Great. I posted two forks, if GitHub takes action then I've got standing to sue RIAA (under the declaratory judgement act), which I'd love to do pro se.
Btw, if anyone is associated with any fork that did go down and is interested in bringing a pro se case, feel free to contact me. I'm not a lawyer and can't give legal advice but I can help point you at some helpful laws and cases. I've been fighting false infringement claims in court for over a year on other issues. Also take a look at the complaint in https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-sued-by-youtube-ripping-site-o..., although it has some issues I noted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24902619.
Why would you have a stand to sue RIAA if GitHub would have blocked your account? I think you may only have a claim against GH, but I have not read T&C well enough, but I can imagine they would have an entry enabling them to block anyone for any reason. I don't think you could do anything about it.
RIAA did not allege infringement. They alleged a violation of section 1201, e.g., publishing or otherwise trafficking in copyright protection circumvention technology. No copyright infringement is required to violate DMCA 1201(a)(2):
17 U.S.C. 1201 Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
It's not illegal to create copyright protection circumvention technology and in some circumstances it may be legal to use it. However, 1201 says it's illegal to offer it to the public or otherwise traffic in it.
>"People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, "
>"Time for a decentralized version control system?"
>"The nice thing about fossil"
... those well-meaning suggestions are missing the true difficulty: The community wants a (1) Schelling Point[0] for workflow/issues/discussions/PRs that's also (2) censorship resistant. So far, (1) and (2) contradict each other's goals.
Nobody has come up with a technology solution that satisfies both goals. Yes, Fossil has has discussions built into the repo, but fossil is not a Schelling Point. Yes, one can run Gitlab on a self-hosted Raspberry Pi from a home internet connection but that's also not a stable Schelling Point because ISP like Comcast can shut that IP down for DMCA violation.[1] And SMTP mailing lists also ultimately depend on a server that holds the discussion archive and a well-known address for new users to send a "add my email" request. Thus, the existence of a well-known server becomes a specific target for RIAA/DMCA takedown.
As for other "uncensorable" technology ideas such as IPFS, Freenet, blockchain, etc. I haven't seen any proof-of-concept from other projects that demonstrates similar easy-to-use collaboration of Github. Remember, it's not about the raw git repo... it's about the Focal Point for the collaboration workflow.
> And SMTP mailing lists also ultimately depend on a server that holds the discussion archive and a well-known address for new users to send a "add my email" request.
This is not entirely correct. The fault lies in the assumed importance of the list.
When I send a kernel patch, I send it to the maintainer, then CC anyone I myself think should be involved, and finally CC the relevant lists (plural). The list acts as feed for lurkers, and as an archive.
The mailing list server being down will not affect this workflow in the slightest. It's a minor inconvenience at best, and mostly to those that were not part of the development flow and just wanted to lurk.
How about a copy of GitLab hosted as a Tor hidden service? (The core problem there being that someone has to be willing to host it, of course, as this isn't truly a decentralized approach to the problem, and so maybe one day gets outed and something seriously bad happens to them... but, practically?)
The hosting for the server is irrelevant if it is relatively stable (does not get compromised every few days) and you have alternatives to move to if it gets taken down.
The true single point of failure is the domain name, but sites like sci-hub seem to be able to manage that rather easily too. The domain name sometimes has to change but people still seem to be able to find it easily.
> Yes, one can run Gitlab on a self-hosted Raspberry Pi from a home internet connection but that's also not a stable Schelling Point because ISP like Comcast can shut that IP down for DMCA violation
Agreed, however this is where something like a Tor hidden service can help out, assuming something as innocuous as YTDL doesn't draw the ire of three letter agencies, which is very possible given that the FBI investigates copyright infringement.
I think some people are missing a major point about youtube-dl's takedown. The purpose of this DMCA claim wasn't just to prevent people from downloading videos, it was to set a legal precedent for the RIAA and similar organizations to troll Github and anyone hosting public repositories with it, by linking them to "illegal downloads".
