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

GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 273 posts

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#181

Post by e12e »

xorcist wrote: post #177
mkl95 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the things listed on the DMCA repo (if not most of them) are not software that could be used to download content, but the literal content you could obtain using them, such as textbooks, proprietary fonts, and so on. By taking down youtube-dl, Github has opened a window for copyright trolls to speculate about what a repository is used for, and take it down if one of its use cases involves downloading copyrigh…

It is perfectly legal to watch copyrighted youtube videos.

Not if you circumvent DRM to do so. (which is crazy, but true)

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#182

Post by gamblor956 »

ikeboy wrote: post #99
varispeed wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you have a stand to sue RIAA if GitHub would have blocked your account? I think you may only have a claim against GH, but I have not read T&C well enough, but I can imagine they would have an entry enabling them to block anyone for any reason. I don't think you could do anything about it.

RIAA made a claim that some content violates their rights under DMCA, which in this hypothetical causes my account to be blocked. I can bring a case under the declaratory judgement act against RIAA, asking a court to decide whether the content is actually infringing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment I may also have a tortious interference claim, although damages are likely negligible so it's pro…

You really should talk to a lawyer because it sounds like the entire basis for your protest is grounded in a misunderstanding of how the DMCA provisions work.

I can tell you based on what you've posted in this thread that you absolutely do not have a tortious interference claim unless you've entered into contracts you haven't previously mentioned.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#183

Post by BlueTemplar »

Mindwipe wrote: post #161
Rochus wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like closing the door and hanging the key next to the door for all to see. Definitely not an effective technical measure to protect the house. EDIT: And not to forget that Youtube hosts many CC-BY licensed videos which explicitly allow unlimited use (incl. decryption if necessary), and that Youtube has contracts with copyright collectives in most countries so for any user it is save to assume that the video is l…

> (and thus download and store for personal use is legal in most countries). That's a highly questionable statement. Certainly, most European countries do not have such a law in all circumstances, and it's dependent on if the personal use copy is made of an asset you are licensed to have permanent access to (which you aren't of a collectively licensed work) or a broadcast for timeshifted purpose (which an on-demand a…

YouTube makes these videos freely available. Downloading them is completely legal. (So is videotaping them with an external camera, or anything in-between.)

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#184

Post by [deleted] »

ikeboy wrote: post #171
heavyset_go wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US and some of its allies have signed treaties and agreements that protect IP internationally.

None of those matter if a US court has declared that there's no infringement. Also, many of those probably don't cover circumvention.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#185

Post by ignoranceprior »

jasode wrote: post #37

Some example comments in this thread: >"People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, " >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" >"The nice thing about fossil" ... those well-meaning suggestions are missing the true difficulty : The community wants a (1) Schelling Point [0] for workflow/issues/discussions/PRs that's also (2) censorship resistant. So far, (1) and (2) con…

A Schelling point is a solution that people converge on without communication. But since youtube-dl already has a lead maintainer, a website, and plenty of other ways of coordinating on a solution, I don't see how the concept of "Schelling point" is relevant.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#186

Post by gamblor956 »

mkl95 wrote: post #132
apocalyptic0n3 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how this is any different than how it's been for years now. GitHub has been complying with DMCA takedown requests since 2011[1]. What precedent needed to be set here? The RIAA could always do this and GitHub has been complying with it (because they legally have to). 1: https://github.com/github/dmca/

A lot of the things listed on the DMCA repo (if not most of them) are not software that could be used to download content, but the literal content you could obtain using them, such as textbooks, proprietary fonts, and so on. By taking down youtube-dl, Github has opened a window for copyright trolls to speculate about what a repository is used for, and take it down if one of its use cases involves downloading copyrigh…

I can see how it's legitimate to take down a repository with the sole, explicit goal of downloading copyrighted content, but youtube-dl is widely used by journalists to preserve uncopyrighted content.

Youtube-dl is used by some journalists. Generally, most journalists at a real newspaper or media organization would ask for the original video, not a copy from youtube.

Even your local evening news will use the original video unless they are specifically discussing the online version of the video, in which case they will either record footage of the screen using one of the hundreds of cameras they have lying around or just share their screen view directly.

The only time journalists use youtube-dl for reporting is when it is not possible to get a copy of the original.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#187

Post by [deleted] »

crtasm wrote: post #133
colejohnson66 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supposed claim wasn’t that it could be used for piracy (despite many here parroting that claim), but that they advertise that it could be. I haven’t read the actual claim, but it seems they’re basing their argument on a block of test code that uses a video containing RIAA copyrighted music. It’s sketchy at best, but there’s a reason BitTorrent clients make no mention of piracy sites at all ; The MPAA and RIAA are…

Perhaps bittorrent clients don't mention specific sites but there's no end of related projects that do, e.g. expand the three "Supported ___ Trackers" lists on https://github.com/Jackett/Jackett I'm not aware of any notices filed against that specific project.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#188

Post by BlueTemplar »

bitwize wrote: post #40
db48x wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing to circumvent. It's not illegal.

Wrong. YouTube obfuscates the URL of the video stream for videos which have been identified as containing copyrighted material and are licensed for streaming only through the YouTube Web player or app. The copyright owner has made the material available under a license which permits ONLY that. Youtube-dl contains code to decrypt the URL of the video stream in order to download and save the copyrighted material, in vi…

If I can access the video without even logging into YouTube, then I'm pretty sure that doesn't count as Digital Rights Management ?

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#189

Post by gamblor956 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #84
pessimizer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Torrents are nothing more than a clever idea without The Pirate Bay No, there are magnets now. You can send a torrent as a hash. The reason it won't work is because you can just take that hash, log all of the swarm ips, send secret letters to all of the isps to reveal the seeders and leechers, bust in their doors and arrest them, publicize their arrests in every newspaper and on every television channel, interrogat…

Has anything like that ever happened?

It used to happen in the U.S. quite frequently in the days of Kazaa/Limewire. If you got caught pirating a movie, your ISP would cut you off after 1-3 strikes.

It doesn't happen as much anymore because it's now easier to get a high-quality version of the movie through legitimate means than through illegitimate ones.

Re: GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned

#190

Post by jamie_ca »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #119
AlexandrB wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" I have to laugh at this one. Git is a decentralized VCS, that was effectively re-centralized (via Github) for the sake of convenience.

I’ve heard this over and over, but I never understood it. How is Git supposed to be decentralized when you push and pull from one place? Would you just set up multiple “origins” with each one pointing to a head maintainer’s computer (and named appropriately)? Because that sounds like a massive pain compared to a centralized system like GitHub. Of course, there is the benefit of a VCS built on the idea of decentraliza…

FWIW, this is often how I interact with open-source projects. Fork my own copy on Github, clone that locally, and spin up a branch for changes/PR. But then also `git remote add upstream ` so that I can keep my own code up to date more easily (`git merge upstream master` from master, and then trickle that into my PRs).
Post reply on HN