Hosting provider Uberspace has suffered another setback in a German court. The court of appeal ruled against youtube-dl’s former hosting provider, holding it liable for alleged violations of YouTube’s copyright protection measures. The owner of the company is currently considering further appeal options. Meanwhile, youtube-dl remains available on GitHub.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      30 days ago

      Give it a few more years and it will probably be over there. I don’t know whether it’s an ongoing thing or what since I haven’t kept up with it, but there is/was(?) a case of some Springer Verlag trying to say that an ad blocker violates copyright law, going after Eyeo/Adblocker Plus.

      • mbirth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        To be fair, Eyeo/ABP deserved everything they had coming at them. They not only blocked ads, but there was code found to replace Amazon affiliate links with an affiliate id from them. (German report here - look for the part about typoRules.js.)

    • Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      30 days ago

      I mean, that was Getty Image’s whole case against Google’s “view image” button. And Getty won that legal battle, so clearly they have some legal ground to stand on, even though most people would think it’s bullshit.

      • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        ngl making a troll “hacker” account that just publishes the f12 screen and simple inspect element edits would be gold. “Today we hacked Elon and made him pro BlueSky!”

    • Kissaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      29 days ago

      What logic do you mean?

      Images are typically not encrypted with protection measures [in transit].

        • Kissaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          I don’t think that qualifies as “protection” of copyrighted content before law?

          Some YouTube videos are protected like that, others not. The lawsuit is about those being circumvented. It is NOT about SSL or circumventing SSL.

          An equivalent would be a copyright protection on images. Not SSL.

          Forgive me if I am lacking the correct term for it.