Is it appropriate for Fedora to ship software whose only purpose is to violate terms of service of web sites, such as restrictions like this?
“ You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means […] may designate. ”
The software is specifically designed to circumvent restrictions the web site operator has put in place to prevent offline viewing of content.
Thanks, Florian
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35:57AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Is it appropriate for Fedora to ship software whose only purpose is to violate terms of service of web sites, such as restrictions like this?
“ You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means […] may designate. ”
The software is specifically designed to circumvent restrictions the web site operator has put in place to prevent offline viewing of content.
You didn't indicate which software you refer to.
Spot can advise more here, certainly. My recollection is Fedora hasn't generally assessed software based on how people use it, with very specific exceptions. Any software that can be used to subvert ToS could also be used by the site operator to test countermeasures, so this seems to me an unwise place to draw a line.
On 07/02/2018 10:29 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Spot can advise more here, certainly. My recollection is Fedora hasn't generally assessed software based on how people use it, with very specific exceptions. Any software that can be used to subvert ToS could also be used by the site operator to test countermeasures, so this seems to me an unwise place to draw a line.
I agree. We have to look at this on a case-by-case basis.
~tom
On 07/02/2018 04:29 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35:57AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Is it appropriate for Fedora to ship software whose only purpose is to violate terms of service of web sites, such as restrictions like this?
“ You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means […] may designate. ”
The software is specifically designed to circumvent restrictions the web site operator has put in place to prevent offline viewing of content.
You didn't indicate which software you refer to.
Spot can advise more here, certainly. My recollection is Fedora hasn't generally assessed software based on how people use it, with very specific exceptions. Any software that can be used to subvert ToS could also be used by the site operator to test countermeasures, so this seems to me an unwise place to draw a line.
I was wondering about quvi/libquvi-scripts and youtube-dl.
The URLs in libquvi-scripts are hard-coded, and the test suite attempts to connect to youtube.com (for example). The Totem integration does not prompt for a URL, either. All this suggests to me that the expectation is that the software can only be used to access those video sites, and not testing your own video streaming service.
Thanks, Florian
Greetings,
----- Original Message -----
On 07/02/2018 04:29 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35:57AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Is it appropriate for Fedora to ship software whose only purpose is to violate terms of service of web sites, such as restrictions like this?
“You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means […] may designate.”
The software is specifically designed to circumvent restrictions the web site operator has put in place to prevent offline viewing of content.
You didn't indicate which software you refer to.
Spot can advise more here, certainly. My recollection is Fedora hasn't generally assessed software based on how people use it, with very specific exceptions. Any software that can be used to subvert ToS could also be used by the site operator to test countermeasures, so this seems to me an unwise place to draw a line.
I was wondering about quvi/libquvi-scripts and youtube-dl.
The URLs in libquvi-scripts are hard-coded, and the test suite attempts to connect to youtube.com (for example). The Totem integration does not prompt for a URL, either. All this suggests to me that the expectation is that the software can only be used to access those video sites, and not testing your own video streaming service.
Thanks, Florian
I don't know what quvi is but youtube-dl handles dozens and dozens of sites... among which I'm guessing there are some that allow users to download their content... but I haven't verified that. It is kinda like some of the hardware emulators... they can be used to run stolen ROMs as well as legit.
TYL,
On 07/02/2018 11:10 AM, Scott Dowdle wrote:
It is kinda like some of the hardware emulators... they can be used to run stolen ROMs as well as legit.
This is similar, but the nuance matters here.
In the case of youtube, the content is being distributed with permission, the issue is whether the way that the material is being accessed is a concern. If youtube wanted to prevent these tools from accessing their site, they could do so (citing violation of their TOS), but use of these tools is not currently a crime under US Federal or State law (see previous message from me on this thread for more details).
With "stolen ROMs", there is no permission being given to distribute these files. A tool which was hardwired to download these files might not be accessible. In Fedora, we do not permit emulators which depend on such ROMs to function, and do not allow emulators to assist people in downloading such ROMs.
hth,
~tom
On 07/02/2018 10:40 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I was wondering about quvi/libquvi-scripts and youtube-dl.
The URLs in libquvi-scripts are hard-coded, and the test suite attempts to connect to youtube.com (for example). The Totem integration does not prompt for a URL, either. All this suggests to me that the expectation is that the software can only be used to access those video sites, and not testing your own video streaming service.
Keeping in mind that IANAL, and this is not legal advice, looking at the ruling of the Ninth Circuit in Oracle v Rimini (Filed Jan 8, 2018), the panel held that:
"... taking data from a website, using a method prohibited by the applicable terms of use, when the taking itself generally is permitted, does not violate the CDAFA or the NCCL."
(CDAFA is the California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, NCCL is the Nevada Computer Crimes Law.)
The Ninth Circuit also ruled back in 2012 (USA v David Nosal) that merely violating a website's terms of use is not a crime under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
In the specific case of these tools, they are accessing the publicly available youtube website. If these tools were hacking into the youtube website and pulling out content that was not being made publicly available, that would potentially be a different story, but this is not the case.
Google would be fully within their rights to block these tools from accessing youtube.com, but there is no clear legal reason preventing Fedora from distributing them.
~tom
On 07/02/2018 05:22 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/02/2018 10:40 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I was wondering about quvi/libquvi-scripts and youtube-dl.
The URLs in libquvi-scripts are hard-coded, and the test suite attempts to connect to youtube.com (for example). The Totem integration does not prompt for a URL, either. All this suggests to me that the expectation is that the software can only be used to access those video sites, and not testing your own video streaming service.
Keeping in mind that IANAL, and this is not legal advice, looking at the ruling of the Ninth Circuit in Oracle v Rimini (Filed Jan 8, 2018), the panel held that:
"... taking data from a website, using a method prohibited by the applicable terms of use, when the taking itself generally is permitted, does not violate the CDAFA or the NCCL."
(CDAFA is the California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, NCCL is the Nevada Computer Crimes Law.)
The Ninth Circuit also ruled back in 2012 (USA v David Nosal) that merely violating a website's terms of use is not a crime under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
But is distribution a tort?
What about the “Save video as …” option in Totem, which Firefox automatically disables to honor the wishes of the web site operator?
(And Fedora aims to be relevant in more than just one jurisdiction.)
In the specific case of these tools, they are accessing the publicly available youtube website. If these tools were hacking into the youtube website and pulling out content that was not being made publicly available, that would potentially be a different story, but this is not the case.
I have not checked if you can use these tools to avoid geo-blocking (because the tools bypass the regular web front end).
Thanks, Florian
-
Florian Weimer -
Paul W. Frields -
Scott Dowdle -
Tom Callaway