6 ms·

What's preventing this one from being taken down too?

• hatsuseno 6y ago
  Exposure? Widespread adoption? Luck? You know as well as I do I'd wager.
• redvenom 6y ago
  I think for one, it does not have references to specific videos in the documentation.
  • setr 6y ago
    AIUI this was never the case; it was in a unit test.
    • heyoni 6y ago
      I find this whole chain of comments in every single youtube-dl thread, lol.
      • jchw 6y ago
        Probably my fault. For the first hour or so, this is what my top comment to the original HN post claimed. Fortunately I caught it before the edit window closed, but I imagine it was seen by a lot of people by that point. I suspect the RIAA intended on being misleading about exactly how prominently the references existed to push the argument that it was part of the “marketing.” They reference the README a couple paragraphs up, but then become very vague about the references to copyrighted material.
        • CivBase 6y ago
          We could always check the README ourselves to verify their claims. Oh wait.
        • heyoni 6y ago
          It’s wild how that spread despite how quickly you fixed that. I guess that’s what they mean when “they” talk about controlling the narrative.
    • ehsankia 6y ago
      Does this distinction really matter? Everyone is so quick to mention this, but personally 1. I see unit tests as examples of how you can use the software and 2. It's still a link to copyrighted content is software that can be used to download said content. Doesn't matter if it's in documentation, unit test or even code comment.
      • setr 6y ago
        It does in the sense of intent -- if they built the tool for the express purpose of avoiding copyright restriction, they would do more than hide it in a random unit test or code comment. Putting it in the README itself would be a far stronger signal of intentional malfeasance. In the unit test... it's pretty clear the original developer's intent was simply to pick a video, and chose a trivially popular one (taylor swift), with likely no mind towards copyright (or its avoidance). That is, the tool happens to be capable of the job, because it simply has purpose to download videos, with no awareness of copyright law.
        • ehsankia 6y ago
          Unit tests are explicit examples of how the program works. It's showing by example things the program can do. Hell, it's even testing them to make sure they still and always will work. You may as well name the unit test "testCanDownloadIllegalContent()"
• dannyw 6y ago
  The maintainers behind this repo may also have more interest in filing a DMCA counter-notice.
  • avhon1 6y ago
    The maintainers of the previous repo didn't get a chance to file a counter-notice. That's why many people are upset at github about this, they took down the repo (and all of the forks, I think?) as soon as they received the letter from the RIAA.
    • makeworld 6y ago
      You can file a counter-notice after it gets taken down, and then the repo will be reinstated. That's my understanding of how it usually works.
      • athms 6y ago
        I suspect the problem is the counter notice. You must agree to be held to US law and the maintainer resides in Germany. According to the DMCA, the entity that files a counter notice consents to jurisdiction of the US district court of their residence. If not a resident of the US, jurisdiction is the district where the service provider is located. Once a counter notice is filed, one cannot argue the law doesn't apply because of lack of jurisdiction.
        • em-bee 6y ago
          so instead,they probably have to sue github in germany