4 ms·

> it uses examples in the README as an example of that: >> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses as far as I can tell these vi

> it uses examples in the README as an example of that: >> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses as far as I can tell these videos are not referenced in the README, but instead in the youtube.py extractor file, which would go against the accusation that they were featured 'prominently'

BoorishBears 6y ago
It makes it worse lol. Using links to copyrighted materials in the tests meant to verify correct functionality? It's "prominent" in the source code. They literally wrote out "Test VEVO video with video age protection" then linked to a Justin Timberlake song https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py#L604 https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtub... I clicked on this ready to see some stupidity from the copyright industry but literally downloading from links to copyrighted music in your unit tests? That's how you give the RIAA a way to take down your project. - Actually seeing this made the comments made in the worst faith about how "they took it down because you can use it to download bad stuff, what's next?!?!" seem pretty dumb. If that was the case Bittorrent... which makes youtube-dl look like a guy slinging tapes out of a van next to Naspter HQ... wouldn't have been able to send them packing with a simple "we don't endorse piracy": https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/bittorrent-to-riaa-youre-barking-up-the-wrong-tree/ https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/bittorrent-to-riaa-youre-...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  They can argue that downloading a publically available video for testing purposes is perfectly legal, because it is.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Ugh, I don't want to get into this Stallmanist "if the server returns 200 it's ok!" tarpit. If you believe that, it's fine. You probably won't ever actually need to use that defense outside of internet arguments honestly... for all their noise the most repercussions the average person might ever see from infringing copyrights is a scary letter from an ISP. Good luck if the legal system decides to test your hypothesis though. This isn't about YouTube's TOS at this point, you're making a copy of a copyrighted video without the consent of the copyright holder > downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      First, it's not actually illegal, at least in my jurisdiction and in a great many, to make a copy of a copyrighted work. Secondly, the author somehow gave permission to YouTube to make the video publicly available and downloadable, and YouTube is perfectly happy to provide to me the download URL.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        It's illegal in the jurisdiction that Github and the RIAA operate in? Laws don't exist in a vacuum, so it doesn't seem like a stretch for my comment to refer to the laws actually applicable here right? Your second point is just remixing the same Stallmanist POV I call out above. YouTube doesn't just provide you with anything. You go to YouTube, and you find a link, and you stick it in your unit tests. The fact YouTube's server replies is neither here nor there in the eyes of the law (ironically Youtube does actually return 402 "payment required" and 429 "too many requests" of they figure out what you're doing) You're free to make whatever esoteric argument you want, but after realizing they did something as silly as put copyrighted videos in the unit tests, there's not much of a leg to stand on. Especially when there are literally dozens of YT downloader type projects of Github still up right now that didn't do that...
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The DMCA is not intended for taking down such tools. The proper procedure to do so would be to sue the authors, and from what I can gather none of the core authors are in the US.
        BoorishBears 6y ago
        You saying it's not for exactly the thing it is for... doesn't make it so. I don't know why you think it does.
    - anticensor 6y ago
      > this Stallmanist "if the server returns 200 it's ok!" tarpit That would be an Elbakyanist stance, not a Stallmanist one.
  - rrobukef 6y ago
    "You also grant each other user of the Service a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display, and perform it) only as enabled by a feature of the Service." https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms It is enabled by a feature of the Youtube service. They explicitly disallow downloading, but it is not enforcable (though that word probably doesn't mean what I think it means... the law probably overrules physics) Severance "If it turns out that a particular term of this Agreement is not enforceable for any reason, this will not affect any other terms."
    - jk700 6y ago
      But in that wording they do allow downloading. Features of the Youtube service accessed thought the Chrome browser don't have to be exactly the same as accessed though other browsers and tools, other tools are not prohibited to provide features they can extract and interpret from the received source code and data, they are not obligated to run the code at all or as is.
- panny 6y ago
  >It makes it worse lol. Using links to copyrighted materials in the tests meant to verify correct functionality? Using copyrighted materials in test code is fair use and a well established practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna The creators of youtube-dl are not distributing the material or inducing infringement by using a link to it in a unit test. I am typically on the RIAA's side, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23079092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23079092 but they're going to lose this one. If RIAA should be mad at anyone, it is youtube for distributing it without DRM. Youtube really really REALLY should have had their asses taken to the cleaners in viacom vs youtube. I don't know what the settlement was, but it wasn't enough, because youtube still exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... This is a python program doing exactly the same steps a browser takes to download the file. It's just written in python instead of js.
  - tyzoid 6y ago
    Here, though, Youtube (Google) have contractual agreements to license the use of copyrighted media on their platform, and which is uploaded directly from the record labels themselves. The RIAA is claiming that YouTube does have DRM on their videos, which if the court agrees, may be the end of youtube support in youtube-dl.
    - panny 6y ago
      It doesn't have DRM because youtube download only extracts the direct download link and downloads them. There is no DRM on youtube. Example from the alleged offending link, youtube-dl --skip-download --print-json https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxxajLWwzqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxxajLWwzqY You can easily copy the links from the formats into your browser and they will play, you can wget them, anything. There is no DRM there, and if anyone convinced you otherwise, they lied.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    > Using copyrighted materials in test code is fair use and a well established practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna What kind of nonsense is that? Playboy did fight people for using it, the eventually let it go because it was one image that wasn't particularly important them. It's literally right there in the article you linked... And I assume you forgot to link to this other program but again, not exactly a real argument. RIAA went after them on the use of that link, if other projects (of which dozens exist by the way) didn't slip up like that and are still here, it only makes it clearer what the problem was
NobodyNada 6y ago
Indeed. Those videos are three out of 94 test cases scattered among youtube.py.

