[HN Gopher] Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due t...
___________________________________________________________________
Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take
down request
Author : the-scrabi
Score : 238 points
Date : 2023-07-11 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newpipe.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (newpipe.net)
| phh wrote:
| There is chrome.google.com and www.facebook.com in the list.
| That's pretty cool.
|
| I'm not saying they are wrong, chrome definitely allows you to
| decode drm-encombered files, but uh...
| cge wrote:
| The Lumen Database page lists only domain names of the URLs in
| the complaint unless you solve a captcha and enter an email
| address. The full complaint lists https://newpipe.net/ itself,
| while the chrome.google.com (and addons.mozilla.org, and
| store.microsoft.com...) URLs are to browser extension pages,
| and the Facebook URL is the URL of a post that has a link to a
| Youtube downloader.
|
| The list generally seems to be a collection of things that
| range from the websites of Youtube downloaders and interfaces
| to simply mentions of them, including a Wikipedia page about
| Youtube downloaders and a Trustpilot page of reviews about a
| website for one.
|
| Item 9, meanwhile, appears to be a completely unrelated
| Soundcloud track that isn't even connected to the complaint
| description, but appears to have the URL of a Youtube
| downloader in the title.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| It's likely to be a link to an extension on the Chrome web
| store and perhaps a similar download link on Facebook.
| the-scrabi wrote:
| Google accepted a DMCA request for the homepage of the Android
| streaming app NewPipe. Its homepage newpipe.net has been removed
| from Google search results if one searches for "newpipe". NewPipe
| is an alternative privacy focused YouTube frontend, but also
| supports other services like PeerTube, SoundCloud and Bandcamp.
| atherton33 wrote:
| The way the DMCA works, to my understanding, Google has to
| accept the notice, unless NewPipe submits a counter notice,
| which can be done here:
|
| https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905
|
| Proceed as if reporting infringement, and the option will
| appear to specify this is a counter report.
|
| If the reporter chooses to continue, the next step is with the
| courts.
| skissane wrote:
| > Google has to accept the notice, unless NewPipe submits a
| counter notice,
|
| They don't _have_ to accept it-they can choose to ignore or
| reject it. However, if they choose to ignore /reject it, and
| the notifier then sues them, they may lose one of their legal
| defences.
|
| Obviously they decide that most of the time complying is the
| legally less risky path, so most of the time they comply.
| However, if they get a DMCA request for a famous website like
| nytimes.com, they probably won't action it.
| fweimer wrote:
| I don't think counter notices apply to circumvention devices.
| There is also no liability exemption for service providers.
| [deleted]
| wtallis wrote:
| > I don't think counter notices apply to circumvention
| devices.
|
| Right, because the DMCA takedown notice procedure as a
| whole doesn't apply to circumvention devices, only to
| content that is itself copyright infringement.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Exactly. The DRM circumvention parts of the DMCA specify
| a court order is needed to stop a circumvention device.
| dcow wrote:
| Why isn't this higher up? This seems like the actual meat
| of the discussion: Google is erroneously interpreting
| this takedown request as something it's supposed to
| comply with, when in fact it's not. Furthermore by
| misinterpreting requirements here Google is harming the
| public and newpipe. I wonder what newpipe's appeal (to
| Google) process looks like...
| world2vec wrote:
| Any good equivalent to Newpipe for iOS? I'm using Video Lite so I
| only get one ad when opening the app. I'd like to have
| SponsorBlock like some Newpipe versions have and no ads at all.
| r00t4ccess wrote:
| I just use the brave browser on ios it blocks ads ootb
| waxyalan wrote:
| Yattee is worth checking out https://github.com/yattee/yattee
| aeyes wrote:
| uYouPlus (sideloading required)
|
| Works without a jailbreak, you just have to refresh the app
| every 7 days but thats pretty much automated these days.
| fryman wrote:
| Safari extensions vinegar and sponsorblock. Youtube in safari
| is a little janky compared to the app, but that's the best I've
| found.
| tohnjitor wrote:
| NewPipe is excellent. I was disappointed that it was not
| available for desktop until I discovered tartube which will
| download video files from almost any website easily
| dark-star wrote:
| JDownloader, youtube-dl, yt-dlp and many others can also
| download YouTube videos (and hundreds of other sites). Yes, the
| last two are command line tools, but if you put them on your
| desktop you can just drag&drop any YouTube-link on them and it
| will download it for you
| mrmuagi wrote:
| Oh neat, looks like tartube is a GUI frontend for youtube-dl.
