[deleted]
YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
261–270 of 686 posts
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#262Can 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 to…
out of curiosity (and total legal ignorance)" wouldn't that logic make chrome also illegal? since it's a tool that can be used for circumvention as well. If the defense is that it's not chrome's intended purpose, then one could argue that the defense also applies to youtube-dl since its intended use isn't necessarily to download _licensed_ videos.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
There is a way, its not very clean, git filter-branch and you will have to force push all branches, which is fun with large teams. Unfortunately in larger repos with long histories its extremely slow, and uses a lot of IO. I used it previously to clean up large binaries that were included early on in a repo's history, making it take up way more space than needed.
When you need to do it in a big repo, BFG Repo-Cleaner is usually the way to go: https://rtyley.github.io/bfg-repo-cleaner/
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#264Earlier 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.
Maybe their purpose was Widevine. The youtube-dl takedown was a way to distract the attention. I don't think we should rejoice until Widevine is back.
I am out of the loop. What happened to Widevine?
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open question to HackerNews: are there big tech firms that give lobbying money to free software lobbyists? Feel free to highlight them here. I'd rather cut this problem off at the head than sit around and establish legal defense funds if possible. I'm glad GitHub and Microsoft could help contribute to this victory though.
> I'd rather cut this problem off at the head I don't understand what you mean by this! I know it's an expression or a way of saying something, but I don't understand what you mean
[deleted]
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#266Say 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…
> A million dollars is a million dollars. Not if you are a company worth $1.6 trillion dollars. But that $1 million dollars probably bought them a lot more in free press. To put it into perspective, it would be like someone worth $1.6 million giving a homeless person $1, filming it, putting it on youtube and profiting off of it. > Thanks Microsoft/Github. Is this real? Edit: Of course the downvotes. Not sure if emplo…
[deleted]
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#267A gem in the EFF's letter (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...)
> To borrow an analogy from literature, travelers come upon a door that has writing in a foreign language. When translated, the writing says "say 'friend' and enter." The travelers say "friend" and the door opens. As with the writing on that door, YouTube presents instructions on accessing video streams to everyone who comes asking for it.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#268Earlier 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.
They are looking for that one time where people are either not paying attention or are too exhausted to care. What is the saying? We have to win every little battle, but all they have to do is win once.
> generating a slew of copystrikes to justify their retainer fee.
Considering how they were able to change social media to favor the copyright owners, I'm betting whoever is paying them feels the fees are justified.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open question to HackerNews: are there big tech firms that give lobbying money to free software lobbyists? Feel free to highlight them here. I'd rather cut this problem off at the head than sit around and establish legal defense funds if possible. I'm glad GitHub and Microsoft could help contribute to this victory though.
> I'd rather cut this problem off at the head I don't understand what you mean by this! I know it's an expression or a way of saying something, but I don't understand what you mean
They are suggesting lobbying to change the law, rather than struggling with current law in court.
Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open question to HackerNews: are there big tech firms that give lobbying money to free software lobbyists? Feel free to highlight them here. I'd rather cut this problem off at the head than sit around and establish legal defense funds if possible. I'm glad GitHub and Microsoft could help contribute to this victory though.
> I'd rather cut this problem off at the head I don't understand what you mean by this! I know it's an expression or a way of saying something, but I don't understand what you mean
If we give money to open source lobbyists then they can do the work of influencing the government so that bullies like the RIAA are a thing of the past. It also means that free software gets some legitimate representation, and by proxy the people who contribute to free software either casually or professionally are largely better for it. There's also some merit to the idea that free software cannot depend on corporations and although good will has prevailed here, far too often it hasn't.