18 ms·

YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git

1098 points by madars 6y ago

madars 6y ago
It looks like this is the corresponding PR: https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142 https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142
- MrStonedOne 6y ago
  if you have the dmca repo on your computer, you can checkout this PR via git fetch upstream pull/8142/head:pr-8142&&git checkout pr-8142 Should work even if they blackhole the pr.
  - chrismorgan 6y ago
    There’s no need to create that pr-8142 branch, which will otherwise hang around indefinitely which is most commonly not what you want: git fetch upstream pull/8142/head git checkout FETCH_HEAD
    - jojo14 6y ago
      Isn't it more like the following?: git clone https://github.com/github/dmca.git git fetch origin pull/8142/head git checkout FETCH_HEAD
      - chrismorgan 6y ago
        I was just modifying the parent comment, which assumes an existing repository. Since we’re fiddling with things in this way, if you were just trying to get a copy of the contents, this’ll do that about most efficiently: git init git fetch --depth=1 https://github.com/github/dmca pull/8142/head git checkout FETCH_HEAD (I don’t think you can git-clone an arbitrary ref, only a branch.)
- nayuki 6y ago
  Maybe this pull request is being censored/shadowbanned right now. Opening the page takes tens of seconds and returns "Unicorn! This page is taking too long to load. Sorry about that. Please try refreshing and contact us if the problem persists.". However, PR #8142 is indeed listed in the list of open PRs at https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr .
  - jyriand 6y ago
    I saw the unicorn when using firefox, but when I switched to chromium, the PR opened fine
  - untitaker_ 6y ago
    This just loaded fine for me in Firefox. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt for this one, after all this PR contains 10k commits and 120 comments, and then quite a lot of approvals.
Stephen304 6y ago
Heh, I didn't expect to get much attention for this. I thought it would be funny to push a merge commit between the 2 repo's latest commits. As a result, the git history is accessible from the dmca repo if you know the commit hashes. Since I didn't rebase, all the commit hashes were preserved with signatures. Another fun discovery is that deleting my fork of github/dmca didn't affect the PR like I thought it would, so it seems a mirror of youtube-dl's commits are stuck in the ether until GH deletes my PR and garbage collects the repo.
- mmastrac 6y ago
  This is such a great hack. I approved the PR, naturally.
  - Iv 6y ago
    Note that a hack is not a fix. All of you, write to your representatives about that if you care. In EU when they were going to put some similar laws we all organized and wrote massively to the parliament and they backed down. It is a lot of effort but it works.
    - gizmo686 6y ago
      And what should we ask for? There is stuff to complain about with the DMCA, but the core process is reasonable. Someone claims copyright infringement by a user, and the website takes the content down. The user claims no copyright infringement, the website restores the content. The website is immune from liability, the alleged copyright owner can settle things in court with the user if they want to.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        The problem is that there is no penalty for fraudulently issuing claims.
        corobo 6y ago
saagarjha 6y ago
So they need to DMCA the DMCA repository to get rid of it? Nice.
shmerl 6y ago
I hope they did counter claim? RIAA should get a strong kick for this.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The history of that github repo shows that counterclaims would be listed in that particular repo, along with the original DMCA request. There is no PR for a counterclaim for youtube-dl as of this comment.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    That's not good then. There were some concerns before that the project wasn't active anymore, so I hope it's not a sign of maintainers deciding to pull the plug.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      The claim was filed on Friday. It's been less than 48 hours, almost none of it during business hours. Filing a counterclaim is literally saying "see you in court," and given both that RIAA is known for being litigious and that youtube-dl's defense here is (to my reading of the law) merely decent and not slam-dunk, I would not want to take that step without seeking the advice of a lawyer first. So even if a counterclaim were to be filed, I would not expect it to have been filed yet. Edit: the most recent counterclaim I see filed was done on 2020-10-08 (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/5dfed34cdb3774fcb10cb294106d8120196351c2/2020/10/2020-10-08-dfl-counternotice.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/5dfed34cdb3774fcb10cb294...)... for a claim filed on 2020-09-16 (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/951b7ba132fd6bafab2401a7171edc1b15c12262/2020/09/2020-09-16-dfl.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/951b7ba132fd6bafab2401a7...). That's almost a month later.
      - Reelin 6y ago
        I'd also note that if anyone feels like duking it out with the RIAA for some reason (Why? Is your goal to spend as much money as possible or something?) you can always create your own youtube-dl equivalent and wait for a takedown notice of your own. Now presumably GitHub won't let you push forbidden changesets, but since hashes are chained all you have to do is modify a single byte of the root and replay everything. (I have no idea if GitHub would ban you for a ToS violation or if they would just wait for the next DMCA takedown notice to show up.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
orbitingpluto 6y ago
The RIAA will have to create a takedown notice to takedown their takedown notice, invalidating the former takedown notice?
- freeone3000 6y ago
  No, issuing a DMCA claim does not invalidate former claims. The system always works the way a rational human would expect.
  - orbitingpluto 6y ago
    "The system always works the way a rational human would expect." We all wish, we all wish.
    - chii 6y ago
