Last fall, the district court decided to dismiss the matter, handing a win to the RIAA. Judge Stefan Underhill ultimately concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn\u2019t circumvent YouTube\u2019s technological protection measures. This also rendered the associated defamation and business disparagement claims moot.<\/p>\n
Yout.com Opens Appeal<\/h2>\n
Yout did not give up on the case. Site operator Johnathan Nader opted to appeal the case as he believes that YouTube rippers don\u2019t violate the DMCA. After the\u00a0RIAA\u2019s request for legal fees was denied<\/a>, Yout\u2019s attorneys have filed their opening brief at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The appeal begins by pointing out that the case deals with novel issues regarding the DMCA\u2019s anti-circumvention provision. One of the key questions is whether YouTube videos have effective technological measures that aim to prevent the public from accessing copyrighted works.<\/p>\n Arguing that there is no DRM or encryption protecting the videos, Yout says that\u2019s not the case here.<\/p>\n \u201cNeither YouTube nor the Defendants employ any form of Digital Rights Management or encryption, the inclusion of which would eliminate the ability of the Yout software to allow Yout\u2019s users to make copies of the works.<\/p>\n \u201cIndeed, not only is there a lack of protection against such copying, the process can be accomplished by anyone with a web browser without the need for Yout\u2019s services,\u201d the opening brief adds.<\/p>\n The RIAA nonetheless asked Google to remove Yout.com URLs from its search engine, which it did. As a result, Yout\u2019s traffic numbers dropped and similar takedown notices allegedly resulted in a PayPal ban too.<\/p>\n \u201cDefendants improperly sent anti-circumvention notices to Google with the intent that Google would \u2018delist\u2019 Yout\u2019s software platform, rendering it undiscoverable for the majority of Internet users seeking such services, which is precisely what occurred to Yout\u2019s detriment.\u201d<\/p>\n The 92-page appeal brief lists a myriad of issues and open questions, which suggest that the case warrants an in-depth proceeding. The lower court\u2019s dismissal was premature, Yout\u2019s attorneys argue, adding that the service is analogous to a VCR and has significant non-infringing uses.<\/p>\n The brief illustrates, through detailed descriptions accompanied by screenshots, that anyone can download video and audio from YouTube. The process doesn\u2019t require any software other than a regular web browser.<\/p>\n The example used the music video of Taylor Swift\u2019s \u201cThe Lakes\u201d but the same process applies to all YouTube videos. Through this process the audio and video files are separate, but there are free tools to combine the two.<\/p>\n \u201cA visitor can use Yout to save a personal recording on their personal computer for later viewing when not connected to the Internet. In essence, Yout allows a user to \u2018time shift\u2019 content. Yout never saves or retains its visitors\u2019 time-shifted content on its own servers,\u201d the attorneys write.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The fact that Yout\u2019s attorneys are using a video from one of the biggest artists in the world shows that potential copyright sensitivities are not being evaded.<\/p>\n Instead, Yout explains that its service simply automates the \u2018ripping\u2019 process, without storing any content on its own servers. While rightsholders are clearly against this, the attorneys argue that there is no \u201ccircumvention\u201d of a technological measure that prevents either access or copying.<\/p>\n YouTube does employ a JavaScript-based \u2018rolling cipher\u2019 to make it harder to download content directly. However, Yout doesn\u2019t believe that this is an effective technological measure. In addition, it\u2019s not clear whether YouTube implemented this code to prevent copying.<\/p>\n The RIAA sees the rolling cipher as a form of DRM but the music group didn\u2019t put the code there. YouTube has not been heard in the case but the video platform may have added the code to deter bots from generating fake views to generate income.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no evidence [\u2026] that YouTube intended this to be a \u2018technological measure\u2019 designed to limit access or copying at all. And, if the technology was not designed or intended to limit or accessing copying, the Defendants cannot claim retroactively that such a technological measure exists by happenstance.\u201d<\/p>\n The appellant doesn\u2019t deny that the rolling cipher was introduced to make it harder to download videos but only YouTube itself can provide the answer.<\/p>\n \u201cYouTube is not a party here and the Defendants can no better speak to YouTube\u2019s intentions than Yout can,\u201d the attorneys write.<\/p>\n All in all, it\u2019s clear that YouTube\u2019s videos are not behind a paywall. They are publicly available to anyone with access to a web browser and the Internet. In fact, allowing access to videos is the main purpose of the site.<\/p>\n \u201cIndeed, it is clear from YouTube\u2019s Terms of Service \u2013 which the District Court took judicial notice of \u2013 that, by providing their videos to Youtube \u2013\u00a0the Defendants explicitly agreed that Youtube\u2019s visitors were permitted access to the works<\/strong>, the brief reads (emphasis original).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Making copies of audio and video is an entirely different thing, of course. However, Yout argues that since users have access to the files, without any meaningful technological protection measures, there\u2019s no DMCA violation.<\/p>\n The full arguments are much more detailed than we can summarize here. This is just the start of the appeal and certainly not the last time these issues will be raised.<\/p>\n No date has been set for RIAA\u2019s response, which will likely follow in a few months. In addition, there may be several amicus briefs from interested parties as well, given the gravity of the case.<\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of Yout\u2019s full opening brief, filed as the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is\u00a0available here (pdf)<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"appeal](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/appeal-yout.png\")
<\/center> <\/p>\nDownloading Taylor Swift<\/h2>\n
![\"taylor\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/taylor.png\")
<\/center> <\/p>\nCopyright Protection or Bot Prevention?<\/h2>\n
Free Access<\/h2>\n
![\"youtube](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/uoitube-terms-e1675420785858.png\")
<\/center> <\/p>\n![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"