Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Youtube Your Rights Online

Software Freedom Conservancy: Microsoft Should Resign from RIAA Over Youtube-DL Takedown Demand (sfconservancy.org) 48

Posted by EditorDavid from the which-side-are-you-on dept.
"We believe that youtube-dl has substantial non-infringing uses," argues the non-profit Software Freedom Conservancy. But while that software faces a DMCA takedown notice from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), GitHub's owner Microsoft is also a paying member of the RIAA.

The Software Freedom Conservancy argues that this leaves Microsoft "stuck between their industry association's abuses of the law and the needs of FOSS projects for which they provide infrastructure." While under current law (which we object to), complying with the takedown notice is admittedly the fastest way to limit Microsoft's liability, we view Microsoft's membership in the RIAA as a much bigger liability to our community, now that Microsoft controls GitHub. We call on Microsoft to resign from the RIAA and remove their conflict of interest in this matter.

This is an important opportunity for Microsoft to stand up for the values of software freedom...

To build a strong community of FOSS developers, we need confidence that our software hosting platforms will fight for our rights. While we'd prefer that Microsoft would simply refuse to kowtow to institutions like the RIAA and reject their DMCA requests, we believe in the alternative Microsoft can take the easy first step of resigning from RIAA in protest. We similarly call on all RIAA members who value FOSS to also resign.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Software Freedom Conservancy: Microsoft Should Resign from RIAA Over Youtube-DL Takedown Demand More

Software Freedom Conservancy: Microsoft Should Resign from RIAA Over Youtube-DL Takedown Demand

Comments Filter:

  • Microsoft's not gonna shit where they eat.

    • Why is Microsoft even part of the RIAA?? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Since when does Microsoft record songs? Why are they even a member of the RIAA? Did Microsoft join the RIAA just because Microsoft loves lawyers and wishes to promote thuggery?

      Time to cancel Microsoft.

      • Since when does Microsoft record songs?

        They don't. They sell and stream them.

      • Why is Microsoft a member of the RIAA? Codecs. Media file formats. The chance to influence them as well as implementing them.

        As for github, what did you expect? Even if it were a different owner, github would have removed the software until the legal question is cleared up. This is no different than Linux distros removing encumbered codecs from distros in jurisdictions where patents don't allow for free distribution without a license.

        Call it githubris

        As for the Software Freedom Conservancy, who care

  • Microsoft won't help OSS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 1s44c ( 552956 ) on Saturday October 31, 2020 @11:53AM (#60669176)

    "This is an important opportunity for Microsoft to stand up for the values of software freedom..."

    Why is this software freedom conservancy group expecting Microsoft to act against their fundamental nature? Are they idiots?

    • Re: Microsoft won't help OSS (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lumvn ( 1000600 ) on Saturday October 31, 2020 @12:16PM (#60669234)
      There was concern over their acquisition of github as to whether they could be a steward of FOSS projects. I felt they tried to reassure the community that they would be. This is their first test, in my limited experience. I like this article [1] that shows that there are substantial fair use for youtube-dl. The law [2] makes tools that circumvent illegal only if there isn't substantial fair use or if they are marketted as a tool for the illegal circumvention. It seems to me that the old ownership would have fought this. [1] https://law.stackexchange.com/... [stackexchange.com] [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]

  • What were you expecting? (Score:5, Informative)

    by OneHundredAndTen ( 1523865 ) on Saturday October 31, 2020 @12:33PM (#60669280)
    Once MS took control of github it was a foregone conclusion that github had become beholden to MS's interests. Host your free software in github, and shut the f**k up when such things happen.

    • github had become beholden to MS's interests

      Maybe so, but the takedown isn't one of them.

      I can DCMA your github repo, or anywhere else you've posted anything, and the site will take it down. They have to, otherwise they're liable for everything else people post. (230)

      Now the TRICK is -- will it STAY down? If there's a valid counter-takedown (not just a sticky note), that gets the site off the hook. And then the contenders goes to the courtroom and has intercourse, mostly with the original offender "getting their just desserts." But just becau

    • You're saying we can't complain about Microsoft here on Slashdot? I guess then that the rumours are true, Slashdot is but a pale shadow of its old self...

