661–670 of 1001 posts
Your weekly reminder that 1. You should not have your development process on a centralized platform, at least not if you're doing anything that smells of copyright issues 2. If you do host on a centralized platform, have regular, decentralized backups of code and issue tracking. 3. Also, avoid US-centric hosting for this kind of thing. But really, refer to 1.
Curious if anyone with legal expertise knows if this has legs? They say: > The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. But the "circumventing" is still accessing a stream the use…
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…
I don't want my money funding this sort of overreaching censorship.
https://github.com/marzzzello/youtube-dl
https://github.com/koalp/youtube-dl
https://github.com/r4rdsn/youtube-dl
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it uses examples in the README as an example of that: >> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses as far as I can tell these videos are not referenced in the README, but instead in the youtube.py extractor file, which would go against the accusation that they were featured 'prominently'
It makes it worse lol. Using links to copyrighted materials in the tests meant to verify correct functionality? It's "prominent" in the source code . They literally wrote out "Test VEVO video with video age protection" then linked to a Justin Timberlake song https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtub... I clicked on this ready to see some stupidity from the copyright industry but literally downloadi…
Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the ~~README~~(unit tests, see correction[1]) as an example of that: > We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For…
The fact that copyrighted works were included in the readme shows it was intended for that use, and the RIAA complaint will likely stand up to any legal scrutiny. Just because it can be used for legit purposes too won't matter in the slightest. I mean, Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court. The only chance tools like this have legally is when infringement is an "unintende…
We're still fighting over the color of bits. It's all a bit technically bozo, but, sigh.
Oh the irony of cloning a banned repo from a Chinese git mirror... c:\Users\david\dev\git λ git clone https://gitee.com/mirrors/youtube-downloader.git Cloning into 'youtube-downloader'... remote: Enumerating objects: 98560, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (98560/98560), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (30542/30542), done. remote: Total 98560 (delta 73037), reused 90045 (delta 66441), pack-reused 0 Receiv…
Not a lawyer, software guy working in licensing & copyright for 20+ years. Was paid for a few years to talk about this stuff with tech and publishing people. They're requesting the takedown under 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems. [ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 ] It's a few paragraphs of the actual law at stake here. There's no much to it. Essentially, they're argu…