      It works the way the law is designed to be interpreted and written. Unfortunately, it's written with the purpose of helping the RIAA enforce their will against the people's will. So the only way to fight back is to do your civic duty - lobby against it, and/or lobby for a more modern set of copyright laws (and repeal the DMCA). But unfortunately, people don't care enough to force their representatives.
  - ryanmcdonough 6y ago
    The system always works the way a rational human who has a vested interest in the claimaint
kamyarg 6y ago
Cloned locally, was sad when the original repo was taken down. Some things actually get worst when you try to prevent people from doing them, hopefully some people realize this. Can someone remind me which music videos they did not want people to download please?
- lozf 6y ago
  > Can someone remind me which music videos they did not want people to download please? Have a look in your local version at extractors/youtube.py
- airstrike 6y ago
  09 F9...
  - segfaultbuserr 6y ago
    Fun fact: AACS keys are still actively being leaked to this day, e.g. 0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 ; v1 0x455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 ; v3 0xF190A1E8178D80643494394F8031D9C8 ; v4 ; omit 60+ keys 0x7A4F40D8696B7B159BE8176CC9EDB85C ; v66-68
geongeorgek 6y ago
Out of curiosity, If I were running my own git server can I delete a PR completely?
- tasuki 6y ago
  Pull requests aren't a part of git. They're a part of GitHub.
- gizmo686 6y ago
  Git itself doesn't have a concept of pull requests; you are expected to just send a request for someone with access to the remote repository to do the pull themselves. Someone with access to the remote repository would need to take some action themselves before anything is actually downloaded to it. Once the contents of the PR are in the remote repository, it is possible to completely delete them. First, you need to make them unreachable by any reference (which is to say, not in the history of any branch or tag). Then you can run the git garbage collector to actually delete the commits associated with the PR. I don't think there is any way to tell the garbage collector to prune specific commits; so you will also loose any other orphan commits; but that probably isn't a problem.
app4soft 6y ago
I just curious about deletion requested not only for 'public' forks, but for 'privat' forks too.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911 [1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2...
jaquers 6y ago
git clone https://github.com/github/dmca.git https://github.com/github/dmca.git . git fetch origin 416da574ec git branch youtube-dl 416da574ec git checkout -f youtube-dl
- kibibyte 6y ago
  Didn't work for me with the shorter commit hash, but it worked with the full hash 416da574ec0df3388f652e44f7fe71b1e3a4701f.
  - jaquers 6y ago
    yeah my bad. When I tested I used the full hash and just wanted it to look concise, but didn't try the shortened one :/
- d0mine 6y ago
  `git fetch origin` failed for me fatal: Couldn't find remote ref 416da574ec `git fetch origin pull/8142/head` worked (the ref became available).
ab_testing 6y ago
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. That will usually mean something like Github like site hosted in Russia, China or some other bloc where DMCA does not apply. Right now, lots of users in the US scientific community use Scihub or how millions of US students use libgen, millions of users of open source software will have to get used to a non US controlled domain to get access to their software. Also development of these software will be done in the shadows so as to avoid the reach of the DMCA.
- aesyondu 6y ago
  > 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 I'm not sure about that. I think the real long term solution is to have a decentralized version of YouTube/video publishing platform that is resistant (invulnerable?) to censorship. I'm not saying that it's not difficult, or even impossible, but I would love to see more discussion regarding true web decentralization, not legal semantics.
  - deadalus 6y ago
    LBRY.tv is a decentralized Youtube alternative. Another one is : bittube.tv
  - lemagedurage 6y ago
    Zeronet [0] has implemented a decentralized website model, a Github alternative on there could be more resilient, though it does require additional client software to run. I believe the site owner can update their decentralized website with their cryptographic keys. Perhaps WebTorrent [1] can be the basis for an in-browser implementation, along with service workers to stay cached and self-update without requiring a running host. Talk about serverless :^) [0] https://zeronet.io/ https://zeronet.io/ [1] https://webtorrent.io/ https://webtorrent.io/
miguelmota 6y ago
Original youtube-dl repo which has been taken down and replaced with DMCA notice: https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl
karinlee 6y ago
You come to the site and receive a lot of text and good information. There is a lot of damage from corona all over the world, is your health okay? It would be nice if everyone did not damage and survived well. I also created and run a site. Please come to play once to see and go and leave some sketches. Have a happy day^^ My site address: https://sukacrot.site/ https://sukacrot.site/
outloudvi 6y ago
"Hi, the enthuastic freedom of coding killer RIAA, please send GitHub a takedown request on https://github.com/github/dmca https://github.com/github/dmca."
submeta 6y ago
> ... is now part of ... Can someone please explain what that means? Is the code not accessible anymore? Is it frozen? No commits allowed? What exactly are the implications here?
- omertuchfeld 6y ago
  It's just someone creating a pull request to the dmca repository with the pull request containing the entirety of the youtube-dl repository (and its history). It's mostly a joke
  - amelius 6y ago
    Any idea what the future of ytdl will look like? Can they continue? Will the source code have to be rewritten?
xg15 6y ago
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. The devs have to constantly maintain and update those to keep working when a site changes its design. So if the takedown manages to stop ongoing development on ytdl then even existing copies will become mostly useless pretty quickly.
- DavideNL 6y ago
  Would it not be possible to move to some decentralized Github alternative?
