Vai al contenuto

Cookie di analisi

Usiamo Google Analytics e Google Tag Manager per contare le visite e capire quali pagine sono utili. Se accetti, Google Analytics può impostare cookie per riconoscere le tue visite successive. Se rifiuti, non imposta alcun cookie, ma Google riceve comunque un segnale senza cookie per ogni pagina che visiti. Non inviamo a Google il tuo nome, il tuo indirizzo e-mail né i dati della tua registrazione, e puoi cambiare la tua scelta in qualsiasi momento da «Impostazioni cookie» in fondo alla pagina. Privacy

Questa traduzione dell'interfaccia è una bozza e non è stata rivista da una persona madrelingua. L'inglese è la versione di riferimento. English

Judge denies Apple's motion to dismiss YouTube creators' DMCA scraping claim

9 ott 2026 · Raccolto automaticamente da fonti pubbliche. Non revisionato da una persona.

Questo contenuto è disponibile solo nella lingua originale (inglese).

What happened

On 9 October 2026, Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California denied Apple Inc.'s motion to dismiss in Ted Entertainment, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:26-cv-02936-RS. The order holds that the YouTube creators' amended complaint adequately alleges circumvention of technological protection measures under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A). The case proceeds; the ruling decides nothing on the merits and accepts the well-pleaded allegations as true only for the motion.

What the complaint alleges

Ted Entertainment (the company behind the H3 Podcast) and creator Matt Fisher, suing for a putative class of YouTube uploaders, allege Apple used the public HD-VILA-100M dataset to build its own Panda-70M dataset, then used the datasets to locate, access and download millions of underlying YouTube videos outside YouTube's authorized playback environment to train a generative text-to-video model. The alleged methods include yt-dlp, IP rotation, regenerated links, and spoofed or reused proof-of-origin tokens; YouTube's measures are said to include a rolling cipher, session-bound short-lived URLs, CAPTCHA challenges, proof-of-origin tokens, and IP blocking and rate limiting.

Why the motion failed

Apple argued YouTube's measures are use controls under 1201(b) rather than access controls under 1201(a), that they do not operate in the ordinary course, and that its conduct was not "circumvention" under 1201(a)(3)(A). The court rejected each argument at the pleading stage: a measure can be both an access control and a use control, obtaining unencrypted video outside authorized playback does not take the measures outside 1201(a)(3)(B), and the allegation that Apple used yt-dlp or an equivalent to descramble the rolling cipher alone overcomes the motion.

Note on the plaintiffs

On 27 October 2026 Ted Entertainment filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its own claims in this case; as of 30 October the filing was not publicly available, so whether it drops only Ted as a plaintiff (as in the parallel Nvidia case, where Matt Fisher remains) was unconfirmed. The 9 October ruling itself is unaffected.

Fonti