241–250 of 686 posts
I found it strange that they constantly used "developers". I guess this is the marketing department word to use instead of "users"?
Github's users are developers, so I think both terms are fair game. Pick the one that sounds best.
I get that developers are the main drivers but it struck me as some unnecessary pandering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology has had an impact on nearly any industry you can think of. As such, there is no shortage of tech work outside of ad tech. Ten years ago I worked on ad tech shit for Amazon, but I quit when I realized that made me a parasite. I don't work in food delivery, but I'd say getting a pizza from point A to B is a hell of a lot more productive than being a lawyer for the RIAA.
Appified pizza delivery is rent seeking. There is zero need for a multinational between hungry people and food delivery. Inserting them raises costs, lowers service quality, and lowers revenue to restaurants. Off topic, but I would like to note this thread's congruence to Snow Crash : There's only four things we do better than anyone else: music movies microcode (software) high-speed pizza delivery
Good job GitHub and Microsoft!
Microsoft is a member of RIAA.
Not sure where that value's gone in the last 13 years, but it didn't look like exponential growth.
Microsoft's annual profits are about $14b.
So it seems that the dealbreaker was that one of tests that downloaded copyrighted material (see the last commit [1]). Seems like a reasonable thing to not do, and just replace those tests with just random cat videos. [1] https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/commit/1fb034d029c8b7...
It doesn't work like that since certain videos use obfuscation methods that random cat videos don't.
Well done Microsoft! I can't imagine the political turmoil in the org that led up to this. It wasn't simply a quick sting that would fade, the mass protest on the site was probably the biggest wake up call. MS could easily have pissed away the 7.5+ billion they paid for all the developers that use github. Without developers, github is nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does copyright law end with HEAD on master? With regards to copyright law and "distribution", there's no distinction. The tests are still being "distributed", just from a different URL. If youtube-dl was in violation before, they still are now. This is a confusing result. I would not expect any copyright litigant to sacrifice legal advantage for the sake of an adversary's convenience in maintaining complete version…
Does the fact that the RIAA is packed with stodgy, old corporate lawyers who most likely lack even superficial understanding of the term "version control" lack appropriate explanatory power?
So what's confusing is the youtube-dl side's strategy. Are they really trying to pull a fast one? That would be incredibly unwise, so I doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Creating or providing a tool and using a tool are not the same action. Likewise, since there are legal fair use scenarios of copyrighted materials (short clips, criticism, satire, academic, etc) so even using the tool isn't inherently against the law and the person creating or providing the tools can't know and legally doesn't need to know the end user's intentions. Copyright lawyers working for the highest profile a…
So to pick a worst case scenario, a pirate uploaded _Spiderman_ to Youtube with the intent of letting people get _Spiderman_ for free using this software. In that case, it's the uploader that's legally liable? Does the RIAA have a case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And not even purged from the repo, it's still in the history if needed. Seems like the copyright holders making a big fuss over nothing really.
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.
Excellent. Looks like they've removed the tests for RIAA member videos as the only change, which I assume helped get this restored: https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/commit/1fb034d029c8b7...
And not even purged from the repo, it's still in the history if needed. Seems like the copyright holders making a big fuss over nothing really.
Here is a bit of a discussion about it by seemingly knowledgeable people:
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/57421/is-youtube-dl-...
> > the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies: > > Icona Pop – I Love It (feat. Charli XCX) [Official Video], owned by Warner Music Group Justin Timberlake – Tunnel Vision (Explicit), owned by Sony Music Group Taylor Swift – Shake it Off, owned/exclusively licensed by Universal Music Group
> Complainants are "confused" about actual infringement (which is prohibited by copyright law), and creating a method for infringing copyright. Under DMCA and US copyright law, copying is infringing, programming is not infringing. The complaint does not clearly allege unauthorized copying of another person's intellectual property, and their complaint is based on the theory that certain programming actions constitute copyright infringement. I don't actually think they are confused, I think they are testing the boundaries.