> It could still be in Youtube's interest to prevent this from happening.

And in fact it is illegal for YouTube to lock your data within their service in that manner in the EU. You have a right to export your data and they have the responsibility to make it make possible to move that data to a competitor where technically feasible. And it clearly is technically feasible.

Do they have an obligation to export your data in a format you choose with a method of your choice or can they make that determination for themselves? Does the EU mandate the ability for YouTube-dl to exist?

There’s a lot of talking past each other going on in this thread. Nobody is defending the RIAA or DMCA. But they exist and this outcome seems painfully obvious.

RIAA being mean, DMCA being bad and copyright being outdated doesn’t matter here. What matters in that the law exists and YouTube-dl made it really easy for the RIAA to make a compelling case against them.

I think the law made it really easy for Google to make that case. I don't think the RIAA has legal standing here under DMCA.

Google isn't making that case because Youtube is YOUtube. The whole point is that it's a platform for family videos, amateurs, and all sorts of other things.

If the RIAA didn't want their content Youtube-dl'able, they should have used one of their locked-down platforms. They went to Youtube because the locked-down corporate platforms don't have the eyeballs. Now, they're trying to convert Youtube into one of those platforms.

My expectation is the RIAA will prevail, but because of deeper pockets and the potential for a multi-million dollar legal battle, not because they're on solid legal ground.

But YouTube is not the one taking legal action here, The RIAA is.

I understand that as well. I am saying it is possible to imagine a scenario in which someone looks at Youtube-dl as something other than a totally harmless aid to users.

Youtube has legitimate reasons to try and prevent people from downloading content from their site. Youtube-dl is clearly there to enable people to do that. Rightsholders can use this as another argument that Youtube-dl violates (or is designed to violate) the DMCA.

I'm not defending the RIAA or DMCA here but I can understand their argument and why they are making it.

I'm not sure what the line of thought is supposed to be here. Youtube also has legitimate reasons to make sure people watch their videos rather than their competitors, but that doesn't mean they can sue me for watching Vimeo.

Of course not. But what if Vimeo is using YouTube to host the videos? The point I am making has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with leveraging a third party tool to make a competitors product an advantage for yourself.

And in your example they should be suing Vimeo. If we were competing hot dog stands and I use a hammer to break into your cart and steal your family mustard recipe, you don't deliver a notice to Home Depot.

Your analogy makes no sense. RIAA is arguing YouTube-dl is a tool designed to download copywritten material from YouTube because YouTube-dl included test cases in their own code for downloading copywritten material from YouTube. The existence of other streaming sites or other functionality of youtube-dl is completely irrelevant. YouTube does not need to be a party to this, the RIAA is just connecting the dots to make their own case. Their claim is that YouTube-dl is a tool for downloading copywritten material from YouTube because the creators of YouTube-dl literally tested for that in the codebase.

It’s a pretty easy case to make. Any other use of the tool is again, completely and totally irrelevant.

To be even more clear I’m sure YouTube-dl is a useful tool and I think such things should exist. However, this is an important lesson when making and owning these tools. Don’t do the RIAAs work for them.

That's all well and good, but I don't see where your earlier points about business competition fit into all that.