New Jersey federal court, is available here (pdf) and Rightscorp's motion can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2021 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company