I found it strange that they constantly used "developers". I guess this is the marketing department word to use instead of "users"?
YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
191–200 of 686 posts
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#192Can 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.
AFAIK the integration tests had a link do download copyrighted video and that was the initial basis of the claim. "They are demonstrating how to 'pirate'"
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#193GitHub is still hosting the full youtube-dl version history, including versions which include those supposedly infringing tests. Does copyright law end with HEAD on master? Those tests are still there. This makes it especially obvious that the RIAA's problem with youtube-dl was never really the tests.
I've always wondered about copyright and HEAD. For example, you can find a LOT of copyrighted font files that were committed somewhere in GitHub, and then removed in a later commit once they realized they'd accidentally uploaded a copyrighted file. But they're still always there in the history, effortless to download. I'm not really sure what to make of that. I don't think it would really count as removal in court...…
On that note, does git as a protocol even have a clean mechanism for redacting history like this? If someone were to press this to the logical extreme, how could a developer most cleanly excise violating history from a repo using current tooling?
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#194This makes me wonder, what would happen if Google started blocking yt-dl?
The developers would release an update to circumvent the block.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#195Say what you will about Github and Microsoft, this was a classy move. A million dollars is a million dollars. "Putting your money where your mouth is". "Nonetheless, developers who want to push back against unwarranted takedowns may face the risk of taking on personal liability and legal defense costs. To help them, GitHub will establish and donate $1M to a developer defense fund to help protect open source developer…
I wonder how much MS funds the RIAA as a member of it.
Dues are $2500/y if you have revenues of $1-5MM, $5000/y if you have revenues of $5-15MM, and "contact us" beyond that: https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RIAA_ApplyFo...
Since one presumes that Microsoft does not sell much music (didn't they shut down their music store a few years ago?), I can't imagine they've negotiated dues that scale linearly on Microsoft's total revenue - so, in fact, I'd expect that $1M is well beyond their RIAA dues.
Now, it's possible that MS is contributing money other than dues to the RIAA, but you can bound that a bit from their Form 990: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131... For 2017, they got under $100K in "contributions and grants" and $29MM in "program service revenue," which is later determined to be dues. They received no other significant revenue. So no donor could have possibly given them more than $100K.
(... also, why did the RIAA give $4K to the Kenai River Sportfishing Association?)
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the RIAA notice is to be believed, you've still admitted to a crime as you've bypassed YouTube's DRM, which is their hosting of the video in other public links.
IIRC, YouTube actually does apply extra DRM to some videos (ones "owned" by the RIAA, maybe others?)
Nope, they argued that their URL obfuscation is DRM.
edit I think YouTube-Red's successor has DRM on it's videos, I don't think youtube-dl ever worked on them though.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#197Say what you will about Github and Microsoft, this was a classy move. A million dollars is a million dollars. "Putting your money where your mouth is". "Nonetheless, developers who want to push back against unwarranted takedowns may face the risk of taking on personal liability and legal defense costs. To help them, GitHub will establish and donate $1M to a developer defense fund to help protect open source developer…
If they can afford that so easily, they can also afford to end their contract with ICE, and stop providing services to people who imprison and separate children.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#198It 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…
Whenever you watch a video you are downloading it. youtube-dl merely gives you control over where that stream goes, whether it's to a hard disk or to a media player like the regular Youtube.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
This line of questioning on Startup News is quite amusing to me, I must say. How many of us can really pretend to make society a better place?
All who live in silicon Valley of course. You seem to have forgotten that "making world a better place" is a mantra repeated across the entire IT. I presume if Facebook employees actively think that, so can RIAA lawyers
[deleted]
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wondered about copyright and HEAD. For example, you can find a LOT of copyrighted font files that were committed somewhere in GitHub, and then removed in a later commit once they realized they'd accidentally uploaded a copyrighted file. But they're still always there in the history, effortless to download. I'm not really sure what to make of that. I don't think it would really count as removal in court...…
On that note, does git as a protocol even have a clean mechanism for redacting history like this? If someone were to press this to the logical extreme, how could a developer most cleanly excise violating history from a repo using current tooling?
I assume you would have to revert to the parent of the offending commit, cherry-pick the non-offending code, commit, then rebase the entire master branch on that new commit.
Then you'd have to repeat the process for all forks and branches. It'd be a huge pain, but I think it's doable.
I've never tried something like this, though, so there might be some complications.