By agreeing to this without any public opposition, Github has become similar to Youtube itself, in that it will be expected to immediately comply with à la carte takedown requests by RIAA and other copyright trolls from now on. It doesn't matter that the actual reason to take down your large repository is political or it simply bothers certain company for miscellaneous reasons, since all it takes is some "illegal content".
GitHub is already expected to comply with DMCA takedowns just like they have to comply with counter notifications. That's how they maintain a safe harbor, though the latter is a bit harder to truly enforce (see the recent Twitch kerfuffle).
People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, where people are not criminalized when downloading content and making copies for personal use (even when copy protected).
I hate to break it to you but distribution of tools related to bypassing DRM/technical protection measures (which is what the RIAA takedown letter actually cited) is illegal in Switzerland and has been since 2006.
This is an area where GitLab could have a huge advantage. If they had really good support for mirroring projects between instances then running your own private instance for control while mirroring to GitLab.com for scale / convenience would make a lot of sense.
Of course I’m sure that would go into the super mega platinum “we’re only charging 1/5 of the real value” BS tier or whatever they’re pushing these days.
I don't know if it is ironic, but the vcs is decentralized. The main issue is project & code management (bug tracking, issue, planning, merge request, review UI, ...). But here we also have a lot of solution : Gitlab, Redmine, Savana, ... But Github give your project exposure to a lot of potential contributor, and tend to be used as an extension of your CV (many recruiter contacted me because of my activities on GH ...). Lets be honest, the social network side of GH is one of its very important side.
with fossil you can use the built-in http server to quickly clone a repo, then just do `fossil server` to run a new host. Easy to decentralize the interface as well as the code.
Better to refer to them as 'code forges', the central locations where clone your git repo from, and that have additional features such as issue tracker, team boards, and what-have-you..
> decentralized
The code forges themselves (github, gitlab, gitea, sourcehut, vervis, etc.) are not decentralized, but the open ForgeFed protocol, under development at https://forgefed.peers.community (an extension of ActivityPub), facilitates decentralization of forges.
---
TL;DR Talking about decentralizing GH / VCS always leads to (correct) reactions such as 'git is already decentralized'. Code forge interactions need to become decentralized too.
The nice thing about fossil is that you could have the website / documentation as part of the repository, then simply clone the repository and run `fossil server` over and over to decentralize the entire network with the built-in http server. Some kind of solution that makes it _easy_ for people to decentralize makes it more likely that it will be decentralized when needed.
The actual DMCA takedown was just an excuse. I'm sure Microsoft's top brass would love to give the gift of killing youtube-dl to their friends at Google. Sort of a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours". Maybe YouTube will stop begging users to switch from Edge to Chrome.
I'm fine with this. It reminds everyone that Github is a potentially malicious layer-on-top of git that can bite you, even if they seem to be on your side.
Sure, slap a clone on GH for a bit of extra traffic - but keep your main activities somewhere under your control.
I kind of worried that some of the value of GitHub's data is derived from knowing which developers browsed/pulled/forked/contributed to different projects, and whether or not they or their employers could be sued for breaking licenses, infringing copyright or patents, etc.
For example, Microsoft might want to know which of their former developers contributed to say WINE or ReactOS. A patent troll might want to know who pulled code that allegedly infringes their patents, so they can audit and sue their employers. The RIAA might want to know which businesses use YTDL, even if they're using it under fair use, and so on.
Is it not the right time to decentralise those type of services? I think it is. Isn't this site owned by Microsoft? So if it is, this is normal big corporation behaviour. They embrace open-source community to gain advantage. Is there a way to host code without being dependent on big corporation? I am really interested in the answer of this question. Public programming code must be treated like public utility. For example like water, it must be ensured that water is drinkable and properly managed, but in public domain. Is anyone remember Nestle attempt to privatise water? (https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/news-opinion/nestle-b...).
Github is not the only player, and there are plenty of other options. Git itself is decentralized, so that's half the issue solved. Gitlab, Gerrit, and a bevvy of other web front ends for git exist, some open source, some closed.
Github is still the biggest, but Gitlab is probably a close second.
>They embrace open-source community to gain advantage. Is there a way to host code without being dependent on big corporation?
