GitHub has removed the ability to access youtube-dl's source code due to a DMCA request by the RIAA
... The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. We note that the source code is described on GitHub as “a command-line program to download videos from YouTube.com and a few more sites.” ...
Micah F. Lee (EFF/The Intercept @micahflee https://nitter.net/micahflee/status/1319746131723628544?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
"RIAA blitz takes down 18 GitHub projects used for downloading YouTube videos"
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911
Censorship, propaganda, surveillance, and targeted manipulation are inherent characteristics of monopoly: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/7bfcf170eefc013863fa002590d8e506
RMS, "The Right to Read" (1997): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
Remember that the RIAA is a bad-publicity-deflection cartel of its major members. These are:
You're right, but anyone who expected anything but a reflexive takedown for a copyright request from a big corp hasn't been paying attention.
It's infinitely more convenient for these hosting corps to keel over to the first legal notice over third party content, and I think you'd gain more insight into behaviours looking at when they don't roll over vs when they do.
@polyphonic @dredmorbius there’s a way that DMCA works. the first notice, the site *has* to take the content down, regardless of its merits. then the content owner can dispute the notice as illegitimate, which in this case, it is since the code contains no copyrighted materials, and circumvention tools aren’t covered by the DMCA.
@zens Incorrect. Safe-harbour provisions (512), which do not apply in this action (1201), would be lost in the specific action.
Q: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?
A: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.
It still seems to me github has nothing to gain by resisting, whether it's a technically legal stance they can take or not.
Microsoft does not benefit from taking a stand here. Companies only care about ethics when it helps them. This is exactly what anyone looking at history should expect.
@polyphonic Microsoft claim to have staked their future on Free Software.
How believable this is can be argued, of course.
The company paid $7.4 billion for GitHub in 2018, a $5.4 billion premium over the service's 2015 valuation.
On the internet, everyone knows you're a cat — and that's totally okay.