521–530 of 1001 posts
Also, a recommendation for the youtube_dl crew is to use a self-hosted solution (if GitHub/GitLab/SourceForge wont do). Find a cheap Linux hosting provider and run Gitea on it: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea
It's the best tips I can give for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what commit added those three listed examples (from three different music companies) to the README, and when. They're the worrying component as they show intent. In a dark universe timeline somewhere, the pull request for adding them to the README came from an RIAA employee.
A comment somewhere else pointed out that the listed examples aren't listed in the README, but rather as part of the unit tests. It's confusing, because the letter calls it "the source code", which is not what anyone who knew what they were talking about would usually call it.
Because of how github works these moves are much more damaging than you might expect: In addition to revoking your access to the supposed "infringing" work, you also lose access to all your pull request comment traffic and issues -- which, unlike the source code, aren't continually replicated to the systems of all developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that copyrighted works were included in the readme shows it was intended for that use, and the RIAA complaint will likely stand up to any legal scrutiny. Just because it can be used for legit purposes too won't matter in the slightest. I mean, Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court. The only chance tools like this have legally is when infringement is an "unintende…
Should it stand up to legal scrutiny though? What does it matter if I play the beatles on youtube by watching in a web browser or watching an .mp4 file that I just downloaded? It's functionally the same.
This is not far off from how it's legal to carry lockpicks but it's often not legal to carry lockpicks around with the intention of using them to commit a crime. Either way you're carrying the same lockpicks, but if the court decides that you were carrying them with bad intentions, you're in trouble.
Github receives a letter from a private organisation RIAA and then takes down the repository.
How does Github know that this request is proper and youtube-dl is illegal? Just because it comes from RIAA?
Did Github give the repository owners a chance to migrate to another service willing to host their content?
Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the ~~README~~(unit tests, see correction[1]) as an example of that: > We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For…
That's some prime rate bullshit. Like saying since I could use Linux to download copyrighted materials, and there are guides around which tell how to do so, Linux should be removed from the Internet. Also a good reminder - never trust a third party to host your files, always have a backup. And hosting your infrastructure on Github means anybody who wants it can take it down with a single letter.
That's the operative word, because it isn't "like" at all to a nontechinical person. If you explain it as "yeah so I have one tool that literally has 'youtube' in its name, and it downloads videos, also some of the test cases to make sure it works show it work on copyrighted videos" and the other one is "people can use it to watch videos…sometimes? Maybe you can even run the first tool on it? But like a billion people use it for completely different things" you can probably see how this works.
The removal of youtube-dl is a loss to the open source community. I hope this does not set a precedence going forward and that authors re-establish themselves (and the bug tracker, which had immense amount of information). At the same time, this lead me to browse the Github's DMCA repo, which has some real gems. For example, this DMCA takedown of repo with copied course assignment of a different student and did not c…
Removal of repositories like youtube-dl seems to have been happening for a while though, here are couple of examples: Removal of Udemy-dl (2015,2017): https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2015/2015-08-12-U... https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-11-13-U... Removal of linuxacademy-dl (2018): https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2018/2018-09-24-l... Removal of Instagram-API (2020): https://g…
These projects are just instructions, it's like selling a kit for a radio that is illegal to put together and use. The kit itself isn't illegal.
Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the ~~README~~(unit tests, see correction[1]) as an example of that: > We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For…
(not all of them, since the uploader grants youtube a license... but if the work has copyright holders who aren't the uploader, it applies)
Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the ~~README~~(unit tests, see correction[1]) as an example of that: > We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For…
I think you are misunderstanding the legal argument. The DMCA Section 1201 specifically prohibits (among other things) technology that "is marketed ... for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The example in the README is evidence of this. The argument is that youtube-dl is primarily used for breaking DRM not just that it could be used fo…
it wasn't in the readme, it was in the test suite.
I don't think it would be difficult to argue that downloading the world for the sole purpose of making sure the downloading worked was not an infringement (or, alternatively, was fair use).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but DMCA takedowns do not have "no repercussions" for false claims. If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to damage liabilities, as specified under 17 U.S. Code § 512 under section f[1]. This is different than YouTube copyright claims, which as far as I'm aware don't actually have any repercussions for false claims unless YouTube decides to take action[2], since copyri…
> opening themselves up to damage liabilities Courts calculate damages for fucking with an open source software project as basically zilch. For all intents and purposes, that is "no repercussions" for a pile of lawyers like the RIAA. The damages need to be punitive.