Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
Hi, On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 04:59:53PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote: > Since the tree was taken down (and, to boot, of the 18 forks listed in the > takedown request, mine was explicitly listed), I fear that me uploading the > lastest tree to GitHub is asking for trouble. > > Given this situation, can I upload a backup of youtube-dl to salsa under my > user account? I already maintain the packaging of youtube-dl in a different > repository that is both on GitHub and on salsa. Should I take it down from > salsa? >From an individual point of view, I strongly support you uploading the tree to as many places as you feel like, and I consider it the Debian project's duty to defend that. The RIAA seems to be targeting the most vulnerable and leat likely to defend themselves, otherweise they would be targeting those who upload content violating copyright laws instead on free software maintainers. (Also, there is YouTube Premium which allows for downloading any video ypu like, so in the view of the RIAA, why is that acceptable?). IANAL but as a project member I strongly encourage you and the project defending your right to produce free software alternatives, given that commercial software doing the same thing seems to be ok! -nik
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
I though I saw something about it being reinstated but without the..
rolling encryption I think they called it.
Obviously you would want to confirm and qualify that but it might change
things.
- Craig
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, 07:18 Rogério Brito, wrote:
> Dear people,
>
> As many of you may know, the RIAA issued a resquest for GitHub to take down
> the youtube-dl repository.
>
> The tree had some fixes that were *not* in the latest release that I
> uploaded a few days ago (I am the maintainer of youtube-dl in Debian, just
> to make things clear).
>
> Since the tree was taken down (and, to boot, of the 18 forks listed in the
> takedown request, mine was explicitly listed), I fear that me uploading the
> lastest tree to GitHub is asking for trouble.
>
> Given this situation, can I upload a backup of youtube-dl to salsa under my
> user account? I already maintain the packaging of youtube-dl in a
> different
> repository that is both on GitHub and on salsa. Should I take it down from
> salsa?
>
> If these are not the appropriate mailing lists to send this to, please
> point
> me to better places. I was in a hurry and I decided to send this as soon as
> I found out places that seemed suitable.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help and support,
>
> Rogério Brito.
>
> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFC
> http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>
>
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
Rogério Brito writes: > Dear people, > > As many of you may know, the RIAA issued a resquest for GitHub to take down > the youtube-dl repository. IANAL so I may be confused, but AIUI that takedown is based on the notion that there is no legitimate use for youtube-dl, which is nonsense, as this comment clealy demonstrates: https://twitter.com/mindspillage/status/1319744290340286464 "youtube-dl is pretty much the only thing that makes use of CC licenses on YouTube meaningful at all, btw." That being the case, I'd think that: a) you should ensure that the repository on salsa is fully up to date with all available branches, as a service to the public, and people should be encouraged to clone that elsewhere for extra resilience. b) if the RIAA feels the need to repeat their claims, that we should then insist that they persuade a judge that their case has some merit before doing anything about it. We could presumably consult a lawyer, but the RIAA would need to be even more moronic than I think they are to have a go at us, given that nobody in the wider world has ever heard of us, and we're going to have no trouble raising funds to defend a case, and we're very clearly not making a cent out of publishing this stuff, so they're going to have fun trying to calculate the damages. Also, see the recent Gnome case[1] for how well these things can go when people who don't know the first thing about Free Software start trying to throw lawyers at the situation. Overall even if the law managed to be sufficiently deranged to result in us losing a case against the RIAA, the light that would shed on the situation seems likely to do more harm to them, and more good to us than not getting involved in the first place. The alternative world where we stop doing good things because of people like the RIAA seems much worse. Cheers, Phil. [1] https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/lessons-from-the-gnome-patent-troll-incident/ -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
