251–260 of 332 posts
Suddenly, what other people might have done similarly, restricts what you can do with your rightfully owned property.
Can someone explain why government -granted monopolies on human cultural output is a good idea?
Earlier 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…
Is this even a science argument though? The law and its enforcement may occasionally use science to illustrate specific cases (the implementation) but it's more the documentation of a giant, waterfall-based architecture project. Why are we suprised when we see specific cases that seem like failures despite agreeing with the fundamental premise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
They don't use HTTP. HTTP is used to bootstrap the player, not to feed the content. The content itself is served over another protocol such as RTMP and that protocol is a streaming protocol (it sends chunked data) and it wasn't intended for downloading files and writing them to disk as a singular binary blob. Obviously it can be used that way but it's fair to say services like youtube-dl are using the protocol in ways it wasn't originally intended to be used rather than content owners serving content on a protocol that was always designed for distributing files.
It's a bit like recording something on VCR from an RF signal; there's nothing technically stopping you from doing that as recording a TV show is technically equivalent to watching it. But equally you can't blame TV networks for using RF to air their broadcasts knowing that risk is there.
The problem is any delivery system you can dream up for enabling consumers to view a recording will have some unintended method for copying said content. Even if it is as low tech as someone physically sat in a cinema with a handheld camcorder (how many movies have been leaked online that way?!)
This is why I keep coming back to the point that you can't use science to argue a legal issue; they ultimately serve different purposes. Science can prove something can be possible, the law is there to argue if something should be allowed to happen (putting aside for one moment the variety of differing opinions about morality et al). So if you have an issue with the youtube-dl take down then you need to treat it as a legal problem rather than a misunderstanding of a technical solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take down chrome then its "intended to circumvent copyright protection measures" as you can clearly watch these youtube videos with chrome.
I would love to know the legal distinction between YouTube-dl and Chrome. They are both obviously user agents used for accessing video content hosted on a public remote server using standard web protocols. Then tell me how uBlock Origin is somehow Ok if YouTube-dl is not.
Anyone who read the justification in the original complaint would see how these are different, but it doesn't matter; the RIAA is not pursuing them so until they or someone else does it's irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...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…
> 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. They don't use HTTP. HTTP is used to bootstrap the player, not to feed the content. The content itself is served over anoth…
Not true at all, most YouTube videos are offered as plain webm files.
Also, keep in mind that recording TV's is legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2.5s is the minimum roundtrip. Add server and satellite hops and you get something closer to 3s minimum. Every time.
Thanks. Sounds like it'd be workable as a backup target then, but would probably suck being the primary place to grab source code. That being said, maybe it would be ok as a primary location if there are more localised caches (eg lower response times) commonly available.
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".
It is. The DMCA makes circumventing "effective" protection measures illegal. "Effective" is a term defined in law and basically means any hoop you have to jump through to get to copyrighted material, no matter how flawed or trivially bypassed. The restrictions in place to allow YouTube videos to be only downloaded through YouTube count. Youtube-dl is absolutely illegal software.
All the responses "not illegal in COUNTRY X"; how is this relevant? Is the RIAA using a law from on a company based in ?
You can absolutely host this repo with a country & business that doesn't recognize or cooperate with US laws. Your choice is somewhat limited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand what's going on here. Can you explain?
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…
I re-opened the link and actually used my eyeballs, and yup.. it's the damn Youtube-dl library on the /dmca repo, bahaha. I almost whooshed the joke entirely, so thanks :)
The 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