BoorishBears 6y ago

It makes it worse lol. Using links to copyrighted materials in the tests meant to verify correct functionality? It's "prominent" in the source code. They literally wrote out "Test VEVO video with video age protection" then linked to a Justin Timberlake song https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py#L604 https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtub... I clicked on this ready to see some stupidity from the copyright industry but literally downloading from links to copyrighted music in your unit tests? That's how you give the RIAA a way to take down your project. - Actually seeing this made the comments made in the worst faith about how "they took it down because you can use it to download bad stuff, what's next?!?!" seem pretty dumb. If that was the case Bittorrent... which makes youtube-dl look like a guy slinging tapes out of a van next to Naspter HQ... wouldn't have been able to send them packing with a simple "we don't endorse piracy": https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/bittorrent-to-riaa-youre-barking-up-the-wrong-tree/ https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/bittorrent-to-riaa-youre-...

sudosysgen 6y ago
They can argue that downloading a publically available video for testing purposes is perfectly legal, because it is.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Ugh, I don't want to get into this Stallmanist "if the server returns 200 it's ok!" tarpit. If you believe that, it's fine. You probably won't ever actually need to use that defense outside of internet arguments honestly... for all their noise the most repercussions the average person might ever see from infringing copyrights is a scary letter from an ISP. Good luck if the legal system decides to test your hypothesis though. This isn't about YouTube's TOS at this point, you're making a copy of a copyrighted video without the consent of the copyright holder > downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    First, it's not actually illegal, at least in my jurisdiction and in a great many, to make a copy of a copyrighted work. Secondly, the author somehow gave permission to YouTube to make the video publicly available and downloadable, and YouTube is perfectly happy to provide to me the download URL.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      It's illegal in the jurisdiction that Github and the RIAA operate in? Laws don't exist in a vacuum, so it doesn't seem like a stretch for my comment to refer to the laws actually applicable here right? Your second point is just remixing the same Stallmanist POV I call out above. YouTube doesn't just provide you with anything. You go to YouTube, and you find a link, and you stick it in your unit tests. The fact YouTube's server replies is neither here nor there in the eyes of the law (ironically Youtube does actually return 402 "payment required" and 429 "too many requests" of they figure out what you're doing) You're free to make whatever esoteric argument you want, but after realizing they did something as silly as put copyrighted videos in the unit tests, there's not much of a leg to stand on. Especially when there are literally dozens of YT downloader type projects of Github still up right now that didn't do that...
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The DMCA is not intended for taking down such tools. The proper procedure to do so would be to sue the authors, and from what I can gather none of the core authors are in the US.
        BoorishBears 6y ago
        You saying it's not for exactly the thing it is for... doesn't make it so. I don't know why you think it does.
  - anticensor 6y ago
    > this Stallmanist "if the server returns 200 it's ok!" tarpit That would be an Elbakyanist stance, not a Stallmanist one.
- rrobukef 6y ago
  "You also grant each other user of the Service a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display, and perform it) only as enabled by a feature of the Service." https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms It is enabled by a feature of the Youtube service. They explicitly disallow downloading, but it is not enforcable (though that word probably doesn't mean what I think it means... the law probably overrules physics) Severance "If it turns out that a particular term of this Agreement is not enforceable for any reason, this will not affect any other terms."
  - jk700 6y ago
    But in that wording they do allow downloading. Features of the Youtube service accessed thought the Chrome browser don't have to be exactly the same as accessed though other browsers and tools, other tools are not prohibited to provide features they can extract and interpret from the received source code and data, they are not obligated to run the code at all or as is.
panny 6y ago
>It makes it worse lol. Using links to copyrighted materials in the tests meant to verify correct functionality? Using copyrighted materials in test code is fair use and a well established practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna The creators of youtube-dl are not distributing the material or inducing infringement by using a link to it in a unit test. I am typically on the RIAA's side, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23079092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23079092 but they're going to lose this one. If RIAA should be mad at anyone, it is youtube for distributing it without DRM. Youtube really really REALLY should have had their asses taken to the cleaners in viacom vs youtube. I don't know what the settlement was, but it wasn't enough, because youtube still exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... This is a python program doing exactly the same steps a browser takes to download the file. It's just written in python instead of js.
- tyzoid 6y ago
  Here, though, Youtube (Google) have contractual agreements to license the use of copyrighted media on their platform, and which is uploaded directly from the record labels themselves. The RIAA is claiming that YouTube does have DRM on their videos, which if the court agrees, may be the end of youtube support in youtube-dl.
  - panny 6y ago
    It doesn't have DRM because youtube download only extracts the direct download link and downloads them. There is no DRM on youtube. Example from the alleged offending link, youtube-dl --skip-download --print-json https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxxajLWwzqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxxajLWwzqY You can easily copy the links from the formats into your browser and they will play, you can wget them, anything. There is no DRM there, and if anyone convinced you otherwise, they lied.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  > Using copyrighted materials in test code is fair use and a well established practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna What kind of nonsense is that? Playboy did fight people for using it, the eventually let it go because it was one image that wasn't particularly important them. It's literally right there in the article you linked... And I assume you forgot to link to this other program but again, not exactly a real argument. RIAA went after them on the use of that link, if other projects (of which dozens exist by the way) didn't slip up like that and are still here, it only makes it clearer what the problem was

NobodyNada 6y ago

Indeed. Those videos are three out of 94 test cases scattered among youtube.py.