On 2020, ഒക്ടോബർ 30 1:46:21 PM IST, Philip Hands wrote: >We could presumably consult a lawyer, but the RIAA would need to be even >more moronic than I think they are to have a go at us, given that nobody >in the wider world has ever heard of us, and we're going to have no >trouble raising funds to defend a case, and we're very clearly not >making a cent out of publishing this stuff, so they're going to have fun >trying to calculate the damages. Also, see the recent Gnome case[1] for >how well these things can go when people who don't know the first thing >about Free Software start trying to throw lawyers at the situation. > >Overall even if the law managed to be sufficiently deranged to result in >us losing a case against the RIAA, the light that would shed on the >situation seems likely to do more harm to them, and more good to us than >not getting involved in the first place. > >The alternative world where we stop doing good things because of people >like the RIAA seems much worse. Very well articulated. I agree. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
Le jeudi 29 octobre 2020 à 16:59:53-0300, Rogério Brito a écrit : > Dear people, > > As many of you may know, the RIAA issued a resquest for GitHub to take down > the youtube-dl repository. > > The tree had some fixes that were *not* in the latest release that I > uploaded a few days ago (I am the maintainer of youtube-dl in Debian, just > to make things clear). > > Since the tree was taken down (and, to boot, of the 18 forks listed in the > takedown request, mine was explicitly listed), I fear that me uploading the > lastest tree to GitHub is asking for trouble. > > Given this situation, can I upload a backup of youtube-dl to salsa under my > user account? I already maintain the packaging of youtube-dl in a different > repository that is both on GitHub and on salsa. Should I take it down from > salsa? > > If these are not the appropriate mailing lists to send this to, please point > me to better places. I was in a hurry and I decided to send this as soon as > I found out places that seemed suitable. > > > > Thanks for any help and support, I support your idea. I cc the DPL and Salsa Team out of principle to just make sure they are aware of your email. The DPL being the closest thing we have for a legal representative of Debian (if we were to get sued), and the Salsa team because they run salsa and they deserve at least to be notified. Cheers! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 04:59:53PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
> Dear people,
>
> As many of you may know, the RIAA issued a resquest for GitHub to take down
> the youtube-dl repository.
>
> The tree had some fixes that were *not* in the latest release that I
> uploaded a few days ago (I am the maintainer of youtube-dl in Debian, just
> to make things clear).
>
> Since the tree was taken down (and, to boot, of the 18 forks listed in the
> takedown request, mine was explicitly listed), I fear that me uploading the
> lastest tree to GitHub is asking for trouble.
>
> Given this situation, can I upload a backup of youtube-dl to salsa under my
> user account? I already maintain the packaging of youtube-dl in a different
> repository that is both on GitHub and on salsa. Should I take it down from
> salsa?
>
First things first, we need to have many copies of that and make it
available it all over the net.
Do you have a complete git repo that can be cloned?
> If these are not the appropriate mailing lists to send this to, please point
> me to better places. I was in a hurry and I decided to send this as soon as
> I found out places that seemed suitable.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help and support,
>
> Rogério Brito.
>
> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFC
> http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>
--
rsa4096: 3B10 0CA1 8674 ACBA B4FE FCD2 CE5B CF17 9960 DE13
ed25519: FFB4 0CC3 7F2E 091D F7DA 356E CC79 2832 ED38 CB05
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 09:16:21AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > IANAL so I may be confused, but AIUI that takedown is based on the > notion that there is no legitimate use for youtube-dl, which is > nonsense, as this comment clealy demonstrates: > > "youtube-dl is pretty much the only thing that makes use of CC >licenses on YouTube meaningful at all, btw." Obligatory: IANAL, and I am not a DM (although that's on my todo list). Phil, the takedown is based on it having unit tests with some videos that definitely aren't under a CC license. You ought to at least read the takedown notice itself before accusing its authors of being moronic. > we're very clearly not making a cent out of publishing this stuff, DSFG 1 (Free Distribution) and 6 (Fields of Endeavor), although the image that really comes to mind is that of Richard Stallman animatedly advocating the Four Freedoms. Steve
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
On 10/30/20 8:29 AM, Domenico Andreoli wrote: First things first, we need to have many copies of that and make it available it all over the net. Do you have a complete git repo that can be cloned? This one is still online at the time of writing: https://github.com/youtube-dl2/youtube-dl Kyle
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
