Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Except one is an explicitly enumerated constitutional right.
As opposed to free speech?
YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
211–220 of 256 posts
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can listen to music on the radio, but it's a whole different issue when I pick specific songs to pirate for my own personal listening :p But that's not where the caring comes in; it's the tools I can use to pirate songs; hence youtube-dl going down and not the users who used it. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a TOS clause about videos on YT not being your property and that you can't export them off the platform…
Now hang one hot minute! What on earth are you talking about? Recording radio or television for personal use is illegal now? Are we so used to not owning a single thing that these things are alien to us now? I mean, I'm not misremembering the era where people taped shows to watch them later, am I? Also, pardon my language, but fuck off with your "watching videos on YT's platform". It's my user agent, my hardware, my…
Not a lawyer, but as I understand it's not legal to break copy protection. It's legal to archive media for your own personal use. Recording VHS and even sound recorder from a phone is more-legal than putting a box/dongle between a FireTV stick and your TV in order to break and bypass HDCP.
Outside of straight-up piracy, it could be argued that youtube-dl was bypassing YouTube restrictions.
Also if someone had that attitude towards a service I was offering, I'd go out of my way to block their access; I choose the restrictions on my platform that I offer to others, and people that actively go against that can go use someone else's platform or host their own since they're so sure they must know better :p
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can listen to music on the radio, but it's a whole different issue when I pick specific songs to pirate for my own personal listening :p But that's not where the caring comes in; it's the tools I can use to pirate songs; hence youtube-dl going down and not the users who used it. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a TOS clause about videos on YT not being your property and that you can't export them off the platform…
In order to watch these videos, your computer downloads the videos. Your radio doesn't have to download a copy of the song to play it. > I can't imaging there being a large percentage of "legitmate" and fair usage. My usage is usually no less legitimate than youtube's usage. I'm usually downloading things that were uploaded without permission from the copyright holders from a platform that is distributing them withou…
Two wrongs don't make a right :p
That's between YT and the video uploaders; people using yt-dl are not using it to rebel against YT.
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#214This is why I'm setting up a reverse proxy on another host in front of my web site, in case I get some fake takedown request from a competitor that causes my host to delete my account. At least if I use a proxy I can spend a small amount of time setting up a new proxy. 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 of…
I have an unrelated question: I assume "CP" stands for card-present here. Why would Paypal shut off your payment gateway for having CP?
It must be nice having a brain not corrupted by years of Internet!
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
All a conventional radio does is translate electromagnetic waves that are already surrounding it into sound waves that we can hear. An intellectual-property-maximalist lawyer could cogently argue that a radio that records the signal onto a tape or other storage device is somehow violating the IP rights of the authors, as it is interacting with the work in materially different way than an ordinary radio. Not that I wo…
It's literally exactly the same. I can listen to a broadcast radio signal with my rtl-sdr usb dongle and save as much as I want of the instantaneous streaming data. I can watch a youtube video with computer and save as much as I want of the instantaneous streaming data. There is literally no possible way I can experience the sound or video without first receiving it. The only difference with "streaming" is that lawye…
Downloading implies data persists. AM/FM radio and TV antennas take an active signal and play it on-demand, without persisting the data, and without copy-protection.
The detail is with what's in-between the signal and how you're using it.
- It's fine for me to record antenna TV to VHS; there's no copy-protection and it's for personal-use
- It's probably questionable, but largely fine for me to record songs playing with my phone's sound recorder; you can't copy-protect public audible noise in this context
- It's not fine for me to put a dongle/box in-between a Roku or TV streaming box in order to break HDCP to record content. The problem here is breaking the platform's copy-protection.
- It's not fine for me to go to a torrent site and download a song. I think for archive purposes you have to archive from personally-owned media, but it's likely gray-area if you own the media and pirate content of that media from somewhere else (like if you own a PS2 game disc and download an iso online)
youtube-dl was being used to break/bypass YouTube's copy-protection.
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 innoc…
That's fascinating, thank you. I've been involved with criminal law for a decade and not seen a law like that. I wonder if the accusation has to be made to a law enforcement agency, or whether it would apply in my situation where the person made an accusation to a private entity?
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you, in all honesty, think the US showed its full might against the taliban in an all out war? No, the one thing the US government held back were nukes. Of course, I could see how those were off the table against a foreign country, but those concerns wouldn't apply to domestic use. The LARPers would stand no chance against H-bombs, which shows the truth of your original point. Small arms can't defend against a w…
The US would infiltrate and dismantle any uprising before it could pose a threat to the local state. The sheer number of things that must go wrong for the US army to reach out to nukes is enormous.
> The US would infiltrate and dismantle any uprising before it could pose a threat to the local state.
Yeah, I know. That's why the US basically has no organized crime at all, and that's why no uprising has ever been successful ever. Governments are scarily competent, the US government especially. They never lose, never make a mistake, are totally unified, and are always ten steps ahead of everyone. It's basically an army of real Jack Bauers and Jason Bournes.
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#218Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#219Earlier 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.".
We did that at AOL with regards to fighting spam, when I was the Sr. Internet Mail Adminstrator in the mid-90s.
We would put in weeks and months of work to come up with a new method of fighting spam that would actually work [0], and over the span of a weekend after launch, the spammers would already have worked around it.
[0] As opposed to the random crackpot ideas that every damn stupid AOL VP came up with that started with "Why don't you just ...". If I had a nickel for every damn stupid AOL VP crackpot idea, I'd be a multi-millionaire by now.
Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hosting the software isn't free, neither is storing the content to be served, neither is serving the said content. I think you vastly underestimate the amount if bandwidth video takes.
You can host videos on any bandwidth and hardware you can get your hands on; old laptops from landfills, SBC Raspberry Pis, $80 decommissioned Optiplex from businesses, and even Android phones and TV sticks if you set the servers up through Termux. You can also use the cheapest VPS option for like $5/month, but that kind of negates not using YT at that point. It's free in the sense of all the software being available…
1 Mbps would barely give you a low quality stream to a single user, never mind multiple users.
My point wasn't against self hosting your own content either, but rather that this is absolutely not an alternative to YouTube in any way because scaling to YouTube's level is extremely expensive.
The draw of YouTube is also the user made content, not stuff you can buy off the shelf, rip and then host. This means those users would never use a decentralized platform because discoverability is nearly impossible.
The fight you are fighting is a nobel one, but reality means it's always going to be a niche solution that nerds use.