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

TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 543 posts

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#531

Post by randombits0 »

kittywav wrote: post #529
randombits0 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I’ll put it this way. If every homework submission for a particular CS101 assignment was essentially identical, it’s not creative, it’s functional. That’s what I mean by 2+2=4. Oracle tried to hang Google with copied code for max(x,y), which returned the greater of two parameters. That’s what you get when every single byte of software is a “literary work” worthy of independent copyright protection. Bullshit. The…

I mean... I empathize with your feeling. I'm not telling you how I think things should be, but more about how things are, in practice. In practice , algorithms are not copyrighteable, but specific implementations of algorithms are copyrighteable (and, by default, are copyrighted as soon as they are set in some fixed medium). The issue of whether something is creative enough to warrant authorship rights or any other t…

Oh, the original topic? I didn’t consider it at all. I was just discussing copyright and how it applies to code. The Oracle/Google dust up was a great example of such ambiguity, and it didn’t help in drawing lines in the future.

As to how it works now? I agree with you.

But listen to the argument you’re making: The otherwise uncopyrightable functional code expression becomes copyrightable if and only if it is copied by another. The exact same expression, still uncopyrightable, is only free to use if independently created and only by those that created the expression, who may then restrict or license the uncopyrightable expression as they wish.

That’s where we are.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#532

Post by randombits0 »

pure_simplicity wrote: post #505
randombits0 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, please. 2+2=4 is not copyrightable. I’d further that any program in a CS101 textbook is equally uncopyrightable. Computer programs are only copyrightable to the degree that they contain creative expression. Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable, regardless of the creative effort to derive them. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1342160

I would argue that everything creative has a functional side and everything functional has a creative side. The question is: where do we draw the line? How creative should something be before it is copyrightable and how functional should it be before it's not? Currently, precedent is on the side of code being copyrightable.

Code is a tricky word. It’s very ambiguous.

What if I lift a minor function? What if I study yours and base mine off of it? What if I type it all except for three lines I pasted from yours? The whole idea that a recipe can be owned is fascinating.

Actual recipes, btw, are not considered copyrightable.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#533

Post by vbphprubyjsgo »

shukantpal wrote: post #498
kzrdude wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American economy with the likes of youtube and facebook are built on copying and stealing copyrighted video and audio. That's literally how youtube captured all the users: become the go-to place for anyone to upload videos, also spreading copies of music videos. Facebook captures a lot of video viewers by not controlling video sources either in a similar way.

There’s no evidence that they are doing that intentionally or deliberately. Sure some creators do that.

It's called having good lawyers unlike rapidshare style hosters. At the end of the day getting mad about file hosting is retarded.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#534

Post by fortuna86 »

trasz wrote: post #333
fortuna86 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You are moving goalposts" proceeds to move goalposts ByteDance doesn't issue such reports because everyone knows they cannot refuse a request by their government. Any report that says otherwise would be, as you say, "PR material".

Same way US-based companies can’t refuse gag orders and other kangaroo “secret courts”.

US companies can and often do refuse federal law enforcement requests, then they tell the world about it. Two things not done, ever, in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#535

Post by dang »

pshushereba wrote: post #343
dang wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My comment doesn't meet any of this criteria. The original article was about a Chinese company's unauthorized fork of OBS. It's semantics whether or not you consider an "unauthorized fork" as stealing, but I certainly do. So it's neither unrelated or a generic tangent, as it relates to intellectual property theft. It's beyond question both that China as a country is known for stealing intellectual property, and that…

It was a cheap and unsubstantive drive-by provocation on an inflammatory topic. Of course it meets the criteria—it's exactly the sort of thing the guidelines are asking you not to post here. Please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#536

Post by dang »

pphysch wrote: post #312
xvector wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people downvoting you? You are 100% correct about NSLs and gag orders. This is one of the biggest issues the EFF focuses on: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq

What can I say, I'm attempting to add nuance and scrutiny to what is a black-and-white issue for most of HN.

Since your intention is to add nuance and scrutiny, you should be posting much more thoughtfully and substantively than comments like these:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29594691

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29597691

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29596075

Those comments aren't adding nuance, they're perpetuating flamewar. Please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#537

Post by trasz »

fortuna86 wrote: post #534
trasz wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same way US-based companies can’t refuse gag orders and other kangaroo “secret courts”.

US companies can and often do refuse federal law enforcement requests, then they tell the world about it. Two things not done, ever, in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...

Law enforcement - sure. But not American security agencies, thanks to gag orders and secret "security courts".

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#538

Post by CRConrad »

rhizome wrote: post #396
jacobr1 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ provides a great explanation > There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be m…

New word to me day! Mulct: extract money via tax or fine.

Oh, I thought it was a variant of "mulch". As in, since these laws were basically written for books and other paper products, have the entire print run shredded.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#539

Post by fortuna86 »

trasz wrote: post #537
fortuna86 wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies can and often do refuse federal law enforcement requests, then they tell the world about it. Two things not done, ever, in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...

Law enforcement - sure. But not American security agencies, thanks to gag orders and secret "security courts".

Again, your comparison falls apart right away.

1. There is a court in the US (called FISA), with procedure and some transparency. Neither exists in China.

2. Requests have been denied, just not that many. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fisa-court-has-onl...) But that proves they have the ability to say no, which is what we are discussing.

3. All of the above can be improved, but shifting the argument to "what's bad about the US system" away from "what China is actually doing" is drifting into deflection.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#540

Post by shukantpal »

Dah00n wrote: post #527
shukantpal wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no evidence that they are doing that intentionally or deliberately. Sure some creators do that.

Sure there are. There was a huge uproar on Facebook on how if you shared a video Facebook itself would show it from Facebook, not link the original source. That is 100% intentionally and deliberately. American companies are absolutely no better. If anything they are worse.

> Sure there are. There was a huge uproar on Facebook on how if you shared a video Facebook itself would show it from Facebook, not link the original source.

Totally unrelated.

Post reply on HN