Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 197 posts

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#81

Post by sp332 »

austincheney wrote: post #69
qwerty456127 wrote: post #29

> This request wasn't well-received by developers, many of whom retaliated by posting copies of the code. Yesterday, things went from bad to worse when a user with the name 'F * T RIAA' uploaded three MP3s of the songs the RIAA mentioned in its takedown notice RIAA couldn't care less. As far as I understand, they practically are just a team of lawyers whose job is to attack whoever they can reach, take whatever they…

This sounds like gossip. The word on the street is...

Well, that's partly by design on their part. The RIAA exists to take heat off the record labels while carrying out their enforcement actions.

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#82

Post by _aleph2c_ »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #62
bogwog wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. If this situation goes viral and leads to an overall increase in piracy, someone at RIAA will have to answer for it.

As long as they act they will be fine. Github will be more at risk, since they are legally responsible for content hosted on their site. They have some protections under the DMCA, but only if they respond to takedown requests in a timely manner. And those takedown requests take time and effort to process. The RIAA and other copyright holder representatives have automated submitting a DMCA takedown request process age…

Microsoft is playing a different game than YouTube/Google.

Microsoft bought Github for 7.5 billion dollars. Github is a website wrapping a git-server; you know Microsoft could have built their own for a lot less money. The didn't buy the technology, they bought a network, its data and a brand. They are trying to improve their reputation with the open source community. It's really hard to measure such a thing, but this RIAA take down reduced developer trust. If Microsoft chose to fight a legal battle, win or lose they would win on their branding front. They would signal that they are defending open source.

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#83

Post by shmerl »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #29

> This request wasn't well-received by developers, many of whom retaliated by posting copies of the code. Yesterday, things went from bad to worse when a user with the name 'F * T RIAA' uploaded three MP3s of the songs the RIAA mentioned in its takedown notice RIAA couldn't care less. As far as I understand, they practically are just a team of lawyers whose job is to attack whoever they can reach, take whatever they…

That's typical mobster mentality. Quite similar to patent trolls.

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#84

Post by Sayrus »

raxxorrax wrote: post #25
KingOfCoders wrote: post #8

Which will lead to GitHub adding content filters which will lead to false flags and rejected commits which will lead to algorithms wrongly flagging existing content in your repo which will lead to a byzantine appeal processes which ... ... no wait, that was my Youtube channel.

Companies actually lobby the EU, I guess the same is true for the US, to allow "forward scanning". Meaning they would like to proactively try to purge the net of illegal content. Mozilla is part of this alliance. I am going to leave Github, since the tech giants + Mozilla should not be trusted. https://edima-eu.org/

Is this[1] the document you are talking about?

It doesn't seem to read as bad as what you make it sounds but it could end up exactly that bad. As dotdi said, I hope that companies like Mozilla joined to (try to) influence these decisions.

[1] https://edima-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ORF-Series_-...

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#86

Post by bxk1 »

cesarb wrote: post #15
verroq wrote: post #2

Any reason why youtube-dl hasn't filed a counter-takedown notice?

Copy-pasting a comment of mine from a related thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886260 ): They might decide not to counter-notice, because there's a big trap in the DMCA counter-notice: as far as I know, for a DMCA counter-notice to be valid, the one doing the counter-notice must agree to be bound to the jurisdiction of an USA court. If the youtube-dl author is not from the USA (I think he's from the EU…

People outside of the US can't be bound to be sued in a US court or anywhere outside of the jurisdiction they currently reside in and even then a country he is a citizen of could try to use high level channels to get him out of there. Extradition treaties complicate this a bit more, but extradition still has to go through local laws, local law enforcement, local government and far from everyone would get extradited left and right if there is an agreement.

The biggest thing a counter-notice could do (if it's even possible) is reveal one's identity and only if Microsoft/Github tries to verify it, which would be bad, because it could be used for harassment. But the author is obviously Russian, not sure if he lives in Russia, but if he does, they definitely won't be able to get him in Russia, only harass him.