  - RealStickman_ 6y ago
    The problem is finding a good alternative and getting everybody to move there.
    - toyg 6y ago
      “Everybody” is surely not a massive amount of people for youtube-dl. I mean, it’s hardly the Linux kernel... let’s remember that this is just about developers, distribution is a separate (arguably easier to solve) problem.
      - usr1106 6y ago
        And even the Linux kernel does not use a centralized 3rd party service. They use only email. Of course the server hosting LKML or in the end Linus' mailbox are single points of failures.
  - metters 6y ago
    There was a hackernnews article about a decentralised github (not yt-dl) yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874994
  - hk__2 6y ago
tomjuggler 6y ago
The change is gone now, I literally watched it disappear. I really hope that youtube-dl can bounce back from this. I mean what's next, Kodi? NewPipe?
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  I think projects like Kodi, OSMC etc. are seasoned enough and extremely careful with how they show intent. They only allow official add ons that are on the legal side of copyright. Same goes for official docs. But you can see what happened to Exodus, Covenant, Popcorn, etc. If you are making a dent after enough time they catch up.
- LockAndLol 6y ago
  NewPipe is actively looking for a method of mirroring the code + (and more importantly for them) Github issues and PRs https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/4619 https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/4619 Related suggestions have been https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug and https://github.com/google/git-appraise https://github.com/google/git-appraise . The former (git-bug) allows decentralized issue management by storing the issues and conversations on separate git objects, while git-appraise allows the same but for code reviews and thus (I assume) pull/merge requests. IMO, both very nice projects that open-source devs might want to investigate in order to be independent of their code hosting platforms. Or even better, contribute or donate for their continued development. The current dependence on hosted issue + PR management is revealing its weaknesses.
- Quarrel 6y ago
  Still there for me..
ratonroy 6y ago
The 17 USC (2)(c)(1)(C) safe-harbour protections apply only to hosting of infringing works, and neither youtube-dl nor its test suites infringe on any RIAA or member copyrights as averred in RIAA's notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The RIAA's letter does not claim infringement within the text of youtube-dl source or test suites, though it tries hard to appear so, but rather anti-circumvention of a "copyright protection mechanism", under §1201. That is also part of the DMCA, but falls outside the safe-harbour. At best, youtube-dl's test suite may be infringing works when run, in which case infringement would accrue to the operator, presumably a tester or Github's CI/CD process. Even that argument is specious. Given output is discarded, no permanent copy is retained, and the action is for research and development, and numerous Fair Use affirmative defence claims exist under §107, notably (1) and (4), test suite execution falls outside exclusive rights. Any one fair-use test is sufficient, or none at all. Test suite execution could be argued non-infinging under numerous theories, including reverse engineering, research, interoperability, all under §1201, or under general limitations on exclusive rights in §112, §117, or elsewhere. This is where ... things get interesting...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
corobo 6y ago
The internet is all fluffed up about the RIAA, people are calling things cancer, and calling things "retarded" in public comments. Don't forget the constant "well they should take down browsers, and Windows, and networking code!" retorts It's like we've gone back to the mid '00s. With that vibe, https://youtu.be/SnLB8wysMbY https://youtu.be/SnLB8wysMbY
- nhooyr 6y ago
  Thank you for sharing that video, made my day haha
- identity0 6y ago
  We haven't gone back to the 2000s, it's always been like this. RIAA and copyright as a whole is and always has been a cancer on society---people may have just forgotten about it in recent times.
pacifika 6y ago
So if I understand this correctly it’s possible for anyone to make someone else liable for copyright or patent violations by creating a PR on their repo then arranging for them to get sued?
- sp332 6y ago
  In the U.S., the DMCA's safe harbor would probably protect them if they took the content down and forwarded the notice to the poster. Not sure about patent law.
nooneinparticlr 6y ago
perthchat dot org has an interview with an old maintainer about the removal from github.
- nooneinparticlr 6y ago
  sorry, that's news dot perthchat dot org
exabrial 6y ago
What bothers me about DMCA the most is the lack of due process. In the US, one would think more than any place else you have the right to a lengthy trial before have a right stripped away. Both political parties in the USA regularly chip away at our rights in the ever on going battle to capture more votes from extreme positions or 'bring the usa in line with international (read european) standards', in this case WIPO. How this Christmas gift was ever given to the RIAA is mind blowing.
- kortex 6y ago
  > How this Christmas gift was ever given to the RIAA is mind blowing. $$$. I think this is a part of a bigger issue. 1st amendment protects citizens from government censorship. DMCA creates a loophole where the govt isn't deciding what to censor, they are merely enforcing compliance of what a corporation wants to censor, sidestepping any 1A defense. This means ultimately either platforms arbitrate, or the receiving party has to sue, either way it's chilling.
- dwild 6y ago
  > In the US, one would think more than any place else you have the right to a lengthy trial before have a right stripped away. No rights has been stripped away, you can still go the lengthy trial way if that's what you want to. Respecting the DMCA is a way for the platform to avoid the lengthy trial process, because first, they don't care about your content, and second, because it's an incredibly expensive process. The beauty in the DMCA system too is that you can file a counter claims, sadly not all platform make it easy to do so, but that just show how much they care about your content. I heard that Github allow to and that it's not too hard.
