Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 332 posts

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

#261

Post by Iv »

gizmo686 wrote: post #33
Iv wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that a hack is not a fix. All of you, write to your representatives about that if you care. In EU when they were going to put some similar laws we all organized and wrote massively to the parliament and they backed down. It is a lot of effort but it works.

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.

Reform copyright. It was based on the assumption that taxing copy production is a reasonnable way to fund creation. It was an incredibly good system in the days of the press where making copies requires heavy capital investment.

It is hilariously wrong nowadays when everybody own a copy-making machine in each pocket.

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

#262

Post by js2 »

brodie wrote: post #137
est31 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can configure Git to look in multiple places for repo objects. What do you mean by multiple places for repo objects? Do you mean multiple remotes? The remotes are fully inside your local database if you run commands like git pull or git remote update, they are just not in your checkout. Commands like git show work on commit hashes in those remotes as well, even if it's not in one of your local branches. Or do y…

The feature’s called alternates. You can use it on-the-fly without modifying any repos by using the GIT_ALTERNATE_OBJECT_DIRECTORIES environment variable. If you want the effect permanently, there’s the .git/objects/info/alternates file. For HTTP remotes, there’s apparently a .git/objects/info/http-alternates file as well (no idea how that works though). I’m assuming these files allow multiple alternates as the envir…

I'm pretty sure GitHub does use alternates in the same way that that GitLab does:

https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/git_object_deduplicat...

I vaguely recall seeing @peff comment about this on HN years ago but I can't find that comment now. Here's a GitLab employee claiming GitHub uses alternates:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22179208

The thing is, that both the dmca repo and its forks must have alternates files to the same underlying common repo, otherwise the PR ref in the dmca repo wouldn't be able to see the merge commit pushed to the fork. Pushing the merge must have duplicated all the youtube-dl commits into the common repo used by both the dmca repo and its forks because youtube-dl and dmca would have different common repos.

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

#263

Post by hnlmorg »

mewmewblobcat wrote: post #256
hnlmorg wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 w…

> Not true at all, most YouTube videos are offered as plain webm files.

It's been a while since I've written a video streaming scraper but it used to be quite common for a file to be served over HTTP but that file was a small "shortcut" type file to an RTMP stream. So a webm file wasn't the content itself but instead a pointer to where to stream the content from.

I'd imagine the same would still be true for YouTube since, like most other video streaming services, YouTube can adaptively switch bitrate depending on the bandwidth available to the end user. That seamless switching can't be done with a HTTP GET of a singular video file but it can happen effectively with a chunked streaming protocol.

> Also, keep in mind that recording TV's is legal.

Yes but with caveats, depending on the country.

Though it is worth noting the only reason America and UK law is so relaxed regarding VCR usage is because corporations making video recorders were taken to court by film studios and won their case. So once again it comes down to presenting a legal argument rather than a technical one.

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

#264

Post by SoniEx2 »

fabianhjr wrote: post #107
djeiasbsbo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we really need is a decentralised git forge using something like ActivityPub. We cannot keep relying on companies to host open content for us.

ActivityPub is federated like git is distributed. You can add several remotes from different servers (or peers in case of single user instances hosted at home) Even though other sites like GitLab exist that GitHub remains a near-monopoly default doesn't bode well for attempting to migrate to a completely decentralized system as default. There are decentralized extensions of git (like git-ssb). Addenda: Git is also no…

What if... you kept github in the loop?

What if you could make a federated/decentralized git that doesn't care whether the git repo is made available by github or my-fancy-federated-git-host?

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

#265

Post by jyriand »

nayuki wrote: post #246
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 .

I saw the unicorn when using firefox, but when I switched to chromium, the PR opened fine

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

#266

Post by untitaker_ »

nayuki wrote: post #246
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 .

This just loaded fine for me in Firefox. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt for this one, after all this PR contains 10k commits and 120 comments, and then quite a lot of approvals.

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

#267

Post by oscargrouch »

cannabis_sam wrote: post #251

Copyright is an attack on property rights... 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?

I think is valid as long as it protects the right of people creating (now) digital goods, to be payed for if they created that value.

But i think the law is to harsh and actually can even destroy that piece from existing for being too severe over the copies of that work.

For movies or music for instance, something like 3 year period of copyright ownership would be fine.

People would still pay for first access to the piece, while it would be much more likely to find a copy after lets say, 100 years somewhere.

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

#269

Post by justinclift »

ColanR wrote: post #257
justinclift wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's git - what do you need low-latency for? Download directories, trees, as the initial requests, then send a second request for the source code you want to download. Then the bottleneck is download speed instead of latency.

For just git, sure.

For a web application to present it (eg Gitea, GitLab, etc), then the lower latency would be helpful. ;)

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

#270

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

fabianhjr wrote: post #90
Bjartr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but as far as I recall, a site receiving a DMCA notice must immediately remove the stated content. The person who put the content up may then file a counter-notice, which, if uncontested may then be followed by reinstating the content. If contested, the process moves into the courtroom.

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".

DMCA covers "circumvention devices".
Post reply on HN