Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 686 posts

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#331

Post by drilldrive »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #92
katsura wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least some of us don't try to actively make it harder/worse. So that's a plus.

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…

Having reddit crack down on hate speech makes it a corporate shill-chamber/chicomm focal point, along with an anti-1A and against American-rights. The evil is always there with these companies brother.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#332

Post by shbooms »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #212
ryanar wrote: post #184

It 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…

AFAIU the argument is more that youtube-dl is effectively a web browser and doesn’t do anything that a web browser doesn’t do. Further, it does not include any “secret” key for DRM circumvention like might be bundled with e.g. Chrome in the case of Widevine, where browser vendors agree to protect the secret key.

that's how understood it as well:

"youtube-dl stands in place of a Web browser and performs a similar function with respect to user-uploaded videos. Importantly, youtube-dl does not decrypt video streams that are encrypted with commercial DRM technologies, such as Widevine, that are used by subscription video sites, such as Netflix."

"We presume that this “signature” code is what RIAA refers to as a “rolling cipher,” although YouTube’s JavaScript code does not contain this phrase. Regardless of what this mechanism is called, youtube-dl does not “circumvent” it as that term is defined in Section 1201(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because YouTube provides the means of accessing these video streams to anyone who requests them. As federal appeals court recently ruled, one does not “circumvent” an access control by using a publicly available password. Circumvention is limited to actions that “descramble, decrypt, avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair a technological measure,” without the authority of the copyright owner."

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#333

Post by rndgermandude »

typon wrote: post #302

ACLU and EFF are two of the last few remaining "Great" American institutions - living up to America's own image of itself.

The ACLU has had a bit of a paradigm shift recently, from "defend any speech" to "defend any speech we do not think is abhorrent". That's not necessarily a bad change, or a good change, depending on where you stand. I am just wanting to point out that the ACLU isn't necessarily "remaining", more "reinventing" these days.

Here is a fresh Glenn Greenwald writeup on it (which is just one opinion, of course):

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-death-of-free-s...

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#335

Post by Aissen »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #212
ryanar wrote: post #184

It 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…

AFAIU the argument is more that youtube-dl is effectively a web browser and doesn’t do anything that a web browser doesn’t do. Further, it does not include any “secret” key for DRM circumvention like might be bundled with e.g. Chrome in the case of Widevine, where browser vendors agree to protect the secret key.

If a program had its own implementation of widevine, why wouldn't you also be "effectively a web browser" ?

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#338

Post by mackal »

CodesInChaos wrote: post #16

Was a counter-notice filed, or did github restore it without one, once the tests were removed? Because my understanding was that certain decryption/anti-drm functions were also in the scope of the takedown request, not just the tests.

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...

EFF did file a counter-notice

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#339

Post by tboyd47 »

bayindirh wrote: post #280
tboyd47 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are creating a fund that they control to take the place of EFF and avoid future stand-offs.

Is replacing EFF that easy ? Honestly asking.

You're asking me? I don't know, but Microsoft clearly thinks $1 mil is enough for their users' needs.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#340

Post by musicale »

Are 1201 takedown notices even supposed to be a thing, or were they just invented by the RIAA and/or other overly enthusiastic copyright holders?

I was under the impression that DMCA notices were for the removal of infringing content, not alleged anti-circumvention tools. That's what the law seems to specify. The notification and takedown process is specified for infringement of copyrighted works, not distribution of anti-circumvention tools. EFF's explainer video seemed to concur with the assessment that DMCA notices are not appropriate for 1201 violations, only for removal of infringing content.

1201 enforcement appears to be through other mechanisms, such as criminal liability and statutory damages. Presumably those would require something more than a letter or notice claiming violation.

Post reply on HN