No. This is you and others being completely oblivious to law. DMCA is US law AND the US has trade agreements with other countries to similarly enforce US IP law.
It does not matter if it's Microsoft or a small startup. Either they comply with DMCA or the RIAA (and others) can sue for millions in damages.
Take issue with the law and push your elected officials to change them.
Linus gave us git to get rid of centralized repos and we web devs invented github to centralize it all.
Sometimes I feel we web devs behave worse than fashion industry when it comes to blindly following random trends, making it all religious instead of logical and messing up all innovation
Why would some brunching lawyer know what yt-dl even was unless someone who hired them was making a political play against it?
Given youtube-dl is not copyrighted material the RIAA would have in its mandate, that it replicates functionality that every browser already has, and GitHub is a property of MSFT - this is basically a legal harassment play that implies we're going to need more than decentralized repositories. I'm thinking something like Kali Linux but one that tags certain code repositories as politically exposed and then mirrors them into a distribution via torrents.
The original DMCA request stated that they violated copyright by suggesting songs in their source code. While this is a dubious copyright claim, surely the easy solution is to uphold the claim by simply replacing the songs with open source items such as big buck bunny in the source?
[+] [-] ikeboy|5 years ago|reply
Btw, if anyone is associated with any fork that did go down and is interested in bringing a pro se case, feel free to contact me. I'm not a lawyer and can't give legal advice but I can help point you at some helpful laws and cases. I've been fighting false infringement claims in court for over a year on other issues. Also take a look at the complaint in https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-sued-by-youtube-ripping-site-o..., although it has some issues I noted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24902619.
[+] [-] mmastrac|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] varispeed|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|5 years ago|reply
17 U.S.C. 1201 Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
It's not illegal to create copyright protection circumvention technology and in some circumstances it may be legal to use it. However, 1201 says it's illegal to offer it to the public or otherwise traffic in it.
[+] [-] m463|5 years ago|reply
However, if you posted a fork which functioned like youtube-dl without mentioning an riaa protected copyrighted work that might be more meaningful.
Instead show how you could download your own video, or a video under CC0 or similar.
[+] [-] mam2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasode|5 years ago|reply
>"People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, "
>"Time for a decentralized version control system?"
>"The nice thing about fossil"
... those well-meaning suggestions are missing the true difficulty: The community wants a (1) Schelling Point[0] for workflow/issues/discussions/PRs that's also (2) censorship resistant. So far, (1) and (2) contradict each other's goals.
Nobody has come up with a technology solution that satisfies both goals. Yes, Fossil has has discussions built into the repo, but fossil is not a Schelling Point. Yes, one can run Gitlab on a self-hosted Raspberry Pi from a home internet connection but that's also not a stable Schelling Point because ISP like Comcast can shut that IP down for DMCA violation.[1] And SMTP mailing lists also ultimately depend on a server that holds the discussion archive and a well-known address for new users to send a "add my email" request. Thus, the existence of a well-known server becomes a specific target for RIAA/DMCA takedown.
As for other "uncensorable" technology ideas such as IPFS, Freenet, blockchain, etc. I haven't seen any proof-of-concept from other projects that demonstrates similar easy-to-use collaboration of Github. Remember, it's not about the raw git repo... it's about the Focal Point for the collaboration workflow.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)
[1] https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-dmca-compli...
[+] [-] AlexandrB|5 years ago|reply
I have to laugh at this one. Git is a decentralized VCS, that was effectively re-centralized (via Github) for the sake of convenience.
[+] [-] arghwhat|5 years ago|reply
This is not entirely correct. The fault lies in the assumed importance of the list.
When I send a kernel patch, I send it to the maintainer, then CC anyone I myself think should be involved, and finally CC the relevant lists (plural). The list acts as feed for lurkers, and as an archive.
The mailing list server being down will not affect this workflow in the slightest. It's a minor inconvenience at best, and mostly to those that were not part of the development flow and just wanted to lurk.
[+] [-] saurik|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feanaro|5 years ago|reply
The true single point of failure is the domain name, but sites like sci-hub seem to be able to manage that rather easily too. The domain name sometimes has to change but people still seem to be able to find it easily.
