91–100 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. This just plays into their hands.
Not necessarily. Remember what happened when Digg tried to ban anyone from posting the 09F9 number because it was a secret key to some DVD thing? The users revolted so hard that the people managing the site gave up and let it stand. Then again... who remembers Digg?
I do. It was pretty good, then they destroyed it, de facto paving the way for Reddit's success.
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/
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.
It has done much for the net though, it should not be forgotten.
> 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…
Making developers afraid to work on youtube-dl is a much more powerful move than taking down a few songs that were already available for free on YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. Remember what happened when Digg tried to ban anyone from posting the 09F9 number because it was a secret key to some DVD thing? The users revolted so hard that the people managing the site gave up and let it stand. Then again... who remembers Digg?
You really think Github will giveup respecting DMCA and copyright infringement? Your example is nice, but it's about the copyright stand of a number... it's much more grey than respecting an actual DMCA notice and being aware of actual copyrighted content on your platform. I don't think so... instead what I expect would most probably happen is that they automate it even more, which will suck even more. We got enough…
The question rather is: how much will developers continue to respect Microsoft?
This didn't backfire for the RIAA, it backfired for GitHub , who are absolutely not the bad guys in this. They have expressed more support for the project than they would have needed to and are bound to laws.
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…
> 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…
Making developers afraid to work on youtube-dl is a much more powerful move than taking down a few songs that were already available for free on YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that git is not feature complete to replace github. In hindsight I wish it had gone the Fossil route: integrate issue management in the distributed repo. If issues, wiki and code review were integrated in git proper it would be trivial to change host on a dime. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way (yet?).
I'm not so convinced. Seeing as I use a number of issue trackers and code review systems daily and most of them are trash. I'm very happy for git to serve as a compatible core and I can "easily" move between systems as they improve. Basically I am glad that git does source control well. And I prefer that there is a marketplace of issue trackers, patch management and CI software layered on top. Until we have a clear e…
I suppose the ideal would be if git somehow provided a low level API that could be used to build these types of solution and then everybody would be free to build their own solution on top of it.
Much easier said than done, of course.
Systems which rely on Github in production, such as Rust's "cargo", now need to be using multiple sources and checking hashes.