YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#241

Post by akersten » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

scollet wrote: post #68

jjeaff wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should ask for immunity for tools that could potentially be used to infringe copyright, but that are not actually infringing copyright. If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then certainly congress can accept that software doesn't pirate copyrighted works, people pirate copyrighted works.

I get the analogy, but guns are typically purposed for lethality. Software is not typically purposed for piracy. Maybe "trying to hit someone with your car"? Not sure.

It's a perfect analogy because it is so extreme. The powers that be have already accepted that way of thinking (because guns are not illegal) and it's therefore even less of a stretch to apply the same concept to software tools.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#242

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

m11a wrote: post #200

leeoniya wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

There are many possible solutions, e.g.

- A company that files a fraudulent request loses DMCA rights (that way, it doesn't have to be proven repeatedly, just once)

- Liability for false takedowns w/ punitive damages, criminal liability with actual enforcement for malicious attempts or even negligence. Potentially a deposit requirement once a false claim has been made.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#243

Post by JulianWasTaken » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

hk__2 wrote: post #195

DavideNL wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#244

Post by lozf » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

kamyarg wrote: post #23

Cloned locally, was sad when the original repo was taken down. Some things actually get worst when you try to prevent people from doing them, hopefully some people realize this. Can someone remind me which music videos they did not want people to download please?

> Can someone remind me which music videos they did not want people to download please?

Have a look in your local version at extractors/youtube.py

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#245

Post by oehtXRwMkIs » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

Crazy how people have forgotten that git is decentralized to begin with, and email is even federated. Not sure what the implications of kernel style development would be with the DMCA going after them but I'm sure we'll find a solution.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#246

Post by nayuki » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:39 PM UTC

madars wrote: post #2

It looks like this is the corresponding PR: https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142

Maybe this pull request is being censored/shadowbanned right now. Opening the page takes tens of seconds and returns "Unicorn! This page is taking too long to load. Sorry about that. Please try refreshing and contact us if the problem persists.". However, PR #8142 is indeed listed in the list of open PRs at https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr .

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#247

Post by ryukafalz » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #92

Stephen304 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might not be able to explain well, but from what I understand about how github works, when you fork someone else's repo, github only stores 1 tree but you have your own set of tags / branches. This led to an issue that was probably fixed where if you set a repo to private, anyone who had a clone could guess commit hashes from their fork's remote. Another interesting thing about git is that you can have 2 root commi…

This seems like a security issue, no?

It could indeed be a security issue. A few options:

- Make a PR to a project that changes e.g. one of the dependencies to typosquatted alternatives. Disguise the commit message as something trivial. Post it to HN with a GH link to the upstream project's repo at your commit.

- Make a PR to a project that adds malicious code, suggest a change to a distro package's source repo to use your commit. Unless the maintainers know about this GitHub behavior, that'll look much more trivial than it actually is.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#248

Post by MauranKilom » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

_0ffh wrote: post #180

kortilla wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scihub gives people what they are likely already paid for No, as long as the researcher was not bound by the grant to publish in the open and published in a journal/conference with a copyright, you do not have the legal right to get it, even if taxpayers funded the research. It’s fucked that the law doesn’t stipulate open publications for taxpayer funded research, but that’s an issue with the law. Academic publishi…

You're countering what I perceive to be moral argument with a legal one, which would be a category error.

Yet whether the authors walk freely is entirely a legal issue, not a moral one.

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#249

Post by nogabebop23 » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:56 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #222

fabianhjr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a DMCA notice; A DMCA notice requires the identification of claimed copyrighted content and this document does no such thing. The document claims that youtube-dl is illegal for being able to download video and audio from YouTube but not for hosting copyrighted material in the repo or binary distributions. The RIAA is claiming youtube-dl is "circumventing DRM".

Regardless, not honoring a DMCA would mean GitHub is asserting that they think it's false and would need to defend their decision if RIAA were to sue them; it doesn't make sense to verify every single DMCA claim and increase liability by not honoring some.

THis is likely a consideration. From my decidely non-lawyer viewpoint the RIAA is using a terrible law, but still a law and they have grounds under this law for their claims. GH and MS have deep pockets and if they tried to initially fight this I'm confident they would settle. If you're the RIAA who would you rather go after - someone who will pay after a little bit of fighting, or a huge group who will immediately roll over but have nothing to give you?

Re: YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

#250

Post by equidistant » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

miguelmota wrote: post #147

rapnie wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, like https://forgefed.peers.community/ which is exactly that.

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.

in the current world, you host your code on github and you can only submit prs to github with a github account. anyone without a github account cannot submit a pr. github hosts all the code.

in a federated world, while github may still host all the code, you could potentially submit prs with and have metadata about a repository, such as issues, spread across multiple different providers. Instead of needing a github account to contribute, you just need an account that github could federate with.

This would mean that if Github did start doing something you didn't like, you would be able to change code host without losing the metadata.

Potentially, anyway.

Federation doesn't prevent centralisation if the service is good enough; it just makes it less painful to decentralise if better competition exists. It also diversifies ownership of data, which is in general a good thing for consumers - and a bad thing for big tech companies that wish to make money off of analytics, which is why we will never see current social media platforms allow federation with other social networks, even if would be better for the world and consumers.