751–760 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have it backwards. Google is very much on the same side as RIAA in this case. Youtube-dl is simply too convenient for avoiding the ads.
Does your ad blocker not already remove the ads?
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…
What I haven’t seen pointed out is that this is really Githubs problem. They shouldn’t automatically respond to DCMA. The process should really be passed on to the owner of the repo and make them liable. Basically, defaulting to rolling over to DMCA requests had led to an environment where there’s no way to fight them. Even if I hosted something like YouTube-dl myself, my internet provider could cut me off. It’s the…
That's the DMCA works I thought? When the host receives the notice they have to take down the content then forward the notice to the user, who can then file a counter-claim and then the host restores the content (if they don't take it down they they're liable).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that they are making the claim that this tool is expressly for doing something that is forbidden by the YouTube TOS and breaking the music licenses provided. Of course YouTube has other videos that are under different licenses so it isn't clear that this is the only use case of the software.
Wait a minute, there's a difference between distributed copyrighted works, and merely copying it for yourself. In France for instance, we have this notion of "copie privée" (private copy), that says we are allowed to copy anything as long as we don't distribute it back. We even pay taxes on persistent memory for the privilege. Up thread there's also a citation of the Betamax case, which says that it's okay for people…
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…
Using copyrighted materials in test code is fair use and a well established practice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
The creators of youtube-dl are not distributing the material or inducing infringement by using a link to it in a unit test. I am typically on the RIAA's side,
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23079092
but they're going to lose this one. If RIAA should be mad at anyone, it is youtube for distributing it without DRM. Youtube really really REALLY should have had their asses taken to the cleaners in viacom vs youtube. I don't know what the settlement was, but it wasn't enough, because youtube still exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
This is a python program doing exactly the same steps a browser takes to download the file. It's just written in python instead of js.
This should be about impossible to enforce? Every developer and everyone who has ever cloned the repo has the complete source tree with commits. I can think of a list of countries where United States laws are not a concern, I imagine that shortly this will be one of the most distributed repositories ever. It also shows again that while free services like Github are convenient, and truthfully their interface is the on…
[1] https://ipfs.io/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to add a data point, but back when I still was working for a video distribution startup, we offered our customers the ability to directly import their video inventory from YouTube. They were the owners of the videos, it was just a convenient (and very popular!) feature for them to let us handle this import. We used YouTube-dl for this, of course. No way we could have done this easily without it. We imported hund…
Right, but that's not the heart of the matter. It's one thing if a tool designed for legitimate archiving use results in incidental violation of copyright. It's another thing entirely, legally, if a tool is designed for violating copyright. In such case, it doesn't matter if there are also legitimate fair use uses of the tool. And that's what the README showed: that youtube-dl was built primarily to violate copyright…
Format shifting was at the time not allowed in UK copyright law, and again is not allowed as of a couple of years ago (it was only allowed for about a year).
iTunes was designed for copyright violation. I'm sure the manual will show that.
Just for comparison.
It's my understanding that any media _can_ fall under Fair Use in the USA, meaning that there would have to be specification as to who was using the software and their circumstances within the unit tests in order to make it infringing use. You might fir example be archiving, or preparing educational materials, or compiling a review, or doing subtitling.
It's not sufficient to prove someone downloaded, you have to show it was infringing activity. How do you do that with a unit test? Software to perform legitimate, legal downloads would still have to do that same test.
In short you've found a smoking gun, now prove its principle purpose is murder.
This comment is provided solely for entertainment and in no way relates to my employment.
Disclaimer: IANAL. The legal reasoning here is shaky. Notice that they cite a German court and assert that the law there is materially the same as that in the US. I did some research on this specific issue at one point, and I'm skeptical that Youtube's controls qualify under the law in question. RIAA cites two sections of the law: >the provision or trafficking of the source code violates 17 USC §§1201(a)(2) and 1201(…