anta40 6y ago
I still don't get this, though. Why DMCA-ed the entire project? Isn't simply removing the offending parts on code sufficient?
- lights0123 6y ago
  The claim was that the program as a whole was in violation, as it could be used to "circumvent the technological protection measures" such as those used in YouTube. They're also claiming that for the other sites it can download from.
oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
Crazy how people have forgotten that git is decentralized to begin with, and email is even federated. Not sure what the implications of kernel style development would be with the DMCA going after them but I'm sure we'll find a solution.
cannabis_sam 6y ago
Copyright is an attack on property rights... Suddenly, what other people might have done similarly, restricts what you can do with your rightfully owned property. Can someone explain why government -granted monopolies on human cultural output is a good idea?
- oscargrouch 6y ago
  I think is valid as long as it protects the right of people creating (now) digital goods, to be payed for if they created that value. But i think the law is to harsh and actually can even destroy that piece from existing for being too severe over the copies of that work. For movies or music for instance, something like 3 year period of copyright ownership would be fine. People would still pay for first access to the piece, while it would be much more likely to find a copy after lets say, 100 years somewhere.
  - sdht0 6y ago
    > For movies or music for instance, something like 3 year period of copyright ownership would be fine. Great line of thinking. But I think the idea of earning income from a creative work throughout one's life also has value. A compromise is to retain the existing copyright periods (after which works go to the public domain),but after 5-10 years of creation, works would become free for non commercial distribution. So Netflix would still have to pay for movies in their catalog. But me torrenting it from people freely sharing it and playing it on VLC would be legal.
    - oscargrouch 6y ago
      > Great line of thinking. But I think the idea of earning income from a creative work throughout one's life also has value. I agree with you, at least in parts. I was addressing only the issue of copyright with digital copies, where people watch. play or listen free of charge after a given period. But still after the artist, crew, studio or company cashed from their success, they could still make copyright grants to people that want to reproduce their content. For instance, the free extension would only cover private listening, viewing or playing. But if you want to play the movie in your theater and make some bucks out of it, them you would have to pay for the copyright with the 'extended period rule'. If you are musician and want to sing the song in your show, you would have to pay for copyright. The logic here goes to anyone that might sell others people labor while getting it for free. This should be protected by the copyright law, more or less the way it is now. But for private consumption, just giving enough time that would not be reasonable to just "wait for when its free" for people that otherwise would be buying is enough. If your kids want to watch the new Avengers movies that cost just 10 bucks, who would wait 3 years for such a small value? The problem is the whole industry is still stuck in the 20th century where products were all physical goods. The digital realm and copies are here to stay, they are fighting against the tide, and one day they will wake up that its a lost battle. > A compromise is to retain the existing copyright periods (after which works go to the public domain),but after 5-10 years of creation, works would become free for non commercial distribution. So Netflix would still have to pay for movies in their catalog. But me torrenting it from people freely sharing it and playing it on VLC would be legal. Yes, that's basically it. But 10 years is too much and unnecessary. Within 3 to 4 years anything stop being fresh. People that buy things when they are fresh are no longer interested, and its enough time to make it if your piece had a bad first launch, but by virtue started to catch-up and make some bucks to the creators. The key is to define a period of time where the piece might stop trending until very few people pay for them. Analitics might help to get a reasonable period for each media.
aldanor 6y ago
https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142 https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142 now shows a "Unicorn! The page is taking too much to load" - anyone else see this?
- baseballMan 6y ago
  Yep! I'm seeing this as well.
- curioussavage 6y ago
  https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/416da574ec0df3388f652e44f7fe71b1e3a4701f https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/416da574ec0df3388f652e44... worked for me. But I can't get the tree. But if you download the repo as a zip in their gui that's the easiest way.
- tda 6y ago
  same here
x3haloed 6y ago
The beauty of git is that YouTube-dl is backed up on all of the contributors’ machines, and they can easily push to a new head server. Removing it from GitHub doesn’t kill it. Just moves it off of the most popular platform.
sam0x17 6y ago
Cloned and forked. Can we also get this on tardigrade.io etc please?
smnscu 6y ago
I am donating my popular repos and deleting my account. Fuck GitHub and fuck Microsoft. I'll stop using VSCode, too.
Meph504 6y ago
Have you ever known Microsoft to aquire something similar to their own product, dump their product name and go with the acquisitions branding?
supernihil 6y ago
repeating an art piece makes it better so here is a replay: https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/e672d697b36e82007f2f7c98747937895981e697 https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/e672d697b36e82007f2f7c... utf-16 unicorns against dmca run 1. `node dmca.js` to get a Justin Timberlake - Tunnel Vision (Official Music Video) (Explicit).mp3 file 2. `node youtube.dl.js` to get a youtube-dl-master.zip file

