4 ms·
I never saw the repo, but to play devil's advocate it's possible that there's a unit test or something that downloads copyrighted material. That's what got yout
by wilshire_nc 6y ago
I never saw the repo, but to play devil's advocate it's possible that there's a unit test or something that downloads copyrighted material. That's what got youtube-dl taken down.
- sodality2 6y agoDoubt, there would be no reason for it to be copyrighted material, it would just be a torrent test
- cjaybo 6y agoCouldn't the same thing have been said for the problematic youtube-dl test case?
- sodality2 6y agoThose directly downloaded copyrighted youtube videos. It would instead be just a torrent tracker connection check, no reason to even transfer a file, since the tracker just matches user with user and doesn't touch any files.
- Macha 6y agoThe issue with the youtube-dl case was that certain copyrighted video pages did have a different structure, so they needed to test they could parse that page correctly. There's no technical difference between a torrent containing ArchLinux.iso and TheBeatlesDiscography.zip however.
- Const-me 6y agoNot exactly. They had a test that saves a file from YouTube that was "protected" with some tech a lawyer might quality as DRM. YouTube only uses that thing for copyrighted materials. Torrents don't have anything like that. You don't have to deal with anything copyrighted to test any related stuff, be it client, tracker, or web server.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- f311a 6y agoYou clearly didn’t read the DMCA
- sodality2 6y agoI'm just saying that if a unit test existed, that's likely not what would cause the DMCA. seems that the reason is that it's preconfigured to share copyrighted content, so like I said, not the unit tests.