'''The 2017 decision of the Hamburg Regional Court in Germany that RIAA references,
which refers to YouTube’s “signature” mechanism, was wrongly decided and is not
binding nor even persuasive under U.S. law. The court in that case apparently reasoned
beyond the capabilities of the average user. It was on this basis that the court declared the
code to be an effective technical measure under Germany’s analogue of Section 1201. The
and similar software, making use of the “signature” mechanism well within the capabilities
of the average user. The Hamburg court’s analysis sweeps too broadly: it would cause anti-
circumvention law to apply to any web content except the simplest plain-text pages,
because all such content can appear obscure to the average user in source-code form but is
easily read and used in a browser. The Hamburg court’s decision is not consistent with the
U.S. DMCA and would not be followed by a U.S. court.'''
that the saving specifically is beyond the average user.
'''As federal appeals court
recently ruled, one does not “circumvent” an access control by using a publicly available
password. Digital Drilling Data Systems, L.L.C. v. Petrolink Services, 965 F.3d 365, 372
(5th Cir. 2020). Circumvention is limited to actions that “descramble, decrypt, avoid,
bypass, remove, deactivate or impair a technological measure,” without the authority of the
copyright owner. “What is missing from this statutory definition is any reference to ‘use’
of a technological measure without the authority of the copyright owner.” Egilman v.
Keller & Heckman, LLP., 401 F. Supp. 2d 105, 113 (D.D.C. 2005). Because youtube-dl
simply uses the “signature” code provided by YouTube in the same manner as any browser,
rather than bypassing or avoiding it, it does not circumvent'''
This part was great. I did not know that for the US DMCA 'use' does not qualify as 'circumvention'. This seems to void the RIAA's claim. My worry here is that this was in federal appeals court, and if it goes to the supreme court in the future, it will be reversed. The current 6-3 supreme court is sure to rule against the freedom of the users, and for the "freedom" of the rights-holders to impose restrictions on the users.