Good job GitHub and Microsoft!
I wonder how much involvement there was from Microsoft on this matter. Either way, good job guys!
YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
181–190 of 686 posts
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have become convinced that the RIAA lawyers emerge from their crypts every few years, generating a slew of copystrikes to justify their retainer fee.
This software makes it easy for people to download copyrighted movies and the RIAA attorneys (at least some) are acting in good faith to prevent people from breaking copyright law and causing their client damages. Can someone argue against me please? (genuinely contribute to discussion by arguing against my own biases, call me a moron instead of downvoting)
Git+your OS make it easy to acquire this software,
Your browser and OS collude together to make it easy to run it,
The elecric supply to your house makes it easy to run the computer that runs the OS,
...
Do you really want a world where this scumbags should go after everything that "makes it easy" to do illegal activities?
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#183Can 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.
EFF responded about that whole subject, and that allowed GitHub to "reinstate" the repo back:
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#184It 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 copy of a video is only one function of youtube-dl. I think the biggest problem is the name is called "youtube download", it is sort of difficult to downplay that saving a copy is only one function when the name implies it is the main purpose of the program.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#185This really is great to see, but it’s clear from their careful wording that the google takedown of the recent widevine l3 repository won’t be reversed:
> And our reinstatement, based on new information that showed the project was not circumventing a technical protection measure (TPM)
Since it is clearly circumventing a “TPM.”
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#186Can 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.
> 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?
It's not.
It may be treated differently under other parts of copyright law based on implied license or other theory, but the DMCA impact is on distributing, offering, etc. youtube-dl, not using it, insofar as it constitutes a circumvention tool under the DMCA.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#187> To help them, GitHub will establish and donate $1M to a developer defense fund to help protect open source developers on GitHub from unwarranted DMCA Section 1201 takedown claims.
At the end. While I hope it won't be needed, I hope it will be useful when the need arises.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#188But now I guess Github should be used as a read-only redundancy rather than for development.
Why? GitHub didn't do anything wrong. They took this down because they were required to by law. It would have been the same story with anyone else.
Github is part of the RIAA via Microsoft. That is something wrong.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm convinced the companies considered as 'evil' now didn't think they would at first either. Something something unintended consequences. I mean Reddit; bastion of free speech or platform for hate speech? (they cracked down on that over the years) Dropbox; File synchronization and sharing platform or child porn exchange? Airbnb; Great way to find an affordable place to stay and / or rent out unused room, or platform…
But who goes into being an RIAA lawyer position thinking it’s going to be good at first? You have to have believed in the RIAA’s stance from the get-go because it hasn’t really changed.
I was at the Grammy’s one year and at the industry lunch the day before, I wound up at a table with a bunch of lawyers for the labels and the RIAA. It was an interesting position for me to be in, as someone who has been quite critical vocally of their positions and tactics since I was a teenager.
Anyway, everyone was cordial and professional and we didn’t really get into debate too much — and I was clearly the odd woman out, not a lawyer or in agreement with their position — but I walked away from the lunch with the belief that at least most of them absolutely believe they are fighting against what they see as abuse against copyright and ownership and that they see themselves as protectors of the industry, and to a lesser extent, artists. Now, I disagree that their tactics really succeed and would argue that ignoring the push of technology has hurt the music industry and especially artists, but I also accept that it is valid for people to have a completely different view from me. And it’s important to be exposed to that on occasion.
I’ll also say, as I was waiting for my Uber to take me to my next meeting, I saw valet bringing out $200,000 cars for many of the people I had politely been debating with earlier. I’m sure the money doesn’t hurt.
Not unlike my friends who work for tech giants that many of us find abhorrent but get $400,000 in stock grants a year.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? GitHub didn't do anything wrong. They took this down because they were required to by law. It would have been the same story with anyone else.
Breaking copy protection is only illegal if you do not have a license to the work. Removing the protection breaking code isn't necessary, and everyone needs to stop pretending that it is. This same clause of the DMCA is the suspected reason for py-kms's reinstatement after a takedown: it's perfectly legal to break the Windows license scheme if you already own a license to Windows.
This is not my understanding of the DMCA. Can you back this up?