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

501–510 of 686 posts

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#501

Post by ranman »

warlord1 wrote: post #480
charlesdaniels wrote: post #438

I think it is important to note that GitHub's parent company[1] Microsoft is a member of the RIAA[0], the group who initially filed this DMCA. The cynic in me says this was deliberately pre-planned to garnet free press. That type of behavior would certainly be in-line for the company responsible for the Halloween Documents[2][3]. Even if we give GitHub, and by extension Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here, this i…

I agree. Any globo-corp is going to do funny shit for PR. They operate on an entirely different level that most people don't really understand. This is really just a war game for them... and now they understand how much they can provoke their own users.

I sincerely doubt this was planned. If you’ve ever worked for a large global corp you would find it difficult to believe anything could be coordinated. Everyone involved at every level is trying to climb that ladder.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#502

Post by Analemma_ »

thewakalix wrote: post #465
toyg wrote: post #372

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.

Youtube wasn't behind the DMCA takedown, though. Do they even care about youtube-dl?

Google quickly kills any iOS/Android app that offers offline playback functionality for YouTube, so I can't imagine they love youtube-dl. They probably only haven't made a stink because it might attract more attention to a tool primarily only known about in techhead circles.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#503

Post by IshKebab »

CivBase wrote: post #37

GitHub is still hosting the full youtube-dl version history, including versions which include those supposedly infringing tests. Does copyright law end with HEAD on master? Those tests are still there. This makes it especially obvious that the RIAA's problem with youtube-dl was never really the tests.

Yes I really doubt the law cares about which commit some code is available on, as long as it is available.

> This makes it especially obvious that the RIAA's problem with youtube-dl was never really the tests.

It doesn't, because the RAII were not involved in youtube-dl's restoration at all.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#504

Post by jrochkind1 »

donmcronald wrote: post #469
jrochkind1 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They reinstated the repo without going through the usual DMCA counter-notice process. Which would require youtube-dl to file a counter-notice, and then to wait some amount of time for the original complainer to respond, before reinstating the content. 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 totall…

Yeah. The way I understand it GitHub is really putting their money where their mouth is. The easy way out is to push the liability onto the user by making them file a counter-notice. This way GitHub is taking on some liability. I'm guessing youtube-dl might be a really strong case for GitHub if they'd happen to get sued, so it makes a lot of business sense to take a stand on it. The get much needed goodwill from the…

The thing is, Microsoft can actually afford a LOT of risk of legal bills in return of developer goodwill, apart from how strong a case it is. Especially since Github somehow seems to have been losing developer goodwill lately.

This is not a dig -- few companies can afford to take a legal risk that Microsoft can (even on a strong case, most companies couldn't afford the legal bills of standing up to RIAA), and it's GREAT that they are choosing to, setting a standard.

It will in fact be really hard for gitlab to do similar though, they can not afford a lawsuit from the RIAA like MS can. (And the RIAA is really unlikely to sue MS unless they really think they have to, cause they know they're outgunned_.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#505

Post by sneak »

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…

GitHub is owned by Microsoft, who is a member of the RIAA who created this legal action.

For Microsoft to pay for the lawyers to take it down (via their RIAA membership payments) and also pay for the lawyers to keep it up seems... rather silly.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#506

Post by boomboomsubban »

crtasm wrote: post #458
boomboomsubban wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, they argued that their URL obfuscation is DRM. edit I think YouTube-Red's successor has DRM on it's videos, I don't think youtube-dl ever worked on them though.

The video torstenvl downloaded wouldn't have had the rolling cipher on it.

From my understanding, every video has the rolling cipher as it is just what YouTube calls the links the media files are at.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#507

Post by slimginz »

Analemma_ wrote: post #502
thewakalix wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube wasn't behind the DMCA takedown, though. Do they even care about youtube-dl?

Google quickly kills any iOS/Android app that offers offline playback functionality for YouTube, so I can't imagine they love youtube-dl. They probably only haven't made a stink because it might attract more attention to a tool primarily only known about in techhead circles.

I think the difference is that offline playback and background playback on iOS/Android can be unlocked through YouTube Premium so those apps directly interfere with YouTube's bottom line. YouTube-dl I don't really see as directly competing with that because it's not trivial to download a YouTube video from it to your phone.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#508

Post by Rochus »

ggoo wrote: post #448
Rochus wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what respect?

If you read the blog post, it goes over several good changes: - What we’re changing - Developer defense fund - How we’re working to improve the law

Right; but the motivation looks rather like the attempt to restore the good reputation after an obvious mistake; one might have expected Github to check the DMCA request a priori and reject it if unfounded.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#509

Post by varispeed »

whimsicalism wrote: post #307
varispeed wrote: post #279

We need some billionaire to step in and lobby against organisations like RIAA to make them illegal. First one who does it, will be forever remembered as the one who saved artists and their fans. RIAA only protects labels who obtain rights to art in questionable manner (just read so many stories about artists being cheated by the label). We need something that will be paying artists directly and there is technology to…

What a world we have come to when the only hope of bad laws being changed is if "some billionaire" takes a fancy in our cause.

A world where corruption has been labelled as lobbying and everyone seem to accept that. People only vote on who can line their pockets and hope they have some semblance of morals. Unfortunately there is no other way to make change in area protected by massive wealth.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#510

Post by clarkdale »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #496
vdfs wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it accurate to say more than 90% of HN readers have seen that movie?

What movie? I think you mean, “read the book.”

Not OP, but I think he was referring to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)[0] which grossed $887.9 million and won 4 Academy awards[1].

[0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Fel...

Post reply on HN