That pirate bay and scihub are still around, that their authors are walking around freely, is a miracle that should not be taken for granted. Software is not typically purposed for piracy. RIAA taking down all of GitHub would instantly pit them against all of Microsoft, and make every developer who already hates their guts to pick up the pitchforks and march. RIAA lobbyists (and all other corporate lobbyists) don't lobby in the sense of arguing for something. - Liability for false takedowns w/ punitive damages, criminal liability with actual enforcement for malicious attempts or even negligence. Any general purpose computing should be taken down as well. IRC isn't federated in that sense, users on EFnet can't interact with users on freenode, so the network effect works in that case. This is where ... things get interesting.... - The "copyright protection scheme" in question, if it even is one, was written by and is provided by Google/Youtube, not the RIAA. Is the RIAA using a law from on a company based in ? I agree in principle, but a much easier fix would be to host such code on a tor hidden service. Kazaa and Limewire were moneymaking companies with fairly undefensible behavior from a legal perspective. Repository with text of DMCA takedown notices as received. The future of software, to which Microsoft claims to have harnessed its own wagon, is open, collaborative, Free Software. They're mostly HLS or equivalent now. https://www.riaa.com/about-riaa/riaa-members/. « Nous avons désactivé l'accès du public au dépôt. The feature’s called alternates. The DMCA explicitly outlaws these. Anything that would make it un-economical to just spam the system with notices wherever you like it because there is no downside to it. I might not be able to explain well, but from what I understand about how github works, when you fork someone else's repo, github only stores 1 tree but you have your own set of tags / branches. As previously reported, Github is being unusually sympathetic to the plight of the YouTube-DL developers. Due to a dumb design decision about how GitHub forks are implemented, the entire youtube-dl history is now in GitHub’s DMCA repo (and GPG-signed by … You can read the full story here. Yet whether the authors walk freely is entirely a legal issue, not a moral one. 17 U.S. Code § 1201, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201, Or are we talking a sweetheart deal only available to specific parnters ?coughvevocough. > I think the long term solution for this problem is the developers of open source software like the bit torrent client, youtube-dl and other similar software will have to host their code outside of the reach of DMCA regualation. Now if I did have a gmail account, I suppose I would have to check the spam folder regularly. It could indeed be a security issue. If github doesn't comply then they receive sanctions. youtube-dl is not, strictly speaking, a downloading tool. On the other side pc-box defaulted, filing no evidence showing that their users are a vibrant community of homebrew gamers and techheads that circumvent DRM for purposes well within their rights, like running self written software on the hardware. And the impact of actions like these is to make it more likely that such an expansive injunction is sought or granted. It is like complaining to Volkswagen if your Porsche gets broken. Seems to me that was on oversight, and they should have only used open videos as tests in the repo. Not to mention find and persecute the parties who were paid directly or indirectly to pass this legislation. From some googling, back in 2015 Wikipedia had half a billion monthly users - that is. Courts are not code that can be tricked by clever wording. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub#Controversies. It's a fun hack, but to those thinking about streisanding the source: The strength of ytdl and other downloaders isn't their source code, it's the extensive library of scrapers that are tailor-made for individual sites. Follow up question, are these commits or pr-specific branch accessible in target repo's `git` (not GitHub)? GitHub has been in touch to say it will try to help any coder on the receiving end of a DMCA request; just drop it an email, we're told. ;). Le retour en force des dépôts youtube-dl sur GitHub En essayant de visiter le dépôt GitHub original de youtube-dl ou l'un des plus d'une douzaine de forks qui ont été retirées, vous verrez un message indiquant que le « dépôt n'est pas disponible en raison du retrait du DMCA ». If only we could retool SCO for a force-for-good? GitHub responded as by immediately removing the … You missed the relevant part of the DMCA for this takedown, which makes bypassing "anti-circumvention' measures a crime. Reform copyright. What? You should also know that in Italy for something to be claimed illegal the court has to emit a verdict. I use YouTube-dl as much as the next guy for lawful reasons but these HN comments saying it's not for YouTube and it's not for downloading is silly. - Any potential copyright infringement which might occur through use of youtube-dl is at the volition of users, not the software's authors, actions would properly be directed at such users for individual acts of infringement, and much of this is subject to the same and other defences listed above. In other words, the process that was in place before the DMCA was passed. I doubt they'd fear the PR backlash. And you don't even need to create a PR to "inject" commits into a GitHub repo. GitHub can indeed leave the repo up, as this notice is insufficient to trigger the part of the DMCA that forces them to remove it. Good on @GitHub for standing up for developers against DMCA § 1201 abuses. HTTP is used to bootstrap the player, not to feed the content. URL? They could call the U.S. attorney and go after the OP with. What was submitted was not a DMCA notice, Microsoft was not legally obligated to comply with it. If DRM prevents