It was one thing when it was the RIAA that was coming for our repositories. Now that it is Google, I'm extremely sad and disappointed.
I think the time has come for there to be a repository hosting service that is based somewhere in Switzerland :)
I think the time has come for there to be a repository hosting service that is based somewhere in Switzerland :)
I'm no longer familiar with the architecture of TPB, but they seem to be running things in a much more decentralized fashion nowadays, where bunch of independent sites (at least independent domains) are running a frontend with the same database content. Unsure how that works behind the scenes.
But rest assure, you can always find a domain which is not blocked and that is mirroring the content of the proper TPB. In my case, thepiratebay.org is blocked by my ISP, but thepiratebay.party is just a few hours behind (confirmed via VPN)
Compare the following pages for example (if thepiratebay.org works for you)
https://narratively.com/the-plot-against-the-principality-of...
Sealand is within the territorial waters of the UK. No sovereign nation has recognized Sealand's independence from the UK. Even if one did, according to international law, artificial islands and structures don't possess the status of islands.
I remember there was an international ruling where the US was in a trade violation, and I thought the country was permitted to waive IP enforcement until they were compensated.
I am having trouble finding the reference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21...
Keep in mind, there is a big difference between being allowed to violate US copyrights and waiving IP enforcement.
Blaming the content service is easy since they're user-facing, but it's shallow. Content-related restrictions are, in my experience, almost always dictated by the content owner. Region locks, availability windows, use of DRM, DMCAs for anti-DRM, etc, are all at the requirement of the content owners.
I don't think these modern Internet-based service providers care about that stuff much, they have little incentive to. It's driven by contracts.
Incidentally, this is always the reason behind region locks. Service X or content Y isn't available in your country? Don't blame the streaming service, blame the content owner.
Existing server: http://git.idk.i2p/zlatinb/muwire
Can't find the clearnet address
Drew seems like the type to fight illegitimate DMCA's.
Edit: I'm curious, why the downvotes? I am legitimately trying to be helpful. I recognize if you have personal differences with ddevault, but he puts his code where his mouth is.
If I'm misunderstanding said downvotes, please enlighten me.
Edit 2: Many thanks to those who have responded. It appears I misunderstood about this specific instance, where the DMCA does have some legitimacy.
Someone else in this thread linked this, which seems like a useful resource as well: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2020-10-29-how-mailing-lists-prev...
Edit: It was biryani_chicken who linked the resource above.
Also, I misunderstood about the legitimacy of this specific claim, my brain had yet to shift gear from the youtube-dl shenanigans.
Thanks for the response!
Also, what RIAA is trying to remove is the code that allows to get the music video files from YouTube, which is served differently to normal videos (not just the test units in question). This was conspicuously absent from all discussions I've read.
> It is our belief that the repo as a whole represents a circumvention tool in violation of 1201 and therefore needs to be removed.
> Additionally, the Git repo contains several files that violate Google’s copyrights:
> <a bunch of files>
> In addition to this request, we have filed a separate Sensitive Data takedown request of this file: /widevine-l3-decryptor as it contains the secret Widevine RSA private key, which was extracted from the Widevine CDM and can be used in other circumvention technologies.
That bit is probably irrelevant to the DMCA takedown procedure, which only applies to "material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity". I don't think there's much clear precedent to what "be the subject of infringing activity" means, but decryption tools that don't use stolen code definitely don't qualify as "material that is claimed to be infringing".
And if Google does want to claim that the circumvention tool is infringing a Google copyright rather than merely running afoul of an unrelated provision of the DMCA, then Google has to specifically identify their own work of decryption code that the circumvention tool is ripping off. All this notice specifically identifies in the way of actual infringement are two documentation PDFs and an API header file (and we all know where Google stands on API copyright).
"Their belief" is meaningless, to get a circumvention tool removed they need a court order.
I don't feel as bad about it here as about youtube-dl. I disagree, mind you -- I'd like github to act as a neutral service provider -- but this one is a place where I can see why githu might hold a different opinion. It's an ideological split like abortion, gun control, or similar, where reasonable people can violently disagree.
The whole "Sensitive Data takedown request" is also a github thing, but this one is a written policy:
https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...
It has nothing to do with the DMCA.
The repository itself is pirated code - it is code held under copyright by google, and google doesn't want it to be public, therefore anyone distributing it is violating copyright. The DMCA claim is substantially less than what they could do. Actual copyright violations have very large fines.
Of course. That being said, wasn't there a big discussion when this happened to youtube-dl about how that was almost certainly not a legitimate DMCA? That being the case, disregarding it would not be illegal, at least to my (quite limited) understanding.
It appears I misunderstood in this specific case as there is a much stronger case for this DMCA to be considered legitimate.
That said at least part of this notice seems legit.
I'm sorry if that's offensive.
(Also, I donate to the EFF)
Something they've participated in every 2 years since 2000, as documented here: https://www.eff.org/cases?group=0-9
Until then, something IPFS based.
Specifically, Filecoin (built by the IPFS folks) could be used as a datastore for git. You can send DMCAs to pseudonymous Filecoin operators all you want; but the content will still be up if one operator keeps hosting it.
Hopefully it will also encourage all commits and repositories to be PGP signed (and not through a centralized FVEY platform), strengthening security, authenticity, and trust.
The best part about non-GEO satellites is that, although you can't see them 24/7 from one location, that also makes it incredibly difficult to jam their uplinks continuously.