> 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 can down and collect money when possible. They hardly even care about the actual recording business, let alone about how do people feel about them.
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.
Yuuup. I haven’t used youtube-dl since I was a teacher and needed it to bring educational videos into the classroom that lacked Internet.
But now I have a copy of the source, and have been thinking about how I might contribute and/or repackage it as a “browser” (with the option to run it in “headless mode”, of course).
If developers are afraid, they will be tempted to program a solution for censorship-resistant hosting of open source software that additionally allows to contribute anonymously (not just pseudonymously).
the problem is lot of the incentive to contribute for free is the name recognition.
Lot of dev see it as a way to show what they can do (portfolio) because that can’t share the code they produce at work
Yep, plenty of tools in the infosec world on github and elsewhere are published by anonymous developers.
Plus when you use an anonymous name and get a popular project out of it, you still get recognition. Even if it's not publicly in your name. You'll still feel good about contributing to the world.
All GitHub got was a take down request (which they were required to act on), not proof of anything being illegal (which requires a court case to prove)
As per the post you are replying to, choice of programming project is, unlike race and religion, not a protected class. It is perfectly legal in the US for a company to discriminate based on it.
A company could also freely and legally discriminate based on whether or not you prefer whole-wheat bread. That's not a protected class. It doesn't matter that whole-wheat bread is legal.
I think you guys are conflating this with what the poster is getting at, which based on what was said ("implying criminality"), is more akin to defamation (though admittedly the choice of earlier examples is poor).
If, as an employer, I decide that because you chose a specific project (or political party, or brand of motor bike, etc. anything whose association has potential 'dubious legal status') that you're part of a criminal organization (and hence a criminal, or any other description that might be undesirable/harmful) because of that and don't hire you, that may put me at risk.
Obviously there would be a legal bar to meet from that, not the least of which would be proving that it was intentional to defame the person, and resulted in actual damages to that person (i.e. proper standing - would not getting the job be enough?)
IDK IANAL, but I sure AF wouldn't want to be the trailblazer for finding out (like IBM is right now).
I didn't imply YTDL was illegal. My response was directly to your implication that "committed code to a repo" (or however you want to phrase it) is a protected class like race or sex.
> "Oh, you committed code to a repo I consider dubious though nothing proven... hmmm not sure I'll hire you".
> "Oh, you shop at a store run by a non-white person.... hmmm not sure I'll hire you".
> "Oh, you follow a religion, but I'm atheist... hmmm not sure I'll hire you".
There are zero laws on the books to stop a company from firing you for committing code to an open source project.
Unless you can find me a law that actually says "Companies can't terminate employment or otherwise discriminate based on a code repo commit".
There ARE actual laws that say "You can't discriminate based on Race/Religion/Sex/ethnicity/etc".
Whether or not YTDL is illegal (I doubt it is) is irrelevant to this thread. Just like a company firing you because of a post on facebook or twitter is generally allowed (local laws and state statutes may grant more protections).
Please... prove me wrong and provide laws - local or otherwise - and possible a case where someone successfully sued for wrongful discrimination based on code they wrote.
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.
Once Reddit finishes its transformation into an meme image and video board, the current incarnation of its platform will go the way of forums and newsgroups.
Over time, Facebook groups and Twitter have become the de facto discussion hubs for communities that I've been a part of for years. Those platforms make it hard to not reveal your true identity online, and you have to give Facebook and Twitter your phone number just to register. Facebook will even ask users to verify their identities with their driver's licenses. At least for me, this causes a chilling effect on my online participation in these communities.
For example, I won't talk about politics in my neighborhood's Facebook group because I don't want to be harassed. I recently witnessed a single mother get harassed because she respectfully disagreed with someone's politics in the group. People started posting pictures of her kids, putting them into crude memes, and the mayor went through public records to find her full name and address.
Reddit threading is just garbage. Impossible to follow the conversation beyond the comment you directly responded to and the immediate ones thereafter. Anything deeper and you never get a notification.
The last redesign that nobody wanted did it for me, that was the last straw. The mobile app was horrendous as well - from all accounts it sounds like nothing has changed. But yes, I agree, we need a replacement soon.
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 damage already from Youtube doing it...
You’re asking people to not respect Microsoft because they’re doing something they’re legally mandated to do. If Microsoft takes the route many have argued for here (namely, reject the DMCA request as it’s invalid) and the DMCA request ends up being found valid in the courts, Microsoft loses their DMCA safe harbor protections and open themselves up to multi-million dollar lawsuits. Sure, if they’re right, then they’re in the clear, but when their business is at risk of being killed if they’re wrong, they’re going to err on the side of caution.
It’s easy to stand at a distance and mock those who do something we disagree with, but when you’re actually in that situation, your tune is going to change very quickly. A bad example, but if you’re getting mugged, sure, you could fight back, but your life is on the line.
The safe harbor under Section 512 applies to takedown requests for content copyrighted by the person issuing the notice. I don't think there is anybody asserting that the RIAA is the author of youtube-dl and thereby eligible to make a claim under that section.
I would also be curious to see you cite a case that says that refusing a takedown notice in one case costs anyone the Section 512 safe harbor in all other cases where they continue to execute takedown notices, since that would be oppressive and ridiculous.
How do you optimize to maximize billing while minimizing effective takedowns? If I recall, you could host youtube-dl like repos in the Netherlands and Turkey on VMs running hosted git, and they'd be out of reach of the copyright cartel.
That is not hard, as the actions are fueled by greed and depend on spreading fear. It has nothing to do with rational thinking. At least not in the way an average consumer would assume.
Copyright cartels live by bullying. It is not important how much of the takedowns are actually effective, as long as they get to dominate the news with their lawsuits. Because only that will already deter al lot of people. Just drag everything on forever and have an occasional success that you can trump on every news channel. That is enough to spread fear. And that works also in other countries, like The Netherlands, because they will have some representative organization there (Brein, in this case) that is happy to take on the role of the bully for a small amount of cash.
I would go further and call them a "Hypnosis Apartment" - they only "work" when the client believes they work the actual realities are irrelevant. Even if they actually stopped all piracy if their clients believed it was because they designed a majestic new American Flag their cartel goes crumbling down.
RIAA doesn't care. Their main business is extortion racket. And it's extremely lucrative.
And it's extortion on all sides. They extort money from DMCA and copyright lawsuits. They extort money from artists. They extort money from music services.
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 ages ago, and now submit thousands a day to e.g. youtube. Youtube in turn has automated taking down content that receives said requests and probably a big part of the appeal process as well. Is Github that far already?
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.
Is the RIAA actually sending DMCA takedowns? Or are they just doing ContentID claims? The former of which puts a strike on your account and can be appealed in the courts while the latter is entirely Google’s doing and you’re at the mercy of their appeals process.
It is very easy to run a git repository. However you (and your ISP) might receive DMCA notices and have to respond or at least deal with legal notices yourself.
Github offers far more than a git repo. PR reviews, issues, etc. are important for many projects. Linux gets by with LKML but that's a nonstarter for most people now.
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 can down and collect money when possible. They hardly even care about the actual recording business, let alone about how do people feel about them.