[+] [-] heavyset_go|5 years ago|reply
Agreed, however this is where something like a Tor hidden service can help out, assuming something as innocuous as YTDL doesn't draw the ire of three letter agencies, which is very possible given that the FBI investigates copyright infringement.
[+] [-] mkl95|5 years ago|reply
By agreeing to this without any public opposition, Github has become similar to Youtube itself, in that it will be expected to immediately comply with à la carte takedown requests by RIAA and other copyright trolls from now on. It doesn't matter that the actual reason to take down your large repository is political or it simply bothers certain company for miscellaneous reasons, since all it takes is some "illegal content".
[+] [-] th3l3mons|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reflectiv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delfinom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrtksn|5 years ago|reply
Tech solutions that are not aligned with the policy only work until lawyers and politicians catch up.
[+] [-] Rochus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mindwipe|5 years ago|reply
Indeed, you can be sent to prison for it with a maximum tariff of a year in prison. https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920251/...
[+] [-] m-p-3|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cliffwarden|5 years ago|reply
Here are some creative options
- https://yro.slashdot.org/story/01/02/25/1631259/the-decss-ha... - https://news.slashdot.org/story/00/09/10/2225214/decss-sourc... - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2098470
[+] [-] timdaub|5 years ago|reply
https://github.com/TimDaub/youtube-dl
[+] [-] sivakon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crtasm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] levitate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazypython|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donmcronald|5 years ago|reply
Of course I’m sure that would go into the super mega platinum “we’re only charging 1/5 of the real value” BS tier or whatever they’re pushing these days.
[+] [-] amelius|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donmcronald|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maeln|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 26702670|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eloisius|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brobdingnagians|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rapnie|5 years ago|reply
Better to refer to them as 'code forges', the central locations where clone your git repo from, and that have additional features such as issue tracker, team boards, and what-have-you..
> decentralized
The code forges themselves (github, gitlab, gitea, sourcehut, vervis, etc.) are not decentralized, but the open ForgeFed protocol, under development at https://forgefed.peers.community (an extension of ActivityPub), facilitates decentralization of forges.
---
TL;DR Talking about decentralizing GH / VCS always leads to (correct) reactions such as 'git is already decentralized'. Code forge interactions need to become decentralized too.
[+] [-] oever|5 years ago|reply
https://forgefed.peers.community/
[+] [-] brobdingnagians|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dusted|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phendrenad2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chris2048|5 years ago|reply
Sure, slap a clone on GH for a bit of extra traffic - but keep your main activities somewhere under your control.
[+] [-] heavyset_go|5 years ago|reply
For example, Microsoft might want to know which of their former developers contributed to say WINE or ReactOS. A patent troll might want to know who pulled code that allegedly infringes their patents, so they can audit and sue their employers. The RIAA might want to know which businesses use YTDL, even if they're using it under fair use, and so on.
[+] [-] nbzso|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fooqux|5 years ago|reply
Github is still the biggest, but Gitlab is probably a close second.
[+] [-] BlueTemplar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delfinom|5 years ago|reply
No. This is you and others being completely oblivious to law. DMCA is US law AND the US has trade agreements with other countries to similarly enforce US IP law.
It does not matter if it's Microsoft or a small startup. Either they comply with DMCA or the RIAA (and others) can sue for millions in damages.
Take issue with the law and push your elected officials to change them.
[+] [-] piyushpr134|5 years ago|reply
Sometimes I feel we web devs behave worse than fashion industry when it comes to blindly following random trends, making it all religious instead of logical and messing up all innovation
[+] [-] motohagiography|5 years ago|reply
Given youtube-dl is not copyrighted material the RIAA would have in its mandate, that it replicates functionality that every browser already has, and GitHub is a property of MSFT - this is basically a legal harassment play that implies we're going to need more than decentralized repositories. I'm thinking something like Kali Linux but one that tags certain code repositories as politically exposed and then mirrors them into a distribution via torrents.
[+] [-] pippy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squarefoot|5 years ago|reply
(ps. I don't have a GH account)
[+] [-] Minor49er|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vaccinator|5 years ago|reply