1098 points by madars 6y ago

It looks like this is the corresponding PR: https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142 https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142

MrStonedOne 6y ago
if you have the dmca repo on your computer, you can checkout this PR via git fetch upstream pull/8142/head:pr-8142&&git checkout pr-8142 Should work even if they blackhole the pr.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  There’s no need to create that pr-8142 branch, which will otherwise hang around indefinitely which is most commonly not what you want: git fetch upstream pull/8142/head git checkout FETCH_HEAD
  - jojo14 6y ago
    Isn't it more like the following?: git clone https://github.com/github/dmca.git git fetch origin pull/8142/head git checkout FETCH_HEAD
    - chrismorgan 6y ago
      I was just modifying the parent comment, which assumes an existing repository. Since we’re fiddling with things in this way, if you were just trying to get a copy of the contents, this’ll do that about most efficiently: git init git fetch --depth=1 https://github.com/github/dmca pull/8142/head git checkout FETCH_HEAD (I don’t think you can git-clone an arbitrary ref, only a branch.)
nayuki 6y ago
Maybe this pull request is being censored/shadowbanned right now. Opening the page takes tens of seconds and returns "Unicorn! This page is taking too long to load. Sorry about that. Please try refreshing and contact us if the problem persists.". However, PR #8142 is indeed listed in the list of open PRs at https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr .
- jyriand 6y ago
  I saw the unicorn when using firefox, but when I switched to chromium, the PR opened fine
- untitaker_ 6y ago
  This just loaded fine for me in Firefox. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt for this one, after all this PR contains 10k commits and 120 comments, and then quite a lot of approvals.

Stephen304 6y ago

Heh, I didn't expect to get much attention for this. I thought it would be funny to push a merge commit between the 2 repo's latest commits. As a result, the git history is accessible from the dmca repo if you know the commit hashes. Since I didn't rebase, all the commit hashes were preserved with signatures. Another fun discovery is that deleting my fork of github/dmca didn't affect the PR like I thought it would, so it seems a mirror of youtube-dl's commits are stuck in the ether until GH deletes my PR and garbage collects the repo.

mmastrac 6y ago
This is such a great hack. I approved the PR, naturally.
- Iv 6y ago
  Note that a hack is not a fix. All of you, write to your representatives about that if you care. In EU when they were going to put some similar laws we all organized and wrote massively to the parliament and they backed down. It is a lot of effort but it works.
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    And what should we ask for? There is stuff to complain about with the DMCA, but the core process is reasonable. Someone claims copyright infringement by a user, and the website takes the content down. The user claims no copyright infringement, the website restores the content. The website is immune from liability, the alleged copyright owner can settle things in court with the user if they want to.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      The problem is that there is no penalty for fraudulently issuing claims.
      - corobo 6y ago

saagarjha 6y ago

So they need to DMCA the DMCA repository to get rid of it? Nice.

shmerl 6y ago

I hope they did counter claim? RIAA should get a strong kick for this.

jcranmer 6y ago
The history of that github repo shows that counterclaims would be listed in that particular repo, along with the original DMCA request. There is no PR for a counterclaim for youtube-dl as of this comment.
- shmerl 6y ago
  That's not good then. There were some concerns before that the project wasn't active anymore, so I hope it's not a sign of maintainers deciding to pull the plug.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The claim was filed on Friday. It's been less than 48 hours, almost none of it during business hours. Filing a counterclaim is literally saying "see you in court," and given both that RIAA is known for being litigious and that youtube-dl's defense here is (to my reading of the law) merely decent and not slam-dunk, I would not want to take that step without seeking the advice of a lawyer first. So even if a counterclaim were to be filed, I would not expect it to have been filed yet. Edit: the most recent counterclaim I see filed was done on 2020-10-08 (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/5dfed34cdb3774fcb10cb294106d8120196351c2/2020/10/2020-10-08-dfl-counternotice.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/5dfed34cdb3774fcb10cb294...)... for a claim filed on 2020-09-16 (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/951b7ba132fd6bafab2401a7171edc1b15c12262/2020/09/2020-09-16-dfl.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/951b7ba132fd6bafab2401a7...). That's almost a month later.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      I'd also note that if anyone feels like duking it out with the RIAA for some reason (Why? Is your goal to spend as much money as possible or something?) you can always create your own youtube-dl equivalent and wait for a takedown notice of your own. Now presumably GitHub won't let you push forbidden changesets, but since hashes are chained all you have to do is modify a single byte of the root and replay everything. (I have no idea if GitHub would ban you for a ToS violation or if they would just wait for the next DMCA takedown notice to show up.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

orbitingpluto 6y ago

The RIAA will have to create a takedown notice to takedown their takedown notice, invalidating the former takedown notice?

