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

FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 200 posts

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#131

Post by ajross »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #119
ajross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not it. The LGPL doesn't require dynamic linking, just that any distributed artifacts be able to be used with derived versions of the LGPL code. Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too. The problem here isn't a technical violation of the LGPL, it's that Rockchip doesn't own the copyright to FFMPEG and simply doesn't have the legal authority to release it under any license other…

"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." They should be covered as an aggregation, provided the LGPL was intact.

The contention is that the ffmpeg code was "cut and pasted" without attribution and without preserving the license (e.g. the LGPLv2 LICENSE file). Obviously I can't check this because I don't have a clone and the repository is now blocked behind the DMCA enforcement. But at least Github/Microsoft seem to agree that there was a violation.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#132

Post by Dylan16807 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #129
Dylan16807 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, it's random and by chance - tokens are literally sampled from a predicted probability distribution. Picking randomly out of a non-random distribution doesn't give you a random result. And you don't have to use randomness to pick tokens. > If you mean chance=uniform probability you have to articulate that. Don't be a pain. This isn't about uniform distribution versus other generic distribution. This is ab…

> Very long segments that can be reproduced Right, and very short segments can also be reproduced. Let's say that "//" is an arbitrarily short segment that matches some source code. This is trivially true. I could write "//" on a coin and half the time it's going to land "//". Let's agree that's a lower bound. I don't even disagree that there is an upper bound. Surely reproducing a repo in its entirety is a match. So…

Why do you want me to pick a number so bad?

There are very very long examples that are clearly memorization.

Like, if a model was trained on all the code in the world except that specific example, the chance of it producing that snippet is less than a billionth of a billionth of a percent. But that snippet got fed in so many times it gets treated like a standard idiom and memorized in full.

Is that a clear enough threshold for you?

I don't know where the exact line is, but I know it's somewhere inside this big ballpark, and there are examples that go past the entire ballpark.

I don't care where specifically the bound is.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#133

Post by zmgsabst »

LeFantome wrote: post #103
observationist wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best case scenario is it nukes the whole concept of software patents and the whole ugly industry of copyright hoarding. The idea that perpetual rent-seeking is a natural extension and intended outcome of the legal concepts of copyrights and patents is bizarre.

I cannot imagine it somehow impacts parents. Copyright and patents are completely independent concepts. The “perpetual” part is the issue but “rent seeking” is the entire reason that copyright and patents exist to begin with.

No — providing funding to promote creation and discovery is why those exist; granting a temporary monopoly is the mechanism meant to accomplish that goal.

This sounds pedantic, but it’s important to not mistake the means for an end:

> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#134

Post by kelseyfrog »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #132
kelseyfrog wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very long segments that can be reproduced Right, and very short segments can also be reproduced. Let's say that "//" is an arbitrarily short segment that matches some source code. This is trivially true. I could write "//" on a coin and half the time it's going to land "//". Let's agree that's a lower bound. I don't even disagree that there is an upper bound. Surely reproducing a repo in its entirety is a match. So…

Why do you want me to pick a number so bad? There are very very long examples that are clearly memorization. Like, if a model was trained on all the code in the world except that specific example, the chance of it producing that snippet is less than a billionth of a billionth of a percent. But that snippet got fed in so many times it gets treated like a standard idiom and memorized in full. Is that a clear enough thr…

[flagged]

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#136

Post by Dylan16807 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #134
Dylan16807 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want me to pick a number so bad? There are very very long examples that are clearly memorization. Like, if a model was trained on all the code in the world except that specific example, the chance of it producing that snippet is less than a billionth of a billionth of a percent. But that snippet got fed in so many times it gets treated like a standard idiom and memorized in full. Is that a clear enough thr…

[flagged]

That is not good faith, my dude.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#137

Post by nhinck3 »

ajross wrote: post #131
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." They should be covered as an aggregation, provided the LGPL was intact.

The contention is that the ffmpeg code was "cut and pasted" without attribution and without preserving the license (e.g. the LGPLv2 LICENSE file). Obviously I can't check this because I don't have a clone and the repository is now blocked behind the DMCA enforcement. But at least Github/Microsoft seem to agree that there was a violation.

Microsoft/Github have no say in enforcement of a DMCA claim.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#138

Post by ajross »

nhinck3 wrote: post #137
ajross wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contention is that the ffmpeg code was "cut and pasted" without attribution and without preserving the license (e.g. the LGPLv2 LICENSE file). Obviously I can't check this because I don't have a clone and the repository is now blocked behind the DMCA enforcement. But at least Github/Microsoft seem to agree that there was a violation.

Microsoft/Github have no say in enforcement of a DMCA claim.

Uh... the repo has literally been taken down by GitHub: https://github.com/rockchip-linux/mpp

Not sure what you're trying to say here. DMCA takedown enforcement is 100% the responsibility of the Online Service Providers per statute. It's the mechanism by which they receive safe harbor from liability for hosting infringing content.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#139

Post by nhinck3 »

ajross wrote: post #138
nhinck3 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft/Github have no say in enforcement of a DMCA claim.

Uh... the repo has literally been taken down by GitHub: https://github.com/rockchip-linux/mpp Not sure what you're trying to say here. DMCA takedown enforcement is 100% the responsibility of the Online Service Providers per statute. It's the mechanism by which they receive safe harbor from liability for hosting infringing content.

Yes, but Microsoft/Github do not make any determination about the validity of the claim.

Once a valid (from a process perspective) claim is submitted, the provider is required to take the claimed content down for 10 days. From there the counter claim and court processes can go back and forth.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#140

Post by wiml »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #82
meindnoch wrote: post #78

[flagged]

Software licensing is just another form of property rights, and property rights is what society uses to incentivise civility.

> Software licensing is just another form of property rights

That's a pretty substantial assertion and without much to back it up.

The framing of copyright as basically the same as ownership of chattel or land is a propaganda campaign.

Post reply on HN