ldarby

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.

Upstream was contacted about it: https://marc.info/?t=114651088900003&r=1&w=2

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.

Youtube-dlc was discussed here before all this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450560

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.

> to which you haven't responded.

Where? I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881656

I can only repeat what's there.

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". Then I had to explain what a thief is, and why they really have Y dollars in their account that should have been in producers account. In my other comment the thief is a separate party from the content consumers (so actually there are 6 parties, content consumers is split into those who watch ads and those who download without re-uploading).

> your completely wrong assertion

Oops, apologies Reelin I wasn't paying attention to who said what, that was feanaro who was wrong.

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 here. They expect to have X dollars in their account, instead they have X-Y dollars and there's Y dollars in thief's account, because of the actions of the thief, not because of any decision they made.

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 blocking illegal in future with a new law following on from Article 13." I could have said something more vague like "not hard to predict it given the direction the world is headed at the moment" to make the same point.

It doesn't, and I never said it does. You asked for an explanation of how ad revenue theft happens, and I gave that.

You are just wrong. Please go learn about copyright. Then you might understand why this takedown happened.

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.

> 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, in the US or anywhere with copyright laws.

If you did pay for it, then yes you can argue it's a permitted copy (just not in the UK, which has stricter copyright laws).

(this is mostly a copy paste of this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882280).

> 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 anywhere with copyright laws.

If you did pay for it, then yes you can argue it's a permitted copy (just not in the UK).

> 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 consumers
    · Thief

In your comment you're Content producer. The advertiser pays the platform who pays the content producer, and the amount they get is based on the number of views (there are other factors, but I think views is the main one). Let's say they're getting X views per day. Then the theif takes the content and uploads it to their own account with ads enabled, and gets Y views per day, and gets paid for that. No one is going to watch the content on the producer's channel a 2nd time just to make up their view stats, so now the producer is only getting X-Y views per day and hence is paid less.

This is the reason Youtube's Content-ID exists.

> 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 than distribution. It's the same difference between drug dealers and drug users.

>> It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year.

> This is wrong. Article 13 regulates content hosts (in this case, Youtube), not end users. Hence, Article 13 has no bearing on ad-blocking software.

No, I did not say anything at all about Article 13. Please re-read what I said.

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 hacked into to my bank account and "obtained" my money" is not stealing either just because there was no physical cash involved.

> 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's still infringement (there have been attempts to change the law but they failed: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/quashing-of-private-copyi...)

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 get the ad revenue". Theoretically, if there was some way of preserving that ad revenue while committing that infringement, I would assume they wouldn't care about the infringement. They're just using the infringement as a tool to preserve the ad revenue.

What you're worried about is the converse, if there is a way to avoid infringing on copywrite while bypassing ads (which there is, ad-blocking), then there's no infringement to use as a tool, then they're going to want to make ad-blocking illegal. It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year.

> 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 the case, we should ban all Pi-holes, too

If Pi-hole is anywhere saying or implying "use us to watch $vendor's content without watching their ads" then yes pi-hole is waving a red flag at $vendor who is now motivated to try to ban pi-holes. If there is a legal action they can afford to take they will.

> What if I have YouTube Premium, then I don't see ads, so am I allowed to download via youtube-dl?

No, downloading is a separate "right" from the right to watching without ads. (Downloading is the first step before uploading elsewhere and literally stealing the ad revenue.) But I think there's a legal grey area if you're watching (streaming) with youtube-dl, without saving the file. I'm sure it's against Youtube's TOS though.

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 that youtube-dl provides of listening to it without having to watch the ads.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWlot6h_JM

> 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 Youtube somehow wound up at the relevant copyright owners).

> 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 measure", IANAL).

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] gmail.com> Date: Tue Jun 25 14:38:00 2013 +0200

    add tests for use_cipher_signature videos (#897) and the ability to test multiple videos per IE

diff --git a/test/test_download.py b/test/test_download.py index 9af626dca..067bde4bb 100644 --- a/test/test_download.py +++ b/test/test_download.py @@ -153,9 +153,11 @@ def generator(test_case): return test_template

### And add them to TestDownload -for test_case in defs: +for n, test_case in enumerate(defs): test_method = generator(test_case) test_method.__name__ = "test_{0}".format(test_case["name"]) + if getattr(TestDownload, test_method.__name__, False): + test_method.__name__ = "test_{0}_{1}".format(test_case["name"], n) setattr(TestDownload, test_method.__name__, test_method) del test_method

diff --git a/test/tests.json b/test/tests.json index fd037d818..f6a70f153 100644 --- a/test/tests.json +++ b/test/tests.json @@ -11,6 +11,32 @@ "description": "test chars: \"'/\\ä�<86>��<9D><95><90>\n\nThis is a test video for youtube-dl.\n\nFor more information, contact phihag@phihag.de ." } }, + { + "name": "Youtube", + "url": "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ltcDfZMA3U", + "file": "1ltcDfZMA3U.flv", + "note": "Test VEVO video (#897)", + "info_dict": { + "upload_date": "20070518", + "title": "Maps - It Will Find You", + "description": "Music video by Maps performing It Will Find You.", + "uploader": "MuteUSA", + "uploader_id": "MuteUSA" + } + }, + { + "name": "Youtube", + "url": "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxxajLWwzqY", + "file": "UxxajLWwzqY.mp4", + "note": "Test generic use_cipher_signature video (#897)", + "info_dict": { + "upload_date": "20120506", + "title": "Icona Pop - I Love It (feat. Charli XCX) [OFFICIAL VIDEO]", + "description": "md5:b085c9804f5ab69f4adea963a2dceb3c", + "uploader": "IconaPop", + "uploader_id": "IconaPop" + } + }, { "name": "Dailymotion", "md5": "392c4b85a60a90dc4792da41ce3144eb",

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 legs spamsed, and because of the sweat her thighs formed a vacuum seal on both his ears and ruptured one or both of them.

There are plenty of other stories about ruptured ear drums though: https://old.reddit.com/r/tifu/search?q=eardrum&restrict_sr=o....

That's risking rupturing your ear drum.

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 purpose of inflicting tinnitus on animals?

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/Havana_syndrome), and animal testing would avoid that. But it's not necessary to inflict extra suffering to show that. Maybe they had to show the combination of the treatment with tinnitus doesn't cause harm but I doubt that.

There's also an argument where a disease is rare and inflicting animals with it to allows for efficacy testing, but tinnitus isn't rare, plenty of human volunteers are available. (I mean, half the people in this thread have already "volunteered" to perform testing of possible treatments on themselves, myself included).

Lastly as others have pointed out there are many causes of tinnitus. The researchers only inflicted one kind of it (I'd assume it's the same kind that everyone hears after hearing loud noises, since these guinea pigs were presumably otherwise healthy), it's possible this treatment only works on that kind and is a waste of time for everyone else.

Ok, TIL, I thought it was cronic depression. But still, I see no reason to risk causing actual cronic depression via repeated noise trauma.