freeone3000 6y ago
No, issuing a DMCA claim does not invalidate former claims. The system always works the way a rational human would expect.
- orbitingpluto 6y ago
  "The system always works the way a rational human would expect." We all wish, we all wish.
  - chii 6y ago
    It works the way the law is designed to be interpreted and written. Unfortunately, it's written with the purpose of helping the RIAA enforce their will against the people's will. So the only way to fight back is to do your civic duty - lobby against it, and/or lobby for a more modern set of copyright laws (and repeal the DMCA). But unfortunately, people don't care enough to force their representatives.
- ryanmcdonough 6y ago
  The system always works the way a rational human who has a vested interest in the claimaint

kamyarg 6y ago

Cloned locally, was sad when the original repo was taken down. Some things actually get worst when you try to prevent people from doing them, hopefully some people realize this. Can someone remind me which music videos they did not want people to download please?

lozf 6y ago
> Can someone remind me which music videos they did not want people to download please? Have a look in your local version at extractors/youtube.py
airstrike 6y ago
09 F9...
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  Fun fact: AACS keys are still actively being leaked to this day, e.g. 0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 ; v1 0x455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 ; v3 0xF190A1E8178D80643494394F8031D9C8 ; v4 ; omit 60+ keys 0x7A4F40D8696B7B159BE8176CC9EDB85C ; v66-68

geongeorgek 6y ago

Out of curiosity, If I were running my own git server can I delete a PR completely?

tasuki 6y ago
Pull requests aren't a part of git. They're a part of GitHub.
gizmo686 6y ago
Git itself doesn't have a concept of pull requests; you are expected to just send a request for someone with access to the remote repository to do the pull themselves. Someone with access to the remote repository would need to take some action themselves before anything is actually downloaded to it. Once the contents of the PR are in the remote repository, it is possible to completely delete them. First, you need to make them unreachable by any reference (which is to say, not in the history of any branch or tag). Then you can run the git garbage collector to actually delete the commits associated with the PR. I don't think there is any way to tell the garbage collector to prune specific commits; so you will also loose any other orphan commits; but that probably isn't a problem.

app4soft 6y ago

I just curious about deletion requested not only for 'public' forks, but for 'privat' forks too.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911 [1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2...

jaquers 6y ago

git clone https://github.com/github/dmca.git https://github.com/github/dmca.git . git fetch origin 416da574ec git branch youtube-dl 416da574ec git checkout -f youtube-dl

kibibyte 6y ago
Didn't work for me with the shorter commit hash, but it worked with the full hash 416da574ec0df3388f652e44f7fe71b1e3a4701f.
- jaquers 6y ago
  yeah my bad. When I tested I used the full hash and just wanted it to look concise, but didn't try the shortened one :/
d0mine 6y ago
`git fetch origin` failed for me fatal: Couldn't find remote ref 416da574ec `git fetch origin pull/8142/head` worked (the ref became available).

ab_testing 6y ago

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. That will usually mean something like Github like site hosted in Russia, China or some other bloc where DMCA does not apply. Right now, lots of users in the US scientific community use Scihub or how millions of US students use libgen, millions of users of open source software will have to get used to a non US controlled domain to get access to their software. Also development of these software will be done in the shadows so as to avoid the reach of the DMCA.

aesyondu 6y ago
> 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 I'm not sure about that. I think the real long term solution is to have a decentralized version of YouTube/video publishing platform that is resistant (invulnerable?) to censorship. I'm not saying that it's not difficult, or even impossible, but I would love to see more discussion regarding true web decentralization, not legal semantics.
- deadalus 6y ago
  LBRY.tv is a decentralized Youtube alternative. Another one is : bittube.tv
- lemagedurage 6y ago
  Zeronet [0] has implemented a decentralized website model, a Github alternative on there could be more resilient, though it does require additional client software to run. I believe the site owner can update their decentralized website with their cryptographic keys. Perhaps WebTorrent [1] can be the basis for an in-browser implementation, along with service workers to stay cached and self-update without requiring a running host. Talk about serverless :^) [0] https://zeronet.io/ https://zeronet.io/ [1] https://webtorrent.io/ https://webtorrent.io/

miguelmota 6y ago

Original youtube-dl repo which has been taken down and replaced with DMCA notice: https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl

karinlee 6y ago

You come to the site and receive a lot of text and good information. There is a lot of damage from corona all over the world, is your health okay? It would be nice if everyone did not damage and survived well. I also created and run a site. Please come to play once to see and go and leave some sketches. Have a happy day^^ My site address: https://sukacrot.site/ https://sukacrot.site/

outloudvi 6y ago

"Hi, the enthuastic freedom of coding killer RIAA, please send GitHub a takedown request on https://github.com/github/dmca https://github.com/github/dmca."

submeta 6y ago

> ... is now part of ... Can someone please explain what that means? Is the code not accessible anymore? Is it frozen? No commits allowed? What exactly are the implications here?

omertuchfeld 6y ago
It's just someone creating a pull request to the dmca repository with the pull request containing the entirety of the youtube-dl repository (and its history). It's mostly a joke
- amelius 6y ago
  Any idea what the future of ytdl will look like? Can they continue? Will the source code have to be rewritten?

xg15 6y ago

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. The devs have to constantly maintain and update those to keep working when a site changes its design. So if the takedown manages to stop ongoing development on ytdl then even existing copies will become mostly useless pretty quickly.