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#87

Post by djhaskin987 »

> As we highlighted earlier, hundreds of new copies of the youtube-dl code appeared online in response, also on GitHub.

> While GitHub’s CEO Nat Friedman was annoyed by RIAA takedown efforts, he stressed that the platform legally had to comply, which it did. More recently, the company even said that users who continue to republish the code risk being banned.

Mates, just put the youtube-dl code up on IPFS[1] or SourceHut[2], which is a platform much more sympathetic to and defensive for the open source cause. No need to put it back up on GitHub and risk banishment there. There are lots of options here. The RIAA can't sensor open source software. At least, I'd like to see them try.

I wanted also to say that I don't necessarily agree with jacking videos off of youtube. But who knows? What if you have the permission of the youtuber? What if the youtuber is just posting stuff that's in the public domain anyway? What if you're downloading the whole video so that you can get clips of the video you intend to put in your own video in an attempt to criticize the video, thus invoking fair use? The RIAA does not and should not have the power to take down open source software just because it could be used for nefarious purposes. There are also plenty of innocent uses out there.

1: https://ipfs.io/

2: https://git.sr.ht/

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#88

Post by bxk1 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #16
ikeboy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every notice is. This wasn't a notice. The recourse is filing a declaratory judgement to establish the legality of the code.

> The recourse is filing a declaratory judgement to establish the legality of the code. Which is expensive relative to the resources of some individuals doing this as a hobby, so some kind of legal defense fund may be in order. Of course, the other option is to put enough pressure on Github/Microsoft to get them to be the ones to defend it, since it's not that expensive relative to the resources of a trillion dollar…

Microsoft pays for RIAA lawyers, why would it pay for more lawyers to defend themselves from other lawyers they pay for already?

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#89

Post by raxxorrax »

Sayrus wrote: post #84
raxxorrax wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies actually lobby the EU, I guess the same is true for the US, to allow "forward scanning". Meaning they would like to proactively try to purge the net of illegal content. Mozilla is part of this alliance. I am going to leave Github, since the tech giants + Mozilla should not be trusted. https://edima-eu.org/

Is this[1] the document you are talking about? It doesn't seem to read as bad as what you make it sounds but it could end up exactly that bad. As dotdi said, I hope that companies like Mozilla joined to (try to) influence these decisions. [1] https://edima-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ORF-Series_-...

They also don't want to let it sound bad, but in essence this is exactly what they are proposing from what I gather.

In a moment of greatness, which we have very few, EU officials specifically disallowed "forward policing".

Perhaps I do have a fundamental misunderstanding and the ambition is indeed to restrict general monitoring (sic) and these attempts are meant to sway some more zealous voices. But a lot of these companies here have shown interest in getting more data rather than less.

Without further comment this seems to be an attempt to fortify their positions as "leading internet companies" as they describe themselves and furthermore...

> limited liability when they take proactive action to ensure that illegal content [...]

... can basically allow propaganda. You just need to conjure a threat of incoming "illegal" content.

Re: RIAA Takedowns Backfire as Pirated MP3s Now Surface on GitHub

#90

Post by dleslie »

raxxorrax wrote: post #25
KingOfCoders wrote: post #8

Which will lead to GitHub adding content filters which will lead to false flags and rejected commits which will lead to algorithms wrongly flagging existing content in your repo which will lead to a byzantine appeal processes which ... ... no wait, that was my Youtube channel.

Companies actually lobby the EU, I guess the same is true for the US, to allow "forward scanning". Meaning they would like to proactively try to purge the net of illegal content. Mozilla is part of this alliance. I am going to leave Github, since the tech giants + Mozilla should not be trusted. https://edima-eu.org/

Mozilla jumped the shark when they relented to supporting EME and packaging Widevine and OpenH264 with an otherwise-FOSS product.

It's not as though a fork couldn't have added those.

And despite adding those the user share of Firefox continues to decline.

Post reply on HN