Court Rules That Ripping YouTube Clips Can Violate the DMCA
6 86A federal court in California has ruled that YouTube creators who use stream-ripping tools to download clips for reaction and commentary videos may face liability under the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions -- a decision that could reshape how one of the platform's most popular content genres operates.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss in Cordova v. Huneault, a creator-versus-creator dispute, finding that YouTube's "rolling cipher" technology qualifies as an access control measure under section 1201(a) even though the underlying videos are freely viewable by the public. The distinction matters because it separates the act of watching a video from the act of downloading it.
The defense had argued that no ripping tools were actually used and that screen recording could account for the copied footage. Judge DeMarchi allowed the claim to proceed to discovery regardless, noting that the plaintiff had adequately pled the circumvention allegation. The ruling opens a legal avenue beyond standard copyright infringement for creators who want to go after rivals. Reaction channels have long leaned on fair use as a blanket defense, but plaintiff's attorney Randall S. Newman told TorrentFreak that circumventing copy protections under section 1201 is a separate violation unaffected by any fair use finding.
6 comments
Re: more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score: 5, Insightful)
by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Thursday February 05, 2026 @09:28PM (#65971712)
Per TFA, the plaintiff claims that the defendant used circumvention technology to download the stream. The defendant claims they didn't -- they just used screen-capture.
Yes, the plaintiff's claim is based on copyright infringement, but through a violation of the DMCA, not through use of their content. I think the case will hinge on whether the plaintiff can prove this.
There is such a thing as fair use, and this case really doesn't have anything to do with it. Why? Because the plaintiff is not suing the usage, just the manner in which they believe the content was acquired.
Re:more flamebait presumably since /.'s tards now (Score: 5, Insightful)
by jon3k ( 691256 ) on Thursday February 05, 2026 @07:55PM (#65971618)
Courts interpret laws they don't write them. The DMCA is clear. And it's clearly one of the worst laws this country has passed in probably a century. The problem is not the judicial branch it's the legislative.
The court DIDN'T rule (Score: 5, Informative)
by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday February 05, 2026 @06:58PM (#65971524)
This was not the outcome of a case, merely a judge deciding not to grant the defense's request for a dismissal. Sure, there's the remote possibility that the defendant could lose this case from the DMCA angle, because fair use under the DMCA is kind of a mess. [eff.org]
It's important to point out that "fair use" has never been a trump card you can play to have a copyright lawsuit immediately dismissed - it is only a legally defensible position. It only feels like fair use offers a shield of protection, because most of the time rightsholders don't want to waste money fighting a legal battle they aren't likely to win. But, when you've got a stubborn YouTube content creator with an axe to grind and the money to pay their lawyer(s), the court is unfortunately going to have to go through the entire process of legal wrangling before they get to the point of determining that it was in fact, fair use.
Re:Why is this different (Score: 5, Insightful)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Thursday February 05, 2026 @07:31PM (#65971570)
Yes. However the social construct of laws has fallen apart. Laws are only for little people. It's a free for all if you're rich or powerful.
Cory Doctorow was right (Score: 5, Insightful)
by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Thursday February 05, 2026 @07:41PM (#65971594)
Even though this is still very preliminary, I think it reaffirms Cory Doctorow's position that countries should repeal the DMCA-like laws that they were strong-armed into passing by the US government (which itself was bought and paid for by US corporations.)
This means you must know the chain of custody... (Score: 5, Interesting)
by XaXXon ( 202882 ) on <xaxxon@@@gmail...com> on Thursday February 05, 2026 @08:09PM (#65971628)
if you can't just record your own screen which requires no circumvention -- because in the past the data was encrypted -- that means to use anything anywhere ever you must know if it had previously been encrypted.
This is such bullshit.
"You can have it, you just can't obtain it" is such a bad idea to ever have in law.