291–300 of 686 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how much MS funds the RIAA as a member of it.
If MS is a member of RIAA they should consider putting forward a motion to close it down or at very least leave it.
If youtube-dl (or any OSS project) continues to use GitHub, I hope they have a backup plan ready at all times. Even if GitHub truly is on the right side, they've proven themselves to be a liability for legitimate projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but sometimes it really is everyone else that is wrong. For example, when most people used to think the world was flat.
That educated people believed that the Earth was flat is largely a myth. Not only people knew the Earth was round since antiquity, but they also had a good idea about its diameter. Heliocentrism was a bit more debated but for good reasons. Early heliocentric models were actually worse than contemporary geocentric models to calculate the motion of planets. All that to say that "everyone else is wrong" doesn't happen o…
And this is one of those rarer times that everyone is wrong who believes this myth, although maybe they are uneducated too.
All this is to say go team iconoclasm.
*) and throw chairs at the RIAA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The meaning is to deal with a problem before it grows worse. There are a lot of variances to the expression, 'cutting it off at the head' 'Nip it in the bud' 'Cutting the problem at it's roots' They're all references to killing something before it grows more difficult to deal with.
Nipping in the bud is preventing a problem from getting worse. Cutting the head off the snake is about removing the point of control from an organisation.
It seems like EFF fought for youtube-dl and GitHub used their letter as legal firepower to bring the repo back online. If GitHub were fighting for the developer they would have funded the attorney, right? Though from their blog post it does look like they are taking steps to fund defense in the future as well as other steps to improve the situation. Reading EFFs claim is pretty interesting, they state that saving a c…
AFAIU the argument is more that youtube-dl is effectively a web browser and doesn’t do anything that a web browser doesn’t do. Further, it does not include any “secret” key for DRM circumvention like might be bundled with e.g. Chrome in the case of Widevine, where browser vendors agree to protect the secret key.
There's also another question of law, though: does 1201 apply when only the intent of the DRM has been circumvented, as opposed to it's technical scope? In other words, does pointing a camera at a monitor constitute circumvention of DRM under section 1201? Most DRM can't actually validate, say, that a human is watching instead of a camcorder. (Let's ignore pesky things like Cinavia which are more akin to post-piracy frustration techniques, and easily circumvented with any kind of Free media player.) Likewise, YouTube's rolling cipher can't really validate that it's not sitting inside of an instrumented browser that will dump whatever URLs it grabs. Our hypothetical OBS rebrand wouldn't actually be a 1201 violation unless the law specifically covers things that DRM can't technically enforce but would like to.
Can someone with more knowledge on the matter help explain why downloading copyrighted material using youtube-dl as opposed to a browser is treated differently under the DMCA? In either case you're accessing copyrighted material by downloading from youtube's servers.
The EFF's claim (on behalf of the youtube_dl developers) is that youtube_dl is performing the same actions as a browser as far as accessing the video file and so should not be treated differently, even if its output is to disk and not to the screen.
Under DMCA then we've had a claim, and counter notice. Despite the phrasing of Github inviting and wanting a counter notice, ultimately they are not the arbiters of legality, so their part in the process is now done.
The RIAA now has to bring the youtube_dl developers to court if they plan to keep pushing their argument, at which point we'll have the RIAA lawyers vs EFF lawyers and an eventual legal decision (with potential appeals in the process).
Can someone with more knowledge on the matter help explain why downloading copyrighted material using youtube-dl as opposed to a browser is treated differently under the DMCA? In either case you're accessing copyrighted material by downloading from youtube's servers.
> Because youtube-dl simply uses the "signature" code provided by YouTube in the same manner as any browser, rather than bypassing or avoiding it, it does not circumvent, and any alleged lack of authorization from YouTube or the RIAA is irrelevant.
[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...
I take GH/Microsoft won't implement any punitive counter-measures for frivolous 1201 claims? Their new claim processing appears to be fairly resource-heavy. It'd be only fair to recover some of the costs they will end up sinking into it.
Competition in the source-control space is a great thing. I am not entirely convinced that they would have done the right thing without the threat of losing developers en-masse to competitors.
Everyone who seriously considers to leave the platform has already left when they were acquired by MS and/or continued to work with ICE, and both of those only caused a miniscule amount of people to leave.