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

601–610 of 686 posts

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#601

Post by geofft »

kenny87 wrote: post #376
geofft wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dues are $2500/y if you have revenues of $1-5MM, $5000/y if you have revenues of $5-15MM, and "contact us" beyond that: https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RIAA_ApplyFo... Since one presumes that Microsoft does not sell much music (didn't they shut down their music store a few years ago?), I can't imagine they've negotiated dues that scale linearly on Microsoft's total revenue - so, in fact, I'd expect th…

I just find it quite ironic that their site is running WordPress, a "free and open-source content management system".

Why? They're complying with the license. It shouldn't be surprising to see them taking advantage of copyright law when it benefits them, then turning around and taking advantage of copyright law them it benefits them. It's quite a bit more benign than Disney making movies off of public-domain stories while lobbying to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright, since they didn't even lobby for it. The WordPress developers just gave them the code for free.

Free and open-source software isn't subversive. It's innovative, which isn't the same thing. It's certainly a new model, but the way you get a GPL violation removed from GitHub is with a DMCA takedown notice. Free and open-source software is a different and nicer use of the copyright system, but it's all still the same system at the end of the day.

And now that they've had a couple decades to get over their discomfort and they've realized that there's nothing subversive there, people who love copyright are totally fine with free and open-source software, because it furthers their goal of making money.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#602

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

wgjordan wrote: post #569
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The youtube-dl incident was not a section 512 takedown. There was no infringing material, i.e., content, to remove. The RIAA letter made no mention of section 512, referring instead to section 1201. Neither did this letter from EFF refer to section 512. This was not a section 512 takedown. The rules in section 512 do not apply.

The 'copyright violations' section of the RIAA letter (regarding the unit tests) was clearly a standard §512 notice alleging copyright infringement. Even if §512 wasn't explicitly mentioned, it's still a legally effective notification of claimed infringement. > The rules in section 512 do not apply. Assuming you're referring only to the §1201 'anticircumvention' portion of the claim (the main focus of the GitHub post…

I could diasgree about the unit tests because I could argue the script only circumvents copy controls, not access controls (if any member of the public can access those videos on YouTube). Because the RIAA letter provided no location of an infringing copy to be taken down, I can argue the letter cannot be a section 512 notice. Further, the content taken down by Github in response to this letter was not an infringing copy.

It is not clear that the unit tests, if performed, amounted to anything more than fair use. Under the DMCA, it is not necessarily infringement for the script author to circumvent copy controls; section 1201 prohibits sharing copy control circumvention technology with others but does not prohbit the act of copy control circumvention.

If one wanted to make the argument that DMCA 512 safe harbor applies to a section 1201 notice, then I am surprised there has been no mention of "material that is the subject of infringing activity". This language is found in section 512 and in many standard DMCA notice instructions, e.g., Microsoft's

https://www.microsoft.com/info/MSDMCA.html

The youtube-dl script itself is not infringing material. However is it "material that is the subject of infringing activity". If the script only works to circumvent copy controls not access controls, then those unit tests, i.e., the making of unauthorised copies, that may have been performed by the developers, i.e., suspected "infringing activity", are subject to a defense of fair use. If it is fair use then it is not infringing activity and the script cannot be "material that is the subject of infringing activity".

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#603

Post by Rochus »

8note wrote: post #599
Rochus wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lock at your door is also assumed to effectively control who can open it, but as we know keys can be dupplicated. However, it is not possible to copy it without access to your original key and the necessary effort. This is sufficient for the legislator. It would be different if you hung your key on the outside of the door a priori, like Youtube does.

It's possible to duplicate your key from the lock. You need access to the key hole, a blank, and a file. The lock leaves scratches on the blank until it's been file down to the right spot

Ok, obvously I have too little experience in picking locks; or maybe you have different locks than we in Switzerland.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#604

Post by freshhawk »

abnry wrote: post #579
TheKarateKid wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re correcting a wrong because their reputation took a big hit in the dev community. Now there’s big talk of the dangers of not self-hosting your repo and the monoculture of using GitHub. Although it probably has good intent, this is largely PR.

Or they just panicked with the RIAA request and needed time to regroup. Cynicism doesn't have to be a hobby.

Being a rube isn't a great hobby either, that's why "fool me once ..." is a famous saying. As are the various versions of "who benefits?".

Pretty decent rules of thumb.

And at a higher level ... who cares if they did it maliciously or because they "panicked", you can't ever know that anyway and either one means you can predict what they will do in similar situations.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#605

Post by roywiggins »

8note wrote: post #597
jbay808 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the old days, someone who wanted to send you this kind of content would build and sell hardware for you to receive and play it (like a DVD player). Online streaming services have, in part, scaled so quickly because they run on the general-purpose computers that people already own. So they don't need to bear that hardware cost. These general purpose computers have been fertile soil to grow and nurture the seeds tha…

It's still going to be hardware everyone already owns, just with specific features. It's not a separate purchase of a dvd player, you're buying a phone that has the licensing chip built in

And HDCP is already a thing for authenticating screens.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#606

Post by anuila »

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.

I don't think the story ends here.

If the tests are the issue, they can just send another DMCA specific to those pages.

Either way, I think in the US anyone who has the most time and money wins, so… good luck with SLAPP.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#608

Post by woofie11 »

DannyB2 wrote: post #524
thewakalix wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Do they [YouTube/Google] even care about youtube-dl? A downloaded video doesn't generate ad revenue.

Yes it does. I go to the page (ad), copy the URL, and youtube-dl.

More critically, Youtube relies on network effects and people using it. Part of the reason we share family videos, educational content, and other things is so it's, well, shared. For me, the reasons to use Youtube-dl are:

1) People in bandwidth-constrained settings. If I post my videos, and colleagues in some countries can't watch them, I'm going elsewhere.

2) Remixing. If I can't make collages of family videos, I'm going elsewhere.

Youtube can serve masters like me, where it's an effective platform for sharing videos I want people to watch, and where the goal is dissemination. It can serve masters like the RIAA and the MPAA, where the goal is monetization and control. It will have a hard time serving both.

I suspect if it tries, people like me will go to someone who caters to us. A YouYesYouNoNotTheRIAAYesYOUTube. If we do, I think there will be enough of a network to start to syphon people off, and eventually, cat videos and Aunt Alice will be on YYYNNTRYYT.com, while corporate video will be on DRMed Youtube.

At that point, we'll have a replay.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#609

Post by woofie11 »

Vorh wrote: post #536
TheKarateKid wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re correcting a wrong because their reputation took a big hit in the dev community. Now there’s big talk of the dangers of not self-hosting your repo and the monoculture of using GitHub. Although it probably has good intent, this is largely PR.

Even if largely PR, that's still a million dollars.

After Nat's cynically duplicitous comments and actions, it's hard to view this as anything other than PR. A $1 million expense is not a big advertising expense for github. It was a $7.5 billion sale. Microsoft spend 0.013% of that on this PR piece.

I can't imagine the fallout from this didn't wipe several times that off of github's valuation.

If github had done this before the EFF letter, it would have been something else. With the EFF letter, they have zero liability to reinstating the repo, and are borderline legally required to do so.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#610

Post by naniwaduni »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #549
imtringued wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not simply create a youtube-login command that does nothing but launch an electron instance that lets you login into youtube and then returns the cookie? youtube-dl could then call that command to obtain the cookie.

There’s a good chance that behavior would result in a CAPTCHA.

The idea, I think, is that it literally launches a browser to let a human do the whole thing.
Post reply on HN