Hacker News Reader

Comment by nocturnial | Hacker News Reader

> The problem is that the project may not survive this.

I thought all they need to do is to issue a counter-notice. Popcorn did this and got their code reinstated on github: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24885079

In the worst case, they need to adjust their tests. This is what the issuer of the complaint brought up. Their tests of the code downloaded a couple of seconds of what the RIAA thought is copyrighted material. If I'm not mistaken, this is what they are basing their case on.

If youtube-dl removes those explicit urls from their test cases, I don't think they have a case. You could argue fair use, but remember it's only a test case in that program. The authors could just as easily reprogram the test cases to accept any url a user wants to test.

Anyways, consult lawyers, perhaps change the test code and issue a counter notice and move on.

View on HN

It's not a traditional DMCA copyright take down, but a take down that's enforced under a different section of the DMCA. I believe that in this case, there is no avenue for issuing a counter notice, but I'm not a lawyer and I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Github files this notice under their dmca notices[0]. Maybe it's not a legal dmca notice, but I would assume if github files it as such, then the internal rules of github would apply. This includes a counter-notice.

If it's not a dmca takedown and those rules don't apply then I would assume github would need to explain why they filed it as such. (It's probably the RIAAs "fault", but "we" have only direct contact with github so we need to go through them)

[0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2...

The allegedly relevant sections of the DMCA do not contain any forced takedown measures except under court order. So I agree it doesn't seem to be a traditional takedown order, there doesn't seem to be any other reason they took it down.

They should remove the tests and the circumvent features from youtube-dl, then someone else should created a fork that is kept in sync with youtube-dl and with, for only difference, those tests and circumvent features.

That way only the fork get periodically DMCA'd, which will be way easier to recover from : just create another fork with the tests

I wonder if it could just be done as a plugin system. Developers should start taking note of this kind of stuff and anything that might ruffle the feathers of big media should go into plugins.

Do the digital equivalent of the way rich people use holding companies and shell companies. Put all the high risk stuff into the smallest independent repo possible and abandon it at the first sign of trouble. Use an MIT license so anyone can fork it and continue development if you have to abandon it.

It probably wouldn't even take a ton of money to set up a matching corporate structure so you could control everything. Put all the risk into a subsidiary that doesn't make any money (or makes very little). Drag out DMCA complaints until they sue you and then bankrupt the asset-less company. Rinse and repeat.

If you want to get super ballsy, sell the plugins that infringe, but siphon all the money out of the subsidiary with trademark licensing. That way you can license the same trademark to the next company to maintain the brand. Bonus points if you put the holding company in a tax haven.

IANAL. That's probably a really bad idea. Don't do it.

Part of the problem is that even if the code gets reinstated, the RIAA may just pressure Google into changing its method of protection. Then perhaps a new tool could be created, but not very easily if the RIAA succeeds in establishing a precedent for taking down tools that have the potential to infringe.

YouTube is increasingly only a few pain points from mass exodus from both creators and audience. Advertisers and copyright maximalists less so.

Bandwidth and distribution are no longer the limitations on independent hosting they once were. Independent discovery methods (e.g., DDG video search), are improving. Noncommercial orientation makes youtube-dl and similar mechanisms a net positive --- simplify the web-based delivery, increase viewer flexibility, provide greater tolerance for network or system variability.

My own interest in YouTube has very little to do with commercial mass media, and far less to do with ad-seeking chum-spewing bottom-feeders.

I love that youtube for me works everywhere: on my iPad, Samsung phone and my smart TV, laptop, the offline viewing mode is better than in any other application. None of these are hard to replicate, but it's still a lot of work (and some of the devices that I mentioned are walled gardens).

A plethora of video players support playing from a network source. You can watch youtube via VLC! The technology is not a problem, the network is.

Youtube works poorly on my Android tablet, my aging Linux desktop, and even on a recent iMac, the flexibility of mpv, mps-youtube, or VLC is often preferable.

More options are more options, surprisingly enough.

>YouTube is increasingly only a few pain points from mass exodus from both creators and audience.

I hate to burst your bubble but that's not even close to be a realistic possibility. Wish it was but it's just not.

Go ask Twitch users.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com