5 ms·

I think for one, it does not have references to specific videos in the documentation.

by redvenom 6y ago

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()"

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()"