Follow

Looks like is back on :
github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl

Here's the interesting part though:
github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl

Was this all actually wanted? If so, why not just talk to the devs and/or create an issue?

Or perhaps they thought they could get youtube-dl completely banned, and when backlash hit them (and MSGH), they settled on this as a pretext?

Either way, they're simply malicious.

@rysiek in the meantime, YouTube started using EME on some VEVO videos. I'm surprised they don't yet use it on those, but simply put:
They found another way. youtube-dl is not a threat anymore.

@rysiek wait wtf I'm not seeing EME anymore... did they back down?

@rysiek

> Was this all #RIAA actually wanted? If so, why not just talk to the devs and/or create an issue?

Hanlon's razor: maybe that's how RIAA communicates with other entities? Who needs requests over email when you can do lawsuits^Wnotice over Github?

I can imagine this being their standard protocol for asking anyone for anything – throwing their entire seriousness behind it so that everyone understands they mean business.

Either way, fuck'em though.

@tadzik well if that's the case (and it does make some sense), then:
a). it still doesn't make it okay;
b). fsck even more since they should have mediated this in a sane way.

@rysiek not a serious suggestion: would running the test suite have generated monetisable "views" for the videos now removed?

@kensanata Wouldn't surprise as YT is squeezing every dime these days. I've started getting obscurely suggestive ads on mobile and some even alt-righty "skepticism". They also seem to noticed the trick to pause just before the end to skip ads & put one right there.

@rysiek Prolly the latter. No, in fact, the latter beyond reasonable doubt. Even copyright trolls can't be so detached as to DMCA for getting a couple lines removed and make themselves laughing and hate stock in the mean time.

@kensanata @rysiek BTW wonder if it'd be legally safe to add code to tests which just applies the reverse of this patch and runs these tests as such.

B/c if this patch counts as "removal", that means whatever terms they came to does not require deletion of past commits that introduced this, and if this patch is available, it should be able to just reverse it and apply it in CI, right? Nothing's being distributed.

@rysiek I’m among those who went absolutely ape about youtube-dl getting removed and… this is a super reasonable patch!!! I kinda didn’t even know those examples were in there.

Or perhaps they thought they could get youtube-dl completely banned, and when backlash hit them (and MSGH), they settled on this as a pretext?

Not unpossible, but…
They literally named Icona Pop in the original take down.

@rysiek That was explicitly mentioned in the takedown. It's probably that the RIAA was using it as leverage. I doubt the RIAA got what they wanted in the event

@rysiek I strongly suspect the latter: They wanted youtube-dl to be completely banned.

That fits with their ideology and recent actions prior to filing the takedown.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!