| kim0 wrote:
| Praying they don't touch Brave browser! Most of my YouTube is
| thorough it these days.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| DMCA anti-circumvention provisions are regarding tools that
| circumvent effective access controls.
|
| I realize that broken encryption is considered an effective
| access control in this context despite it being broken, but apps
| like Newpipe aren't even breaking encryption, right?
|
| What aspect of the YouTube servers' behavior can be construed as
| an effective access control? Is there even a rudimentary secret,
| that never gets served to clients typically but that apps like
| Newpipe figured out?
|
| Unofficial cable TV descramblers are illegal despite simply
| reconstructing the missing sync signal, but that's because they
| facilitate theft of services that are normally paid. YouTube is
| free.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Access to YouTube videos is only "authorized" through YouTube's
| site and official apps (or yada yada), and YouTube videos are
| copyrighted material. YouTube has technological measures to
| ensure that you only watch YouTube videos that way. If you
| circumvent those technology measures, that's prima facie a DMCA
| violation, no?
|
| The definition of circumvention of a technology measure is
| extremely broad including "to avoid, bypass, remove,
| deactivate, or impair a technological measure".
|
| I'm pretty much of the opinion that the DMCA is a piece of crap
| as a law, but it doesn't lack for breadth and generality in
| those definitions.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| DMCA 1201 isn't just a crap law. It's completely unworkable,
| as has been known since before it was passed.
|
| Suppose Bob is in the business of duplicating public domain
| US government works. He downloads videos from the NASA
| website, presses them onto DVDs and sells them on eBay. He
| can do this without anybody's permission because DVDs are
| from the mid-90s and the patents are expired. He uses the
| same DVD format as Hollywood so people can watch them on
| their existing DVD players, but he also makes a free DVD
| player app for Linux so people can watch his DVDs or rip them
| or do whatever they want because they're in the public
| domain. It can also do the same with any other DVDs, because
| it's the exact same format. Is Bob breaking the law?
|
| Now suppose Bob is a jerk who is doing this with public
| domain works without providing anyone a way to exercise their
| right to copy them, or doing it to enforce contractually
| unlawful license terms or something like that. Is someone who
| makes a tool to thwart Bob breaking the law? If so the law
| could have (more) First Amendment problems, to say nothing of
| the obvious unreasonableness. But if not then it's a
| worthless law because anyone could use that as a
| justification to break anything. Which it is regardless
| because it has never been effective at suppressing the
| availability circumvention tools, only at should-be-
| impermissible abuses like prohibiting interoperability to
| prop up existing monopolies.
|
| It's also notable that NASA publishes many videos on YouTube.
| As in, only on YouTube.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Sure, but I'm trying to grok the essence of the technological
| measure being used by YouTube.
|
| I have to imagine that merely offering terms of service
| doesn't constitute a technological measure, and nor would
| merely slicing up the response in a DASH-like manner [0].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_
| ove...
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Well... here's the dumb thing. The DASH-like manner (or,
| "rolling cipher" as they like to call it) has currently
| held up as being an effective protection measure. It comes
| up all the time when RIAA in particular sues YouTube
| stream-rippers.
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/deciphering-youtubes-rolling-
| cypher...
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I realize that broken encryption is considered an effective
| access control in this context despite it being broken, but
| apps like Newpipe aren't even breaking encryption, right?
|
| Encryption isn't the only access control. "Access control" is a
| pretty loose term. I think of it as being similar to what (in
| the US) counts as "breaking" in a breaking-and-entering charge:
| you've "broken into" a place if you had to move anything in
| order to enter. Even a door that is partially ajar and you had
| to slightly move it to slip by.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| I agree. But what is the thing being moved here, in technical
| (rather than legal) terms?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I don't know in this particular piece of software. I'm just
| saying that an "effective access control" can be something
| very trivial. It doesn't have to be anything as
| sophisticated as encryption.
|
| Just to speculate, it could be something like using the
| user's login credentials.
