Earlier this month, the RIAA asked an appeals court to uphold the dismissal of a complaint filed against it by streamripper Yout. Now Yout has officially submitted his response, claiming that the complex issues at hand “can only be solved by one solution.” fact finder after the parties have had an opportunity to make full disclosure.”
Hartford-based firm Yout and its legal team recently addressed the RIAA’s 60-page response letter, which we covered extensively. To recap, the court battle began back in October 2020, when Yout sued the RIAA because the industry representative was working overtime to shut down stream rippers, platforms that allow users to “rip” video and then audio can save.
In short, Yout’s complaint — which was dismissed unscathed in September 2022 — alleged that the RIAA violated the DMCA and defamed Yout (Yout) by submitting false takedown requests to Google. Specifically, these allegedly false takedown notices are said to have contained false information about whether Yout actually “bypasses a technical measure that effectively controls access to a work” (YouTube’s “rolling cipher”) and thereby violates the work Section 1201 of the DMCA.
“In order to prove his eligibility for a declaratory judgment under Section 1201, Yout would have to show that it does not violate any of the prohibitions of this statute,” the RIAA’s attorney wrote at the beginning of May. “The reality is that it is a violation all of prohibitions.”
As might be expected, Yout has refuted the latter idea, instead claiming that it is not a bypass tool, instead allowing users to speed up a straightforward process that they could otherwise perform via a web browser.
Yout expanded on this position, targeting the RIAA’s arguments (“which rely heavily on unsubstantiated claims disguised as facts”) in the aforementioned response, and expressing his belief that the cases cited by the trade organization, for the most part, “taught had been decided”. a much later stage in the process.”
“As discussed in Yout’s opening statement (and is apparent even from reading the RIAA’s response), the issues at stake in this case are complex and involve highly technical issues that are either entirely factual in nature or a mixture of factual and legal issues ,” the stream ripper wrote. “Ultimately, this is simply not a case that can or should be decided by a motion to dismiss.”
Yout also pointed out that there is “an elephant-sized hole in the room” because YouTube failed to file an amicus brief on behalf of the RIAA. “The RIAA is trying to cover this huge hole with fig leaves and amazingly argues that it is Purpose “The question of the technology used by YouTube is irrelevant and should simply be ignored,” the plaintiff-complainant continued.
Of course, Yout went on to point out that the RIAA had “admitted neither itself nor its members.” itself take any kind of ‘technological measure’ that would need to be circumvented in order to access or copy the works in question” – these measures being “necessary for an infringement to exist either” of the relevant parts of Section 1201.
Towards the end of the briefing, Yout made it clear that the RIAA is widely quoted Universal City Studios vs. Corley Not only was the case “easily distinguishable (from the current lawsuit), but it was decided only after an extensive trial in which the court heard and considered the testimonies of the parties’ witnesses, competing experts and documentary evidence.”
“As a matter of fact, Corley is so factually dissimilar to the case at hand that it could serve as a problem identification test for law students learning to distinguish cases,” Yout said, before quoting Digital Music News and highlighting the small percentage of all YouTube traffic attributed to music is.
“The service provided by Yout is content neutral and merely provides a recording device that uses precisely the information that is freely and publicly available to anyone who wants to search for it, without the need to circumvent any technical measures,” the platform concludes communicated.
More as this develops.