DavideNL 6y ago
Would it not be possible to move to some decentralized Github alternative?
- RealStickman_ 6y ago
  The problem is finding a good alternative and getting everybody to move there.
  - toyg 6y ago
    “Everybody” is surely not a massive amount of people for youtube-dl. I mean, it’s hardly the Linux kernel... let’s remember that this is just about developers, distribution is a separate (arguably easier to solve) problem.
    - usr1106 6y ago
      And even the Linux kernel does not use a centralized 3rd party service. They use only email. Of course the server hosting LKML or in the end Linus' mailbox are single points of failures.
- metters 6y ago
  There was a hackernnews article about a decentralised github (not yt-dl) yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874994
- hk__2 6y ago

tomjuggler 6y ago

The change is gone now, I literally watched it disappear. I really hope that youtube-dl can bounce back from this. I mean what's next, Kodi? NewPipe?

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
I think projects like Kodi, OSMC etc. are seasoned enough and extremely careful with how they show intent. They only allow official add ons that are on the legal side of copyright. Same goes for official docs. But you can see what happened to Exodus, Covenant, Popcorn, etc. If you are making a dent after enough time they catch up.
LockAndLol 6y ago
NewPipe is actively looking for a method of mirroring the code + (and more importantly for them) Github issues and PRs https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/4619 https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/4619 Related suggestions have been https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug and https://github.com/google/git-appraise https://github.com/google/git-appraise . The former (git-bug) allows decentralized issue management by storing the issues and conversations on separate git objects, while git-appraise allows the same but for code reviews and thus (I assume) pull/merge requests. IMO, both very nice projects that open-source devs might want to investigate in order to be independent of their code hosting platforms. Or even better, contribute or donate for their continued development. The current dependence on hosted issue + PR management is revealing its weaknesses.
Quarrel 6y ago
Still there for me..

ratonroy 6y ago

The 17 USC (2)(c)(1)(C) safe-harbour protections apply only to hosting of infringing works, and neither youtube-dl nor its test suites infringe on any RIAA or member copyrights as averred in RIAA's notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The RIAA's letter does not claim infringement within the text of youtube-dl source or test suites, though it tries hard to appear so, but rather anti-circumvention of a "copyright protection mechanism", under §1201. That is also part of the DMCA, but falls outside the safe-harbour. At best, youtube-dl's test suite may be infringing works when run, in which case infringement would accrue to the operator, presumably a tester or Github's CI/CD process. Even that argument is specious. Given output is discarded, no permanent copy is retained, and the action is for research and development, and numerous Fair Use affirmative defence claims exist under §107, notably (1) and (4), test suite execution falls outside exclusive rights. Any one fair-use test is sufficient, or none at all. Test suite execution could be argued non-infinging under numerous theories, including reverse engineering, research, interoperability, all under §1201, or under general limitations on exclusive rights in §112, §117, or elsewhere. This is where ... things get interesting...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

corobo 6y ago

The internet is all fluffed up about the RIAA, people are calling things cancer, and calling things "retarded" in public comments. Don't forget the constant "well they should take down browsers, and Windows, and networking code!" retorts It's like we've gone back to the mid '00s. With that vibe, https://youtu.be/SnLB8wysMbY https://youtu.be/SnLB8wysMbY

nhooyr 6y ago
Thank you for sharing that video, made my day haha
identity0 6y ago
We haven't gone back to the 2000s, it's always been like this. RIAA and copyright as a whole is and always has been a cancer on society---people may have just forgotten about it in recent times.

pacifika 6y ago

So if I understand this correctly it’s possible for anyone to make someone else liable for copyright or patent violations by creating a PR on their repo then arranging for them to get sued?

sp332 6y ago
In the U.S., the DMCA's safe harbor would probably protect them if they took the content down and forwarded the notice to the poster. Not sure about patent law.

nooneinparticlr 6y ago

perthchat dot org has an interview with an old maintainer about the removal from github.

nooneinparticlr 6y ago
sorry, that's news dot perthchat dot org

exabrial 6y ago

What bothers me about DMCA the most is the lack of due process. In the US, one would think more than any place else you have the right to a lengthy trial before have a right stripped away. Both political parties in the USA regularly chip away at our rights in the ever on going battle to capture more votes from extreme positions or 'bring the usa in line with international (read european) standards', in this case WIPO. How this Christmas gift was ever given to the RIAA is mind blowing.

kortex 6y ago
> How this Christmas gift was ever given to the RIAA is mind blowing. $$$. I think this is a part of a bigger issue. 1st amendment protects citizens from government censorship. DMCA creates a loophole where the govt isn't deciding what to censor, they are merely enforcing compliance of what a corporation wants to censor, sidestepping any 1A defense. This means ultimately either platforms arbitrate, or the receiving party has to sue, either way it's chilling.
dwild 6y ago
> In the US, one would think more than any place else you have the right to a lengthy trial before have a right stripped away. No rights has been stripped away, you can still go the lengthy trial way if that's what you want to. Respecting the DMCA is a way for the platform to avoid the lengthy trial process, because first, they don't care about your content, and second, because it's an incredibly expensive process. The beauty in the DMCA system too is that you can file a counter claims, sadly not all platform make it easy to do so, but that just show how much they care about your content. I heard that Github allow to and that it's not too hard.

