401–410 of 686 posts
The real question is will we see a push from RIAA lobbyists to amend the wording, or see this go to court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they have a license.
So if a program used a licensed browser as an intermediary to obtain Widevine-protected content, would that be circumvention?
I'm afraid in a few months/years, we'll see the hardware security level to become mandatory for Netflix, etc. And then YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EEF deserves every penny of donation they receive.
The EFF might deserve it more though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rebuttal to your reasoning is in the letter. Basically a federal judge has previously ruled that utilizing a publicly available password is not circumvention of a copyright protection mechanism. The code containing the "sig" (as google calls it) or "rolling cipher" (as RIAA calls it) is available to anyone by viewing the JavaScript. This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism.
> This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism. I can see this as ending up with Youtube being forced to require sign-ins. Massive expense for Google. Then Youtube-dl adds one parameter for the password, and we're back to square one.
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…
How has youtube not sent a cease and desist for the name youtube-dl? They would most definitely have a case that the name makes it appear to be a youtube product. Would a cease and desist for the name only somehow imply that google has no issue with the functionality? Because I know not protecting your trademark can lead to dilution. And by issuing takedown notices, they are showing that they are aware of the existen…
I think its for this reason that they don't go after these projects very aggressively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do I spend it wise one
Literally anywhere else. Whatever product you want type it in to google. Click a link that is not Amazon. edit.... don't use google. Use duck duck go. :-)
If you are concerned with unethical monopoly exploiting their market position that Google has to be at the top of that list right along with Amazon
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism. I can see this as ending up with Youtube being forced to require sign-ins. Massive expense for Google. Then Youtube-dl adds one parameter for the password, and we're back to square one.
You already have to sign in to view some videos, don’t you? Does YT-dL not have a way to handle those right now?
Maybe there's Red-only content that isn't advertised/recommended to non-subscribers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If GitHub really was "standing up for developers", why couldn't Microsoft's own army of lawyers figure this out? I think the 'What we're changing' section is the real interesting part of this post regarding this. I read this section as a half-apology for not doing enough to stand up for developers in this case (allowing the repository to be taken down to begin with), and a promise to do more in the future to preven…
So ... they didn't stand up for developers? Promise is not "standing up for".
I think there are few if any major other hosts who would have done this -- although perhaps with the example set here, more will going forward?
Honestly, I don't totally understand how you can get away with being as protective of the person receiving a takedown notice (in this case developer) as github has been, under the DMCA. It is unusual.
Compare for instance to gitlab.com's DMCA workflow. (Which it is amazingly awesome that gitlab has all their policies/workflows like this public and transparent, which github does not, true!). Following this workflow, youtube-dl would still be down, until/unless "there was a valid counter-notice and no response has been received from the plaintiff within 10 days of the counter-notice being forwarded"
https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/security/opera...
So yes, I would say that github has already acted in a way to stand up for developers, in reinstating youtube-dl already, and in changing their policies for the future further. Even in their present actions, they seem to be really pushing at DMCA safe harbor allowances.
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…
Lets assume, for once, that what they wrote, is what they stand for. I think this is a very very good / exemplary reaction.
Surely they already had the legal manpower when the youtube-dl removal started making waves. The fact that they did nothing for over three weeks and are publishing this blog post right after the issue was fixed by someone else (EFF) makes it hard to believe their "changes".