[deleted]
YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
191–200 of 332 posts
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
False in this case. The 17 USC (2)(c)(1)(C) safe-harbour protections apply only to hosting of infringing works, and neither youtube-dl nor its test suites infringe on any RIAA or member copyrights as averred in RIAA's notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The RIAA's letter does not claim infringement within the text of youtube-dl source or test suites , though it tries hard to appear so, but rather a…
> Youtube-dl is executing code as a World Wide Web user agent, provided by Google/YouTube [...] I'm guessing that's a typo, and this was actually meant to say the following? > Youtube-dl is executing code as a World Wide Web user agent, accessing a service provided by Google/YouTube [...]
No, the code is provided for the purpose enabled by ytdl.
I'll try to clarify that elsewhere:
> Youtube-dl is executing code provided by Google/YouTube, for Wold Wide Web user agents, as a World Wide Web user agent, and meant to be accessed _and run_ by user agents in order to access YouTube content. That is, youtube-dl's operation is entirely within YouTube's technical design and intent.
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably a dumb question, but don't federated services eventually lead to centralization? for example SMTP is federated but most users are on gmail, IRC is decentralized but most users are on freenode server, etc. users tend to choose the services/instances with the most users, which is what makes github currently very valuable.
That could very well be argued. However, I still have the ability to run my own Email servers and communicate with user who use gmail. If gmail decided to ban a number of accounts due to something like a DMCA claim, I would be unaffected by that. The same is not true on GitHub which is one Website. Every fork of this project on GitHub was affected by this claim...
Gmail killfiled a domain I was running on a small but reputable ISP I had used since 2001 (there were no spam or reputation issues in 17 years).
They did let one-in-20 or so emails through, but everything else got to gmail recipients’ Spam folder. I wasn’t able to troubleshoot this with Google tools, and there’s no one to talk to at google.
(Worst thing, you get no feedback - except realizing a month later that someone didn’t get an email you sent)
I gave up and replaced small ISP with fastmail.
My bottom line is that, no you can’t really run your own SMTP server anymore unless google, Microsoft and fastmail let you, by virtue of hoisting 90% of your recipients.
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is losing the good will they've worked so hard to rebuild. Microsoft employees, managers, Satya: do you see what you're doing? I love the direction you've taken over the past five years, but bowing to the RIAA and attempting to disrupt an innocuous tool are horrible decisions. It's a chilling note, and everyone involved in tech can hear it. Are you telling us Github is not a safe place to develop software a…
GitHub is not a safe place to develop software that has an association with piracy, nor would any centralized service.
Yeah, there's a difference between Microsoft saying "We love open source now" and Microsoft saying "fuck the police, IP law needs to be rebuilt from the ground up anyway".
The idea that Microsoft should lose some of the goodwill it got doing the first for not doing the second is really naive.
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#195It's a fun hack, but to those thinking about streisanding the source: The strength of ytdl and other downloaders isn't their source code, it's the extensive library of scrapers that are tailor-made for individual sites. The devs have to constantly maintain and update those to keep working when a site changes its design. So if the takedown manages to stop ongoing development on ytdl then even existing copies will beco…
Would it not be possible to move to some decentralized Github alternative?
You can’t decentralise issues and pull-requests.
Edited: as pointed-out, Fossil supports decentralized issues (but not PRs). However, Fossil is a totally different system than Git.
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tests are testing that youtube-dl can successfully see through three specific varieties of obfuscation as used by those videos. Testing open videos would not work, since Google doesn't obfuscate those in the same way. Uploading special videos with the right configuration wouldn't work, those particular obfuscation methods are only available to specific YouTube partners, not to the youtube-dl authors.
That just proves that Youtube-dl is intended to circumvent copyright protection measures. Those obfuscation measures count as "effective" for the purposes of the DMCA. Trafficking in software to circumvent them is a felony. GitHub and Microsoft could find themselves criminally liable if they do not take it down.
Take down chrome then its "intended to circumvent copyright protection measures" as you can clearly watch these youtube videos with chrome.
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Sweden doesn’t allow for zeroing debts due to legal judgements in personal bankruptcy, IIRC. This means that they were effectively sentenced to lifelong debt slavery. This is another dark part of the Scandinavian model that most aren’t aware of. Same system in Norway.
I know a friend of one of those 4 mentioned and he is doing absolutely fine (money-wise at least)
Do you know any details? I had the distinct impression that these debts would never be discharged.
Are the authorities just not following up on using the legal framework to seize any of their earnings towards the debt?
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#198The internet is all fluffed up about the RIAA, people are calling things cancer, and calling things "retarded" in public comments. Don't forget the constant "well they should take down browsers, and Windows, and networking code!" retorts
It's like we've gone back to the mid '00s. With that vibe, https://youtu.be/SnLB8wysMbY
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
youtube-dl is not, strictly speaking, a downloading tool. It's an access tool. You want to access YouTube videos through an alternate client, as is your legal right in the European Union ? youtube-dl is a useful library for the job. You can use youtube-dl to download videos, but the intended use here is clearly for watching them. Just because syringe needles are tested on (and advertised for) human skin and are also…
You're trying very hard to make a technical distinction but the problem is that this is a legal problem not a technical one and rightly or wrongly, legal definitions don't always align with technical ones. For starters, intent is factored into the law. There's several different classifications of murder depending on intent. Likewise someone carrying a kitchen knife home, still packaged, from the shops is unlikely to…
> ...intent is factored into the law.
What gets lost or missed is the underlying intent of the protocols and tools being used to share content. An http server serves files independent of the client/user-agent–that's how the web works. If a work is published this way then that's the expectation. If YouTube and the RIAA want it to work another way, then use a different protocol/medium and put the content behind a login and limit access.
I'm not saying people should be free then to republish/share copyrighted works. Just that we are free to use tools to retrieve files that have been served openly via the web.
Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what should we ask for? There is stuff to complain about with the DMCA, but the core process is reasonable. Someone claims copyright infringement by a user, and the website takes the content down. The user claims no copyright infringement, the website restores the content. The website is immune from liability, the alleged copyright owner can settle things in court with the user if they want to.
> There is stuff to complain about with the DMCA, but the core process is reasonable. it absolutely is not in any way reasonable. you must take down the content without question and then, after filing a counter-notice wait 10-14 days minimum before it can be restored [1]: "After a counter notice has been received, a service provider must wait 10-14 days before they can reactivate the claimed infringing content." friv…
That is, to be fair, an aspect that could be improved on.
However, how do you do this?
For example, perhaps a large-business exemption where they are required to follow through with legal proceedings if a claimant files a counter-notice (so they can't do the whole claim, counter-claim filed, they don't follow up, like with PopcornTime, usually because the DMCA was bogus).
But then this encourages further litigation, so it discourages people taking the risk to file a counter-claim. But unless they follow through with legal action, nobody can assess if the initial notice was "fraudulent". It's a real thorny problem.