lawful purposes, then the DRM is not proportional to consumer rights, The EU directive is a bit different to the implementations I've seen (which are stronger), but you still have a right to. Users identified in the notices are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't make youtube-dl "absolutely illegal". Regardless, what's needed here is not just deleting the PR (and the fork) but also doing a GC (as Stephen304 said), which too is something only GitHub can do. if they did, you can bet an emergency board meeting would be held, and who ever made that call would be axed and the contract reinstated, the JEDI cloud storage contract alone is worth $1 billion a year. But Skype rendered itself irrelevant in the years because of this BS ;). When the law was written, the supposed safeguard against copyright holders filing tons of frivolous claims is that a counter claim can be pretty serious. It is an open source tool hosted on GitHub. Based on our review of the representative sample noted above, we have a good faith belief that most of the youtube-dl forks are … As if your talking about yourself, maybe your a bit young but we had the exact same problem in the past (decrypting DVD's) those are Disc who stored Movies on it. more than 500 hours of video uploaded to YT every minute, RIAA’s YouTube-DL Takedown Ticks Off Developers and GitHub’s CEO, https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-12-04/github-open-source-developers-ice-contract, Standing up for developers: youtube-dl is back, Jay Maisel sues Andy Baio for copyright infringement. As annoying as it would be the dev's should use a distribution model like Calibre where there is a general plugin interface. So they need to DMCA the DMCA repository to get rid of it? So if that is true, then youtube-dl is not illegal and this DMCA is easily reverted. Nearly every platform with user-generated content accepts and processes DMCA takedown notices to comply with the law. GitHub has taken the code of the widely used open-source project Youtube-dl offline. But in any case "fair use"(as you americans call it) is always permitted in Italy, you don't need a license, you are liable only if the entity detaining the copyright obtains a restricting order from a judge. Sounds like it'd be workable as a backup target then, but would probably suck being the primary place to grab source code. Its also pretty obvious MS doesnt check any of these DMCA claims, and just rubber stamps the commits with an insulting and sterile "Process DMCA request" commit msg. Sure, something like that can happen... but it is not like they have an explicit "allow-list" of domains that mail can be received from. I feel like the RIAA is kind of, As someone who lives in a country where many regions don't have access to reliable internet*, the assumption that you either have fast, unlimited data access or you. All posts copyright their original authors. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:... article 6(1): > 1. So why can't we crowdsource some Youtube partners that are willing to allow their copyright to be used, while still utilizing the obfuscation? Take down chrome then its "intended to circumvent copyright protection measures" as you can clearly watch these youtube videos with chrome. Gmail killfiled a domain I was running on a small but reputable ISP I had used since 2001 (there were no spam or reputation issues in 17 years). However, PR #8142 is indeed listed in the list of open PRs at. Those outside the United States, long accustomed to arbitrary take-downs with "DMCA" in their subject line, might reasonably assume that the removal of youtube-dl from Github is yet another example of the American rightsholders' grip on U.S. copyright law. Please remember that to reverse this YouTube-dl needs to go through a court. There's an expectation from the publishing/serving side of the equation that the content is being served to a proprietary app or a web browser that works a particular way. Whether youtube-dl is designed to "exclusively" be used for legally permitted uses is a matter for a court to decide. And that can be whatever legalese imaginable. We appreciate GitHub taking potential legal risks in this regard. From my decidely non-lawyer viewpoint the RIAA is using a terrible law, but still a law and they have grounds under this law for their claims. [1] https://webtorrent.io/. Azure DevOps will be the one which will be reoriented to GitHub, not the other way around. 3. “Everybody” is surely not a massive amount of people for youtube-dl. Azure Repos and Pipelines are basically duplication in GitHub world. Worst case I get the final push to use gitlab. This really doesn't seem like the hill they should choose to die on, if they decide to go against the government they would have far more interesting things to fight for. Everyone, Google Search most of all, have benefitted from this. for example SMTP is federated but most users are on gmail, IRC is decentralized but most users are on freenode server, etc. Last but not least, that law was created during fascmism, so there's also that. However they reopened it within hours (18 hours to be exact), because systems all over the country were failing. > RIAA taking down all of GitHub would instantly pit them against all of Microsoft. The other commenters here have argued pretty convincingly that the RIAA has no merit at all. frivolous complaints can completely cripple a business with little risk to the supposed claimant. This is another dark part of the Scandinavian model that most aren’t aware of. Pretty much every EU member ratified the same WIPO treaties and so have almost identical laws to the DMCA.
Salsiccia E Patate Al Forno Misya,
Kyodai Butterfly Mahjong,
Piramide Di Cholula,
Guardaserie Nuovo Indirizzo Giugno,
Biografia Bennet Omalu,
Storia Di Abramo Per Terza Elementare,
Giulio Scarpati Anni,
Distruggere L'uomo è Difficile Quasi Quanto Crearlo Commento,
Villaggi All' Inclusive Conero,
