771–780 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, more like "Harry Potter Copier Word".
To be fair , more like Microsoft® Office® OneNote™; it has a camera feature and an automatic OCR feature and a “copy text from image” convenience feature.
Things like this make no sense from the notice: > The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube Using this logic then OBS or any desktop recording tool is also violating the same measures because you could press record while a Youtube video is playing and wind up with your own locally recorded copy of the video. S…
It makes perfect sense to the people who design these twisted legal machinations. A tool like OBS is designed for generic desktop recordings, while youtube-dl is designed specifically to enable the copying of copyrighted works. Or at least that's what the RIAA will say, and unfortunately a judge will likely be very sympathetic to that claim.
The extractors directory had 765 extractors in it, only one of which is YouTube. The facts seem cherry-picked to support their case (well duh). Hopefully that will matter. Given that youtube is a tenth of a percent of the extractors maybe there's hope. FWIW, it's easy to find the code on Google. The release tarballs have the format youtube-dl-YYYY.MM.DD.tar.gz and one can look in the Homebrew Cellar, for example and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It definitely was very sloppy of them to show examples on actual copyrighted material. Couldn't they have simply put examples of public domain content?
It would be interesting to see _who_ added this unit test. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some RIAA lackey.
commit f7ab6cbe160afbba60537c7a830a4c65c6f0b3ea Author: Filippo Valsorda Date: Tue Jun 25 14:38:00 2013 +0200
add tests for use_cipher_signature videos (#897) and the ability to test multiple videos per IE
### And add them to TestDownload -for test_case in defs: +for n, test_case in enumerate(defs): test_method = generator(test_case) test_method.__name__ = "test_{0}".format(test_case["name"]) + if getattr(TestDownload, test_method.__name__, False): + test_method.__name__ = "test_{0}_{1}".format(test_case["name"], n) setattr(TestDownload, test_method.__name__, test_method) del test_method
diff --git a/test/tests.json b/test/tests.json index fd037d818..f6a70f153 100644 --- a/test/tests.json +++ b/test/tests.json @@ -11,6 +11,32 @@ "description": "test chars: \"'/\\��\n\nThis is a test video for youtube-dl.\n\nFor more information, contact phihag@phihag.de ." } }, + { + "name": "Youtube", + "url": "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ltcDfZMA3U", + "file": "1ltcDfZMA3U.flv", + "note": "Test VEVO video (#897)", + "info_dict": { + "upload_date": "20070518", + "title": "Maps - It Will Find You", + "description": "Music video by Maps performing It Will Find You.", + "uploader": "MuteUSA", + "uploader_id": "MuteUSA" + } + }, + { + "name": "Youtube", + "url": "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxxajLWwzqY", + "file": "UxxajLWwzqY.mp4", + "note": "Test generic use_cipher_signature video (#897)", + "info_dict": { + "upload_date": "20120506", + "title": "Icona Pop - I Love It (feat. Charli XCX) [OFFICIAL VIDEO]", + "description": "md5:b085c9804f5ab69f4adea963a2dceb3c", + "uploader": "IconaPop", + "uploader_id": "IconaPop" + } + }, { "name": "Dailymotion", "md5": "392c4b85a60a90dc4792da41ce3144eb",
While its good to get a backup of the source code, youtube-dl is one of those projects that quickly becomes useless as Google mixes stuff around within YouTube, which they like to do. Without an active developer base, the project will quickly become less and less effective, which is one of the big concerns IMO about this lawsuit.
What if collaboration on opensource projects (i.e. hosting, issues and their comments) was decentralized instead of relying on a central entity like Github? That would keep the developer base active and make DMCA takedowns ineffective.
Disclaimer: IANAL. The legal reasoning here is shaky. Notice that they cite a German court and assert that the law there is materially the same as that in the US. I did some research on this specific issue at one point, and I'm skeptical that Youtube's controls qualify under the law in question. RIAA cites two sections of the law: >the provision or trafficking of the source code violates 17 USC §§1201(a)(2) and 1201(…
(A) seems applicable to me. It is obvious that the primary purpose of youtube-dl is to download videos from YouTube. It is also obvious that most videos on YouTube are copyrighted, and the absence of a ‘download’ button protects the copyright holder’s right to prevent viewers from redistributing the videos. The contentious part is whether not YouTube has “effective” anti-downloading controls that youtube-dl “circumve…
"Most" is not the same as "primary".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't books kinda a special case ? Given all the past (and even current!) cases of censorship and book burning, shouldn't we strive to never allow that ever again and to protects books for future generations ? Finally we have a way to preserve books in perfect form forever digitally yet people somehow try to shackle this new technology with paper book technology limitations. The same limitations that coat us so much…
> Aren't books kinda a special case ? What is the fundamental difference between a book and a video that would make books a special case? Yes, they were around earlier, and yes, that history has shown what can happen if we start censoring expression. But that's not unique to books, and the exact same reasoning applies to video in the current world.
How many old movies have been lost, old TV shows that were live only, old software with source code lost for ever and even many games that no one can play anymore due to game servers and DRM servoces shut down.
Instead of breaking out of this vicious cycle when we finally have the technology to do that, there are people actively working against that, including sabotage of those who want to do the right thing...
How can a program be in violation of DMCA? Is a knife in violation of the criminal justice system because some people use it to kill and therefore no one can use it anywhere, ever? How ridiculous.
> Is a knife in violation of the criminal justice system because some people use it to kill and therefore no one can use it anywhere, ever? I mean, guns are banned in many countries using precisely the same reasoning. And I might totally be wrong about this but I heard that in the UK you need to be over 18 to buy even just kitchen knives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to add a data point, but back when I still was working for a video distribution startup, we offered our customers the ability to directly import their video inventory from YouTube. They were the owners of the videos, it was just a convenient (and very popular!) feature for them to let us handle this import. We used YouTube-dl for this, of course. No way we could have done this easily without it. We imported hund…
To add another item to the list of legal, legitimate uses of YouTube-dl: lots of public domain content is uploaded to YouTube, including a lot of media produced by the US government. For example, The White House has a YouTube channel, and my understanding of US law is that the vast majority of the content uploaded to that channel is public domain (produced by federal employees in the course of their job). Journalists…