  • I've never trusted MS but what ch do we have? (Score:3)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Saturday October 31, 2020 @12:36PM (#60669294)

    Is there a trustworthy software foundation hosting something like git-hub that we can trust?

    • Not for long (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Saturday October 31, 2020 @01:14PM (#60669430) Homepage Journal

      The ability to trust it is precisely what brings it under the cross-hairs of the tech giants. So, even if a new hosting repository sprang up, it would either not get widespread use (and shut down) or it would get widespread use, in which case it would get bought by a tech giant and ruined, or litigated into oblivion by said tech giant.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lkcl ( 517947 )

        The ability to trust it is precisely what brings it under the cross-hairs of the tech giants. So, even if a new hosting repository sprang up, it would either not get widespread use (and shut down) or it would get widespread use, in which case it would get bought by a tech giant and ruined, or litigated into oblivion by said tech giant.

        i get routinely ridiculed for having self-hosted project infrastructure, and then things like this happen, which easily justifies the decision. what i particularly look forward to is the completion of the NLnet-sponsored inter-site syndication protocols. this would allow pull requests, bugreports and much more to be done between independent sites and the big centralised (monopolised) hosting companies.

    • You could self-host GitLab [gitlab.com].

    • Gogs.io, gitea, .. many other self-hosted solutions if raw git-daemon is not enough. Self-hosting with federated mirrors by other self-hosting individuals is probably the best solution. If a takedown request is received, immediately comply but send a dump of the git repo to somewhere in another nation... let the game of whack-a-mole be unending!

      The big danger is modern language libs such as npm, golang etc. must build in redirect/alias mechanisms so that it's easy to build code whilst referring to a mirror

    • Sourceforge is (or was) associated with Slashdot. Back in the day, it was no less central to the FOSS community than Github is today. Perhaps it is time to return to Sourceforge?

      • Why would source code want to be associated with forgery?

      • Yeah. Sourceforge got caught inserting malware into applications hosted on their platform. Not going back, no matter who is the current owner.
        • I would argue that since SourceForge got caught embedding adware into install programs, and there was significant backlash from it, that they would NEVER do that again. Likewise, any online service that gets seriously compromised by hackers or malware will bring the service down, remove the infection, and strengthen their infrastructure so that they take the precautions that they should have taken in the first place, like at-rest encryption, IDS-IPS, etc. (Think Sony's Playstation Network)

          Now, if they get

  • Crazy how so many people are losing their shit over Microsoft. Do you really think that the repo would still be public even if Microsoft didn't purchase Github? We'll see how long it stays on Gitlab after a DMCA is issued to them.

    I don't understand why people think that a hosting service should also be fighting the legal battles of its users. I look at it like Spectrum fighting the legal battles of software pirates who are using their internet service.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sfcat ( 872532 )

      Crazy how so many people are losing their shit over Microsoft. Do you really think that the repo would still be public even if Microsoft didn't purchase Github? We'll see how long it stays on Gitlab after a DMCA is issued to them.

      I don't understand why people think that a hosting service should also be fighting the legal battles of its users. I look at it like Spectrum fighting the legal battles of software pirates who are using their internet service.

      Because anybody can host a git repo. If you want people to use your git repo as opposed to someone else's you need to provide something more. That something more is trust that when BS DMCA requests come through, you don't just blindly hit the delete button. Instead you have someone look at the request and determine if its something to fight or something to deny. If MS stays with the RIAA on this, I will likely be moving my git repos to another service as MS/github is no longer providing the service I si

      • Only the code owners or their assignees or representatives have the legal right to issue a counter-notice. GitHub can't oppose the takedown on it's own initiative. And neither can the Software Freedom Conservancy.

