591–600 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't follow at all, any more than had the repo owners included a couple of public domain recordings in the repo then the conclusion that the tool was clearly intended to download public domain recordings.
You may feel it doesn't matter, but it does in fact matter to the entities where decisions are made on matters like this: the courts.
Considering youtube-dl isn't doing anything a web browser accessing these sites can't do, essentially serving as a headless web browser with a convenient CLI, I don't see how this could possibly have a leg to stand on. It's like serving Mozilla a DMCA takedown for FireFox. I however welcome the highly visible reminder that github should only be used as a mirror at most.
There's an obvious difference between a browser that, in normal use, doesn't allow storing of streaming video, and a tool that does and isn't supported by Google at all. Yes, you can download the full video with a browser. Yes, you can use wget or curl to do that. But youtube-dl's community was dumb enough to give clear cut examples of downloading copywritten material, which is obviously not what the RIAA or probably…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keybase, outside of the distributed bit along with the question of their future, provides zero-knowledge git repositories (they’ve literally got no idea what is in your repositories, including metadata).
I doubt any of Keybase's features from flailing around to see what will stick will last much longer now that they've been bought by Zoom.
Incredibly sad, it did IM very well and on top of it all, it had a bunch of very innovative features. And no, nothing really competes with it.
The removal of youtube-dl is a loss to the open source community. I hope this does not set a precedence going forward and that authors re-establish themselves (and the bug tracker, which had immense amount of information). At the same time, this lead me to browse the Github's DMCA repo, which has some real gems. For example, this DMCA takedown of repo with copied course assignment of a different student and did not c…
insane that nintendo is so litigious that they send lawyers to take down fan-made games meant to be patched on Ocarina of Time. What, is this fan game gonna detract from the valuable income you're making on a 22 year old game for the Nintendo 64?? It's at their own detriment... https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-0... https://www.pcgamer.com/the-missing-link-is-an-impressive-an...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what is being circumvented? As far as I'm aware there are no controls put in place that are being circumvented. Edit: I'm also curious why the riaa would have standing at all? Even assuming there is some protection being circumvented, it's not the riaa's control that is being circumvented.
Saving videos
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like putting that in the readme was pretty stupid. Intent matters in legal things, making the example infringing undermines the argument that the tool is good and some people are just bad. > This feels like DeCSS all over again. I think napster would be the better comparision (and especially napster compared to vcrs)
They did not put that in the readme. The README contains only references to test videos, videos that don't actually exist, and one small-time video (in spanish?) that seems to be an old test video, but I have a hard time seeing for sure. The source code does contain references to copyrighted videos in the tests, tests intended to make sure that youtube-dl can download the data from videos using the extremely "token"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, does the fact that YouTube doesn't supply a download feature constitute a "technical protection measure"? From the RIAA's point of view, it works to their benefit that a download link doesn't exist, and it may be something they like, but that doesn't mean that's why. It could just as easily be that a download feature doesn't exist because YouTube wants you to keep returning to their site if you want to rewatch…
The fact that youtube wants people to come back to the site and use servers, miles of wires, electricity, network machinery instead of letting them download videos so they can watch them from thumbdrive just says to me this company is unethical and harms environment. Any business model that forces people to be on the network without any reason other than greed, should be illegal. If you can stream the file, download…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
insane that nintendo is so litigious that they send lawyers to take down fan-made games meant to be patched on Ocarina of Time. What, is this fan game gonna detract from the valuable income you're making on a 22 year old game for the Nintendo 64?? It's at their own detriment... https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-0... https://www.pcgamer.com/the-missing-link-is-an-impressive-an...
Lawyers have no sense of humor. They are like the opposite of hackers.
Although you're posting this on a forum for hackers where humor is considered a mortal sin.
This tool literally recommendeds downloading copyrighted material. This is a good take down.