571–580 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine someone can re-publish it on Github without it being taken down if they rename it, change the README and/or add some disclaimer saying this tool shouldn't be used to download copyrighted works. Collaboration to keep it up to date hopefully follows soon after.
This would definitely be a good time for a rebranding, the tool is now very far from its original "youtube-dl" purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking the same thing: The next step following this line of thinking would be trying to ban all torrent clients, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted material. This is crazy.
Why stop with torrent clients? They should ban all browsers, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted materials!
Because of how github works these moves are much more damaging than you might expect: In addition to revoking your access to the supposed "infringing" work, you also lose access to all your pull request comment traffic and issues -- which, unlike the source code, aren't continually replicated to the systems of all developers.
Worth noting the MPA already tried doing this to Popcorn Time, a BitTorrent client designed to provide a Netflix-like UX.[1] The Popcorn Time devs put in a counter-notice and the repository was back up a few weeks later when the period for the MPA to respond expired. The same thing will probably happen here because this is not one of the purposes of DMCA takedown letters, period. Even if there are inappropriate test…
btw, Popcorn time is a bit different situation. I would say bit torrent is more the problem, or at least the people who upload pirated content.
What is odd though is that it's the RIAA filing suit here and not google. Google has a real complaint, RIAA certainly does not.
It would be like if NYT went after a web client for saving news articles for offline reading.
Bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While photocopying books for distribution is against the law, I disagree that it should be against the law. If 3 people all borrow the same book sequentially then it's fine. If one person borrow it, photocopies it twice to share with two others, then they've broken the law. And yet nobody in either case has made more or less money. I am in favor of copyright law that prevents profiting from another person's work, but…
> Once your idea is public knowledge, there is no reason for it not to spread freely given how easy it is to transmit information now. This treads into territory I feel is grey. I imagine the complex case where I sell some creative content (e.g. a pdf, audio file or video). You pay me for access to this content and download it. I grant that you ought to be able to retain a local copy of that content for so long as yo…
Got any data to back up this feeling? I've seen plenty of cases when content creators have had big breaks due to their content being made freely available. If people love the work, they'll support the creator. This modern trend of needing to pay before you even know if you love the work is an inversion of what has happened in history, to our detriment.
If anyone wants them, feel free to shoot me an email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While photocopying books for distribution is against the law, I disagree that it should be against the law. If 3 people all borrow the same book sequentially then it's fine. If one person borrow it, photocopies it twice to share with two others, then they've broken the law. And yet nobody in either case has made more or less money. I am in favor of copyright law that prevents profiting from another person's work, but…
Your example is a case where piracy had no profit impact, but it's not the general case. The books are priced in part based on assumptions about how many people can read them over time. A book at a library can probably only be read by ~20 people a year. If 200 people a year want to read it, the library needs ten books. But, if we were free to post the scans online, the price per book would need to be astronomically h…
Can you support the claim that creative work becomes unprofitable when copies are made freely available, but the option to support the creator still exists?
Worth noting the MPA already tried doing this to Popcorn Time, a BitTorrent client designed to provide a Netflix-like UX.[1] The Popcorn Time devs put in a counter-notice and the repository was back up a few weeks later when the period for the MPA to respond expired. The same thing will probably happen here because this is not one of the purposes of DMCA takedown letters, period. Even if there are inappropriate test…
I just used windows-g to record upside down music video. Seems to work fine. mp4 file is in my captures video. Sound is great. How is that acceptable and this isn't? btw, Popcorn time is a bit different situation. I would say bit torrent is more the problem, or at least the people who upload pirated content. What is odd though is that it's the RIAA filing suit here and not google. Google has a real complaint, RIAA ce…
Guns can be used to shoot people, they’re explicitly advertised as being for shooting people, shooting people is a crime. We request you stop selling guns.
It’s all just a tad misplaced.