GitHub is definitely earning some street cred by erring on the developer side here and strengthening their claim check process after this screw-up of sorts.
What I also find fascinating is how the linked patch removed only the "incriminating" explicit examples from the claim, and made GitHub able to reinstate that fork. Obviously the program could still be used for downloading 99.99% of the broader copy righted material, but the specific claim examples had now been addressed. So the claim could be ignored. What a dangerous & fine line to tread!
But I'm happy we got youtube-dl back. When you have access to resources on the internet, you should be able to at least consume them however you want on your own devices. As long as you don't redistribute them illegally. That seems to be the general idea behind the DRM-free movement and behind youtube-dl. But it also has ties to what Readup is doing!
GitHub is definitely earning some street cred by erring on the developer side here and strengthening their claim check process after this screw-up of sorts.
What I also find fascinating is how the linked patch removed only the "incriminating" explicit examples from the claim, and made GitHub able to reinstate that fork. Obviously the program could still be used for downloading 99.99% of the broader copy righted material, but the specific claim examples had now been addressed. So the claim could be ignored. What a dangerous & fine line to tread!
But I'm happy we got youtube-dl back. When you have access to resources on the internet, you should be able to at least consume them however you want on your own devices. As long as you don't redistribute them illegally. That seems to be the general idea behind the DRM-free movement and behind youtube-dl. But it also has ties to what Readup is doing!