>llegal for including code to decrypt youtube video request signatures

No it's not, in Switzerland for example it's legal to use tools to remove stuff like DRM, if you DONT redistribute the decrypted stuff.

What a German Court says is often not relevant outside germany.

Switzerland, as well as almost every western country that ratified the relevant WIPO treaties, has broadly similar laws to the DMCA: https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/...

Yes and? I just wrote that removing DRM is not illegal here, but distributing the de-drm material is. And tools to remove drm is also not illegal.

If you read the link you will notice that just like the DMCA, distributing tools capable of removing DRM is illegal in some cases.

>The ban on circumvention may not be enforced against those persons who undertake the circumvention exclusively for legally permitted uses.

And download a Youtube Video is legal.

Storing your DVD's in another format and rip your CD's

EDIT: BTW in the take-down notice you can read that the tool promotes or is/can be used to download Justin Timberlake (and that would be illegal if you redistribute it) so it's not that the code to decrypt is illegal (you know "hackertools" are illegal in germany too) but the potential intention of the tool.

"Exclusively" is the key word. Whether youtube-dl is designed to "exclusively" be used for legally permitted uses is a matter for a court to decide. The RIAA's claim listed several reasons why it believes this is not the case.

The DMCA as written is a little more nuanced, but on whole the laws serve the same purpose.

>Exclusively

Not the tool is meant here but the User, and you know it.

It's legal to record radio, and record/download Youtube videos, if you don't redistribute it (outside Family and Friends

The distribution of youtube-dl itself is what's at issue, not the use of youtube-dl or the distribution of files downloaded with youtube-dl.

Just read that article:

https://joindiaspora.com/posts/808cf690f8e801381778002590d8e...

And why is that not a issue anymore? (hint it was):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss

The RIAA is specifically making the allegation that "the source code was designed and is marketed for the purpose of circumventing YouTube’s technological measures to enable unauthorized access to our member’s copyrighted works" [1], justified by the references to copyrighted works in the youtube-dl readme and source code. If it wasn't for that, it'd be much easier to argue that it's designed for non-infringing purposes only (or one of the other exceptions to the DMCA's TPM clauses), like you could plausibly argue for libdvdcss.

[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2...

Here's a video of a copyright lawyer agreeing with GP for 1h20min: https://youtu.be/wZITscblMBA

In short, what a german court says will absolutely influence what a US court says in the context of an international copyright treaty.

>german court says will absolutely influence what a US court

Not will but can. That's a difference...and i dont watch a 1h20min YT video about Copyright...when decrypting has nothing todo with copyright.

It's a video about the exact case in question, talks extensively about the decryption aspect and in general the circumvention of technological protection measures.

Watch it, don't watch it, it doesn't matter to anyone here, but please lower that horse back down to earth, it's a little high.

>but please lower that horse back down to earth, it's a little high

As if your talking about yourself, maybe your a bit young but we had the exact same problem in the past (decrypting DVD's) those are Disc who stored Movies on it. And a Swiss Court decided that it's legal to use dvcss (not sure about the name).

And you tell me to watch a YT from a US Lawyer.

If you'd bother watching the video you'd note that he specifically talks about the CSS DRM, and even the AACS encryption key.

So yeah, tone it down a bit.

>So yeah, tone it down a bit.

Speak for yourself please.