        IF (and that's a big if) the software owners decide to contest the takedown, AND the software owners asked the SFC to help, THEN the SFC opinion might matter. Until then they're like the homeless guy in front of the subway shouting at everyone that aliens kidnapped him and cloned him after an ana

  • Asking Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like asking the sun to quit dimming at night.

    Microsoft will always do what they think is best to protect their brands and increase shareholder value.
    They don't care about youtube-dl, youtube, github, or you any more than how will you next buy their
    goods and services.

    THAT increases shareholder value and THAT is what you can talk about in the 10-K and the annual meeting.

    E

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sfcat ( 872532 )

      Asking Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like asking the sun to quit dimming at night.

      Microsoft will always do what they think is best to protect their brands and increase shareholder value. They don't care about youtube-dl, youtube, github, or you any more than how will you next buy their goods and services.

      THAT increases shareholder value and THAT is what you can talk about in the 10-K and the annual meeting.

      E

      And when github losses a significant number of projects over this? They paid more for github than any major music label is worth. Doing the right thing for MS doesn't include taking big losses. This is risking a million dollars in a fight over a dime.

  • "Proof MS ruined our snowbunny virgin github" /s (Score:3)

    by yassa2020 ( 6703044 ) on Saturday October 31, 2020 @02:55PM (#60669710)
    Does no one remember that github was founded in silicon valley by a bunch of brogrammers and coked up venture capitalists? Does no one realize that it was built from the very beginning to be a honeypot for the world's open source projects so that they would be the sole proprietor of open source project developer metrics, so that they would be a nice expensive juicy target to be bought out by a giant company like...Microsoft? Is everyone walking through life wearing horse-blinders?
  • Isn't it about time that Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc just bought up all of the record companies and cross licensed them to each other just so they can go on about their day without these petty little games? Make an independent foundation that exists for the sole purpose of cheap licensing to all.
    • Apple could probably buy up every music label, but probably couldn't out of anti-monopoly laws, and i'd shudder at the thought of apple having the entire music industry in it's control.
      • That's why I put in the formation of an independent foundation. Also I was suggesting that all the tech companies buy up the record companies as a group, both actions would limit monopoly usage of the media.
  • When you're out in the wild with a terrible connection, youtube-dl is your friend. I don' t think I have a single coyrighted file in the few GB I downloaded from youtube.

    • Everything is copyrighted. One of the YouTube licenses is CC which encourages reuse. That requires downloading, obviously. Otherwise there's no point.

      • Not everything is copyrighted. In some cases, copyright has expired. In other cases stuff has intentionally been placed in the public domain, same as everything that has an expired copyright.

        Other stuff, by its very nature, is not even eligible for copyright. Facts, for example.

        • French copyright, a subgroup of Intellectual Property, is enshrined in the Constitution. It applies automatically, without any formality, from the creation of an original work.

          From the moment you create a work of the mind:
          1. You immediately acquire the status of author, and the panoply of rights that go with it, no deposit or mention is necessary
          2. These rights are made up of two families: moral rights and economic rights.

          E.g. moral rights allow you to complain if someone tampers with your work in an un

    • Technically they are all copyright by their content creators. Even though it is freely available on youtube, the content creators might be getting a small amount of monetization from each view. So if it's something you download once and watch 20 other times, they might have not gotten paid for 19 of those views, not sure if a youtube-dl download would trigger a monetized view, or if it's got to be in the browser where ads will actually show.

  • RIAA doesn't need an internal reform. They are acting properly *given the current legal regime.* What they need is a court challenge that would change the legal regime. Trying to change them from the inside (as some suggest should be done by its members) would be inherently *corrupt*. The problem is not with RIAA going overboard. The problem is that certain rights exist and must be asserted in order to be preserved. And that creates legal boundaries which are carved out along the wrong path.

    There is

  • We similarly call on all RIAA members who value FOSS to also resign.

    *laughs hysterically* at the contradiction. yet i pause for a minute to wonder if there are, indeed, genuinely any members of the MafiAA organisation that value anything other than profiteering?

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close