ldarby

11 ms·

61.
by ldarby 6y ago
If we're still talking about the Debian SSH key bug in 2008, here is the Debian bug (from 2006) that led to the security issue, which was discovered in 2008: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363516
62.
by ldarby 6y ago
With respect to upstream patching, Slackware is similar to Arch, it has a few, but generally tries to stick to upstream. Kernel is unpatched though.
63.
by ldarby 6y ago
Youtube-dlc was discussed here before all this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450560
64.
by ldarby 6y ago
Chrome doesn't create a copy of the video on the users HD by default. That's what matters, if Chrome did start doing that (by itself without an extention) I'm sure the RIAA would be suing Google over that.
65.
by ldarby 6y ago
> to which you haven't responded. Where? I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881656 I can only repeat what's there.
66.
by ldarby 6y ago
I really just shouldn't have mentioned ad revenue theft at all in the first place, it wasn't that relevant. I wasn't saying "people who download are thiefs", I was saying "thiefs start by downloading". Th
67.
by ldarby 6y ago
> your completely wrong assertion Oops, apologies Reelin I wasn't paying attention to who said what, that was feanaro who was wrong.
68.
by ldarby 6y ago
I'm not sure this fits the definition of opportunity cost either? I understand why you think it does (because it was money not gained that could have been) but the content producer doesn't have multiple options to choose from her
69.
by ldarby 6y ago
I never said Article 13 bans ad blocking. What I wrote was too difficult to parse and I should have realised that at the time and made it more clear. E.g.: "It's not hard to predict they (EU and media corps) will want to make ad
70.
by ldarby 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881914
71.
by ldarby 6y ago
It doesn't, and I never said it does. You asked for an explanation of how ad revenue theft happens, and I gave that.
72.
by ldarby 6y ago
You are just wrong. Please go learn about copyright. Then you might understand why this takedown happened.
73.
by ldarby 6y ago
Yeah, sorry I knew it was overly broad and should have been more specific. But it was in response to your completely wrong assertion that violating it requires redistribution. I think we're done here.
74.
by ldarby 6y ago
> That really depends on the jurisdiction and context. No it doesn't. If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off, you can't argue the copy you made with youtube-dl is a permitted personal copy,
75.
by ldarby 6y ago
> otherwise legitimately obtained media That's the issue. If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off, you can't argue the copy you made with youtube-dl is a permitted personal copy, in the US or
76.
by ldarby 6y ago
> How does watching an ad decrease the amount of money I have? There are at least 5 parties here: · Content producer (spending time and effort making original content that people watch) · Platform · Advertiser · Content
77.
by ldarby 6y ago
> cannot violate copyright by merely downloading something. You only infringe once you distribute the content further. Wrong. Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright. It's just taken less seriously th
78.
by ldarby 6y ago
Yes. You have reduced the amount of cash they have and increased the amount you have by the same amount. If that's not stealing I don't know what is. Trying to say that's not stealing is like trying to say "Someone ha
79.
by ldarby 6y ago
> Wouldn't that require redistribution? (sorry meant to reply to this earlier) No, copyright infringement doesn't require redistribution. In the UK if I buy a physical CD and rip it to a PC, purely for personal listening, that
80.
by ldarby 6y ago
It is copyright infringement (via the argument that ytdl facilitates and encourages others to commit the infringement), which happens to bypass ads. The rights holders have effectively said "you can watch this for free as long as we ge
81.
by ldarby 6y ago
> So it's only a problem if the video has a lot of views and ads? Pretty much, yes. No one is going to hire expensive lawyers to enforce copyright on something not generating revenue, although legally they can. > If that's
82.
by ldarby 6y ago
One of the tests in question extracts the m4a audio file of a Taylor Swift song [0] that has nearly 3 billion views and shows me 2 ads before playing. That's a lot of revenue for UMG, who I guess are a bit unhappy with this mechanism
83.
by ldarby 6y ago
> Or that the original upload itself be a violation? The original uploads are on the artists' channels and are monetised (i.e. when I accessed 2 out of 3 of them, an ad played, so I assume some of the cash the adverstisers paid Yout
84.
by ldarby 6y ago
> why is my browser not similarly circumventing this protection? Because your browser also runs the javascript that displays the ads (unless you've also blocked them, which I think could also be considered a "circumvention meas
85.
by ldarby 6y ago
That's quite a paranoid conspiracy theory you have there. The first mention of one of the urls (Icona Pop) in the git log is this: commit f7ab6cbe160afbba60537c7a830a4c65c6f0b3ea Author: Filippo Valsorda <filippo.valsorda [at] gmai
86.
by ldarby 6y ago
I can't find it now but I read a story, in I think in https://old.reddit.com/r/tifu , about a man and woman having sexy fun times. The woman's thighs were wrapped around the guy's head, she orgasmed, her
87.
by ldarby 6y ago
That's risking rupturing your ear drum.
88.
by ldarby 6y ago
I don't think you've understood my point. I agree that cosmetics testing on animals is cruel, but it does serve a purpose, it doesn't matter how fucking selfish that purpose is, my point is that purpose exists. What is the pu
89.
by ldarby 6y ago
Cosmetics are potentially harmful to humans, and that harm can be prevented by testing on animals first. Maybe there is some risk of this tinnitus treatment causing harm (could be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
90.
by ldarby 6y ago
Ok, TIL, I thought it was cronic depression. But still, I see no reason to risk causing actual cronic depression via repeated noise trauma.

More ›