anta40 6y ago

I still don't get this, though. Why DMCA-ed the entire project? Isn't simply removing the offending parts on code sufficient?

lights0123 6y ago
The claim was that the program as a whole was in violation, as it could be used to "circumvent the technological protection measures" such as those used in YouTube. They're also claiming that for the other sites it can download from.

oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago

Crazy how people have forgotten that git is decentralized to begin with, and email is even federated. Not sure what the implications of kernel style development would be with the DMCA going after them but I'm sure we'll find a solution.

cannabis_sam 6y ago

Copyright is an attack on property rights... Suddenly, what other people might have done similarly, restricts what you can do with your rightfully owned property. Can someone explain why government -granted monopolies on human cultural output is a good idea?

oscargrouch 6y ago
I think is valid as long as it protects the right of people creating (now) digital goods, to be payed for if they created that value. But i think the law is to harsh and actually can even destroy that piece from existing for being too severe over the copies of that work. For movies or music for instance, something like 3 year period of copyright ownership would be fine. People would still pay for first access to the piece, while it would be much more likely to find a copy after lets say, 100 years somewhere.
- sdht0 6y ago
  > For movies or music for instance, something like 3 year period of copyright ownership would be fine. Great line of thinking. But I think the idea of earning income from a creative work throughout one's life also has value. A compromise is to retain the existing copyright periods (after which works go to the public domain),but after 5-10 years of creation, works would become free for non commercial distribution. So Netflix would still have to pay for movies in their catalog. But me torrenting it from people freely sharing it and playing it on VLC would be legal.
  - oscargrouch 6y ago
    > Great line of thinking. But I think the idea of earning income from a creative work throughout one's life also has value. I agree with you, at least in parts. I was addressing only the issue of copyright with digital copies, where people watch. play or listen free of charge after a given period. But still after the artist, crew, studio or company cashed from their success, they could still make copyright grants to people that want to reproduce their content. For instance, the free extension would only cover private listening, viewing or playing. But if you want to play the movie in your theater and make some bucks out of it, them you would have to pay for the copyright with the 'extended period rule'. If you are musician and want to sing the song in your show, you would have to pay for copyright. The logic here goes to anyone that might sell others people labor while getting it for free. This should be protected by the copyright law, more or less the way it is now. But for private consumption, just giving enough time that would not be reasonable to just "wait for when its free" for people that otherwise would be buying is enough. If your kids want to watch the new Avengers movies that cost just 10 bucks, who would wait 3 years for such a small value? The problem is the whole industry is still stuck in the 20th century where products were all physical goods. The digital realm and copies are here to stay, they are fighting against the tide, and one day they will wake up that its a lost battle. > A compromise is to retain the existing copyright periods (after which works go to the public domain),but after 5-10 years of creation, works would become free for non commercial distribution. So Netflix would still have to pay for movies in their catalog. But me torrenting it from people freely sharing it and playing it on VLC would be legal. Yes, that's basically it. But 10 years is too much and unnecessary. Within 3 to 4 years anything stop being fresh. People that buy things when they are fresh are no longer interested, and its enough time to make it if your piece had a bad first launch, but by virtue started to catch-up and make some bucks to the creators. The key is to define a period of time where the piece might stop trending until very few people pay for them. Analitics might help to get a reasonable period for each media.

aldanor 6y ago

https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142 https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8142 now shows a "Unicorn! The page is taking too much to load" - anyone else see this?

baseballMan 6y ago
Yep! I'm seeing this as well.
curioussavage 6y ago
https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/416da574ec0df3388f652e44f7fe71b1e3a4701f https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/416da574ec0df3388f652e44... worked for me. But I can't get the tree. But if you download the repo as a zip in their gui that's the easiest way.
tda 6y ago
same here

x3haloed 6y ago

The beauty of git is that YouTube-dl is backed up on all of the contributors’ machines, and they can easily push to a new head server. Removing it from GitHub doesn’t kill it. Just moves it off of the most popular platform.

sam0x17 6y ago

Cloned and forked. Can we also get this on tardigrade.io etc please?

smnscu 6y ago

I am donating my popular repos and deleting my account. Fuck GitHub and fuck Microsoft. I'll stop using VSCode, too.

Meph504 6y ago

Have you ever known Microsoft to aquire something similar to their own product, dump their product name and go with the acquisitions branding?

supernihil 6y ago

repeating an art piece makes it better so here is a replay: https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/e672d697b36e82007f2f7c98747937895981e697 https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/e672d697b36e82007f2f7c... utf-16 unicorns against dmca run 1. `node dmca.js` to get a Justin Timberlake - Tunnel Vision (Official Music Video) (Explicit).mp3 file 2. `node youtube.dl.js` to get a youtube-dl-master.zip file