[flagged]
yes
YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
111–120 of 256 posts
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how a trillion-dollar company is playing cat-and-mouse with a few free software projects, and losing most of the time.
I have a feeling Google/Alphabet/YouTube aren't investing a lot of money into this, because they know their opponents have almost infinite resource, of free time and dedication. Besides how would you like to work in the YouTube "DRM" team, where every few weeks you'd show up to work and the news is "well, they cracked it again, your last few months' of work is useless.".
It is not Google in the courts, it is Sony and Warner, the ‘rights holders’!
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I used to have a competitor who would email PayPal every couple of weeks to tell them our web site had CP on it just so PayPal would instantly shut off our payment gateway while they investigated Isn’t this sort of behaviour criminal? (I mean the competitor submitting a fake child pornography report, not whatever PayPal did to respond to it.) And if not, surely it ought to be.
What is considered criminal depends on the jurisdiction, but I doubt making false reports to a private company is criminal in very many. At least in the US, you could certainly get sued for continually disrupting someone else's business, but to sue another party, they'd need to also be in the US so they could be served and actually subject to being forced to appear in a US court and a judgment against them could be e…
> What is considered criminal depends on the jurisdiction, but I doubt making false reports to a private company is criminal in very many.
I live in the Australian state of New South Wales. I just looked up our state law on this topic. Section 314 of the Crimes Act 1900 says: “A person who makes an accusation intending a person to be the subject of an investigation of an offence, knowing that other person to be innocent of the offence, is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.” I haven’t looked at the case law or anything, but just going by the wording of the statute, it seems broad enough to potentially include false accusations made to private companies in its scope.
Of course, probably none of the parties in the case under discussion live in my jurisdiction, so its laws are irrelevant. Still, if other jurisdictions don’t have a law like this on the books, maybe they should
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'd rephrase that, rightsholders should not get stuffed, but these are not rightsholders because their rights are not being infringed by the mere existance of youtube-dl
[flagged]
It’s too late, I have both a python interpreter and a 3D printer
Become ungovernable
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#115It's laughable how symbolic and ultimately meaningless this is. GitHub has already proven themselves to be a good actor in this particular fight, so not only is the repo online, but we also have http://ytdl-org.github.io/youtube-dl/ The Uberspace provider is appealing the decision as well. Even with the site down, this looks incredibly positive from where I sit. Rightsholders and litigators get stuffed, we always win…
Microsoft is the freedom fighter? That it is indeed laughable.
Microsoft did not face a court order, if they did they would surely immediately comply. They faced a seemingly fraudulent DMCA takedown notice, as takedowns are not designed to target circumvention tools.
They did a good thing restoring youtube-dl, but I'd hardly say it puts them in "freedom fighter" territory, more so compared to Uberspace who are actively fighting for youtube-dl.
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#116Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#117It's amazing what kind of mental gymnastics can allow someone to think you can watch a video without downloading it. Lawyers live in a world very unlike reality.
Not very amazing, really.
You used to watch video all the time without downloading it - over TV, the theater, etc. Some people see video playing on a computer and assume it must work exactly like something they grew up with.
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#118Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would too. But i am saying if we are okay with gun manufacturers enabling death and murder, then by all means ytdl can and should stay up.
> gun manufacturers enabling death and murder, then by all means ytdl can and should stay up. I assume you're referring to arms makers selling weapons that are obviously not for hunting game to the civilian market, rather than overall, because (such as it is) countries generally need defence-forces, and those forces do need arms.
Well, of course I am referring to the obvious one. Humanity isn’t ready for the other one.