311–320 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a problem for Git or even PR workflow then.
It would not be an issue even in the Earth-Mars case, where the roundtrip latency is 20m-1h15m depending on the time.
git clone https://github.com/github/dmca.git . git fetch origin 416da574ec git branch youtube-dl 416da574ec git checkout -f youtube-dl
Didn't work for me with the shorter commit hash, but it worked with the full hash 416da574ec0df3388f652e44f7fe71b1e3a4701f.
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…
Come off it, the other part of the name is "dl" I use YouTube-dl as much as the next guy for lawful reasons but these HN comments saying it's not for YouTube and it's not for downloading is silly. It's literally in the name. Please remember that to reverse this YouTube-dl needs to go through a court. Courts are not code that can be tricked by clever wording. If anything you'll be trying to describe what it is to some…
Regardless of the name, the tool supports over a thousand different sites, not just YouTube, and is routinely used for streaming rather than downloading, with no permanent copy saved. If you run "mpv https://youtu.be/WhWc3b3KhnY" to simply play the Blender Open Movie "Spring" it relies on youtube-dl behind the scenes to stream the video. (Though of course the difference between streaming and downloading is a trivial one; getting the content to the end user's device is the hard part.)
YouTube itself is the entity responsible for duplicating and distributing the content, and they have a license to do so, ergo there is no copyright violation here. The most any user of youtube-dl might be liable for, assuming they don't save a permanent copy or further redistribute the data, would be a violation of YouTube's TOS. Which is no concern of the RIAA. To call youtube-dl a "circumvention tool" is laughable; obfuscation of a video's URL is not DRM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
- Nothing at all happens until a unbiased court issues an injunction.
In other words, the process that was in place before the DMCA was passed.
Earlier 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.
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.
It was never a good system, but it was certainly less obviously broken and destructive to society then than it is today.
I think the long term solution for this problem is the developers of open source software like the bit torrent client, youtube-dl and other similar software will have to host their code outside of the reach of DMCA regualation. That will usually mean something like Github like site hosted in Russia, China or some other bloc where DMCA does not apply. Right now, lots of users in the US scientific community use Scihub…
Hosting the git repository on ipfs might be a solution.
http://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNaDfmdDdahE2c4jxSuptSxMefQEZPw...
The most recent commit is from October 23.
https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142 now shows a "Unicorn! The page is taking too much to load" - anyone else see this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are right, except your first sentence. Azure DevOps will be the one which will be reoriented to GitHub, not the other way around. Azure Repos and Pipelines are basically duplication in GitHub world. But Azure DevOps issue tracker is superior to GitHubs (or GitLabs but not Jira).
Actually I suppose Skype over lynx is a good example counter to my own point, who knows? Naming a brand after a concept is an asshole thing to do, sure it puts your product in the search results for anyone googling devops, but it makes looking for anything related to the product painful, so I'm all for another name change.
But I agree. Never underestimate politics vs. reality. Oh 2020.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come off it, the other part of the name is "dl" I use YouTube-dl as much as the next guy for lawful reasons but these HN comments saying it's not for YouTube and it's not for downloading is silly. It's literally in the name. Please remember that to reverse this YouTube-dl needs to go through a court. Courts are not code that can be tricked by clever wording. If anything you'll be trying to describe what it is to some…
> … these HN comments saying it's not for YouTube and it's not for downloading is silly. It's literally in the name. Regardless of the name, the tool supports over a thousand different sites, not just YouTube, and is routinely used for streaming rather than downloading, with no permanent copy saved. If you run "mpv https://youtu.be/WhWc3b3KhnY " to simply play the Blender Open Movie "Spring" it relies on youtube-dl b…