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

201–210 of 273 posts

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

#201

Post by dheera »

cesarb wrote: post #180
dheera wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git is not truly decentralized, in the sense that you still need to provide a few specific remote hosts, all of which could disappear due to law enforcement. Instead of one centralized server you've moved to maybe 3-4 centralized servers, which isn't that helpful against the issue at hand, especially if those servers are all within the US, Europe and other law-enforcement-cooperating countries. In a true decentralize…

> Git is not truly decentralized, in the sense that you still need to provide a few specific remote hosts, all of which could disappear due to law enforcement. Some time ago, I and a friend worked together on a project in a place where there was no centralized git server; both of us ran git-daemon ( https://git-scm.com/docs/git-daemon ) on our desktops, and we often pulled from the other as we developed each feature.…

> each developer has a full copy of the code and its history

But this doesn't solve the problem of how arbitrary public should locate and access those copies. If the code isn't accessible by its intended users, it effectively doesn't exist.

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

#202

Post by jasode »

ignoranceprior wrote: post #185
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.

>But since youtube-dl already has a [...] I don't see how the concept of "Schelling point" is relevant.

There are multiple Schelling Points. The specific Schelling Point that's uncertain is a widely known place that everybody has converged on for bug reports, discussing issues, pull requests, etc. The Github repo used to serve that purpose but DMCA took it down.

Yes, the domain "youtube-dl.org" is _one_ Schelling Point, but there was another Schelling Point for developers' collaboration and Github removed it. Someone said the maintainer moved the repo to Gitlab but the one found by Google search doesn't seem canonical/blessed/official. Even if it is canonical, Gitlab could also remove it because of a DMCA takedown.

There doesn't seem to be a slam dunk obvious (and easy) solution for creating stable Schelling Points for developers to collaborate on legally dubious projects like Youtube-dl that's the target of RIAA.

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

#203

Post by Rochus »

gamblor956 wrote: post #192
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…

The DMCA does not require the technical measure to be highly effective, or even that it be effective at all. It simply requires that a technical measure of some sort exists. Thus, it doesn't matter that it's hanging the key next to the door; it is sufficient for the purposes of the DMCA that there is a closed door.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

What you propose would lead to complete arbitrariness.

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

#204

Post by [deleted] »

elmo2you wrote: post #38
viraptor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not up to github to analyse the DMCA validity beyond "does it match the format and include required information". Youtube-dl owner can do it and request an instant revert if they're happy to take the responsibility. No service provider is going to fight a specific case of DMCA for a third-party.

As I have seen argued on several places thus far, including at the link below, this alleged DMCA complaint has been contrived at best and certainly falling outside of Safe Harbor doctrine. Meaning, the "immediate action" requirement on GitHub's behalf, doesn't appear to even exist here. With most companies, Hanlon's razor would probably apply ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity…

[deleted]

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

#205

Post by iudqnolq »

jasode wrote: post #174
arghwhat wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "importance" of the mailing list I'm trying to emphasize is the Schelling Point. You have said Schelling Point enough times for me to have caught that. It is, however, not correct to assign this to the mailing list. (Also, as a side-note, "focal point" is a more natural, common, and much less awkard term.) > The list also acts as a Schelling Point to coordinate and consolidate public discussions. No, it does no…

>the mailing list does not serve the function of email address discoverability in any form. Instead, the source is the source code itself, in which the target email addresses will be recorded ad nauseam. Not every project records email addresses in the source code. Yes, the project maintainers could do that, but some don't. I'm looking inside the latest "youtube-dl-2020.11.01.1.tar.gz" source archive and it does not…

Don't you have the email addresses in the gut commit history?

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

#206

Post by gamblor956 »

contravariant wrote: post #39
viraptor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not up to github to analyse the DMCA validity beyond "does it match the format and include required information". Youtube-dl owner can do it and request an instant revert if they're happy to take the responsibility. No service provider is going to fight a specific case of DMCA for a third-party.

Technically the DMCA does not match the format and/or include all required information. From what I've understood a DMCA MUST include a list of the works being violated. The RIAA also failed to conform to GitHub's standard format, although using a standard form if available is perhaps something you SHOULD rather than MUST do..

From a substantive perspective, you're thinking of a different area of the DMCA, for noticed related to copyrighted works. The RIAA notice at issue here was based on 1201, for tools used to circumvent copyright, and so it's not necessary to disclose the works being violated.

From a formatting perspective, format is generally irrelevant to notices like this because the law does not state a particular format must be used. Thus, any format which conveys the necessary information is generally acceptable.

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

#207

Post by Rochus »

gamblor956 wrote: post #196
Rochus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only likely chance of definitively finding out in your territory is to have a criminal action against you and see if you win in court The plaintiffs would have to prove that the videos that can be downloaded with youtube-dl are protected by an objectively effective technical measure and that the tool circumvents this protection, that the accused was aware of the effectiveness of the measure and the illegality o…

In Switzerland. youtube-dl was, and still is, hosted in the U.S. And the DMCA is not as lenient as the laws of Switzerland. And on that note, neither are the IP treaties that most Western countries have made with each other, Switzerland included.

This subthread is about Switzerland, see above.

And the action is also on thin ice in the USA. The assumptions on which the takedown is based on are very questionable. I am curious to see how the proceedings that have now been initiated will turn out.

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

#208

Post by [deleted] »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #188
bitwize wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

[deleted]

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

#209

Post by gamblor956 »

feanaro wrote: post #94
bitwize wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you aware that the decryption you are talking about is simple JavaScript execution and that according to this interpretation, even browsers are in violation? You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it. The RIAA would have more of a case if they hosted this on their own site and made it…

Are you aware that the decryption you are talking about is simple JavaScript execution and that according to this interpretation, even browsers are in violation?

No, they're not. The Javascript was designed to run in the browsers as authorized user agents so that a user can view the video.

You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it.

Yes, you can. Literally, the entire point of copyright and IP law is to incentive creators to make their creations public by protecting them when they do so.

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

#210

Post by Barrin92 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #112
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…

> >"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.

This is a horrible misunderstanding of decentralisation in the context of git.

Git was designed to be distributed in the sense that people work on a local copies of their code which they then reintroduce into the project.

Projects themselves are not supposed to be decentralised, there is supposed to be a single point of truth which represents the collaborative effort of everyone working on it. And that's what needs to be hosted somewhere, and everyone needs to agree on it. What even would be the point of any kind of version control if you have hundreds of competing top level codebases?

Post reply on HN