El 30/10/20 a las 17:00, Kyle Edwards escribió: > On 10/30/20 8:29 AM, Domenico Andreoli wrote: >> First things first, we need to have many copies of that and make it >> available it all over the net. >> >> Do you have a complete git repo that can be cloned? > > This one is still online at the time of writing: > > https://github.com/youtube-dl2/youtube-dl > > Kyle > This one is apparently going to stay there until GitHub fixes an underlying problem[0]: https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/416da574ec0df3388f652e44f7fe71b1e3a4701f 0_ https://twitter.com/lrvick/status/1320246266270519297 Quote from @lrvick: > FYI all forks of a GitHub repo are stored together in the backend. If you > fork the "dmca" repo and push code to a new empty branch, it is accessible > from the original repo as well. Security problem, right? GitHub didn't think > so. > > Anyone can push DMCAed code to GitHub DMCA repo. -- - ina signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 09:16:21AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Rogério Brito writes: > > > Dear people, > > > > As many of you may know, the RIAA issued a resquest for GitHub to take down > > the youtube-dl repository. > > IANAL so I may be confused, but AIUI that takedown is based on the > notion that there is no legitimate use for youtube-dl, which is > nonsense, as this comment clealy demonstrates: Actually not, it is based on the DMCA (which requires takedowns upon being given notice), and on the fact that youtube-dl includes some crypto bypassing code. [...] > b) if the RIAA feels the need to repeat their claims, that we should > then insist that they persuade a judge that their case has some > merit before doing anything about it. If salsa is hosted at a location that is under the jurisdiction of the DMCA, then we would *have* to do anything about it before going to a judge. That's how that (crappy) law works. I'd rather we wait until the youtube-dl developers resolve the situation, as it seems they are likely to do. The "nice" thing about youtube in this context is that it treats content differently based on the licenses that applies to the content; if youtube-dl is only able to download videos whose licenses explicitly allows downloading (and it is possible to do this), then youtube-dl can be reinstated with no issues. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?
Wouter Verhelst writes: > If salsa is hosted at a location that is under the jurisdiction of the > DMCA, then we would *have* to do anything about it before going to a > judge. That's how that (crappy) law works. You can force them to be the ones who file suit. They file a DMCA notice with the hoster, who takes the item down and notifies you. This places the hoster in the "safe harbor". You can then file a counter-notice asserting that the item does not infringe and they can then put it back up and remain in the safe harbor. The complainant then has 30 days to file suit against you (not the hoster) and get her to issue an order to the hoster to take the item down. If they fail to file suit within 30 days they are SOL. Of course, you do have to be prepared to defend if they do file suit and pay damages if you lose, but that would be the case in the absence of the DMCA safe harbor provision except that the hoster would be on the hook as well. You and the hoster would learn about the suit when the summons arrived. With the DMCA safe harbor provision the hoster is held harmless as long as they follow the rules, and there is a well-defined notice procedure which the complainant must follow. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
+1 (Re: Hosting the original youtube-dl sources on salsa?)
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 02:21:30PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On 2020, ഒക്ടോബർ 30 1:46:21 PM IST, Philip Hands wrote: > >We could presumably consult a lawyer, but the RIAA would need to be even > >more moronic than I think they are to have a go at us, given that nobody > >in the wider world has ever heard of us, and we're going to have no > >trouble raising funds to defend a case, and we're very clearly not > >making a cent out of publishing this stuff, so they're going to have fun > >trying to calculate the damages. Also, see the recent Gnome case[1] for > >how well these things can go when people who don't know the first thing > >about Free Software start trying to throw lawyers at the situation. > > > >Overall even if the law managed to be sufficiently deranged to result in > >us losing a case against the RIAA, the light that would shed on the > >situation seems likely to do more harm to them, and more good to us than > >not getting involved in the first place. > > > >The alternative world where we stop doing good things because of people > >like the RIAA seems much worse. > Very well articulated. I agree. indeed! Thanks, Phil. And many thanks to Rogério too! -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money... It is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few... You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes... (Greta Thunberg) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