| awinter-py wrote:
| incredibly useful product. pretty sure 'background play' is a
| paid feature on default droid youtube[1]. newpipe does it out of
| the box. I don't object to paying for youtube but I _do_ object
| to them linking my watch activity to my account. guessing youtube
| is constantly trying to kill this, just like ytdl, but for now
| amazing work keeping it up
|
| 1. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7437614
| floomk wrote:
| > guessing youtube is constantly trying to kill this, just like
| ytdl, but for now amazing work keeping it up
|
| their lawyers are, but the developers certainly aren't. the og
| youtube-dl hasn't released in 2 years and still works mostly
| fine.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| All of this because they don't want you to download Guizmo - Dans
| ma ruche (https://ssyoutube.com/en691rT/)
|
| Not the first time they've spammed DMCA takedowns either:
| https://lumendatabase.org/faceted_search?sender_name=Because...
|
| In comically French fashion, their complaints also include the
| same message in French just in case someone in Mountain View is
| more fluent in French than in English. I wonder if this is just a
| bunch of amateurs hired by the French label or if they actually
| pay legal professionals to spam these.
| simlevesque wrote:
| Somebody drank too much Ballantine.
| donmcronald wrote:
| I'm pretty skeptical of stuff like that. To me, it looks like
| they proxy the download for you, but that doesn't make sense
| because there's no way they have the revenue to support that,
| right?
|
| How does it work? Can someone explain it to me?
| Jenk wrote:
| > Dear ssyoutube.com User: As you may have heard, our industry
| has been under strenuous attacks by certain GB copyright
| holders. Because of these attacks, it has become financially
| impractical for ssyoutube.com to continue to provide services
| in the Great Britain. Accordingly, ssyoutube.com will be
| terminating its services in the Great Britain as of November 3,
| 2022. We thank you for your past loyalty and patronage and wish
| you health and safety during the present health crisis and
| beyond. Very truly yours, ssyoutube.com
|
| Well that's just awesome.
| poplet wrote:
| Google probably indexes 25% of the content available nowadays....
| I rarely use Google
| talldatethrow wrote:
| I just installed the app. Thanks Google.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I learned about Fdroid because of something like this.
|
| Then I learned about Bromium(which is obsolete today, but was a
| great browser with adblock support)
| ransomewhere wrote:
| You mean Bromite?
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| There a version of the NewPipe app which contains the
| SponsorBlock plugin. I use it since months and can't watch
| YouTube videos without it anymore.
| dspillett wrote:
| I block ads not because I'm completely anti-advert. I'm anti
| being-stalked-through-my-entire-life-and-having-my-details-
| sold-like-I'm-a-cheap-peice-of-meat, and unfortunately ATM
| blocking that also means blocking most online adverts.
|
| So I draw the line before sponsorblock. At least the content
| creators get a better cut of that than they get from YouTube
| monetisation & youtube can't take it away from them as easily
| at a whim, and those segments don't track me, and there is an
| increased chance that the sponsor is relevant to what I'm
| looking at (not what I clicked on days ago). One or two
| channels even manage to make the sponsor segments
| fractionally entertaining.
|
| I'm also anti irritating adverts of course, which does
| include manually skipping _some_ sponsor segments or avoiding
| channels that can be relied upon to be irritating in that
| way.
| yetanotherloss wrote:
| I'm completely anti advert. They declared war on
| civilization 20 years ago and don't deserve to be treated
| as anything but a parasitic cultural disease. It didn't
| have to be this way, but that's where they took us.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| As long as you avoid things that are paid for by ads,
| there's no moral problem.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| We're under no moral obligation to play by their rules.
| Read _Rules for Radicals_.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| If you use NewPipe then there is virtually no difference if
| you view the sponsor part or not?
| dcow wrote:
| I agree with you in spirit.
|
| Here's a thought experiment, though: if you manually skip
| sponsor segments every single time you watch a video by
| dragging the scrubber, is that any different from having a
| piece of software do as much for you, in an automated
| fashion?
| h4x0rr wrote:
| Classic Streisand effect
| mynameisash wrote:
| Oh man, I'd never heard of NewPipe until now. I've literally
| had it installed for three minutes, and I am amazed. I was
| able to dial up a music video that I frequently listen to
| without ads, I could immediately background the app, and even
| turn off my screen while still listening.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| URL should refer to the original source, which is
| https://lumendatabase.org/notices/34149383
| winterqt wrote:
| I think this blog post by the Newpipe team is a fine link to
| use to provide context + promote their CTA so people can help
| them, no?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Isn't Google forced to comply with DMCA takedown requests
| regardless of their legitimacy?
| chris37879 wrote:
| No, that's just how they've chosen to handle them to keep their
| unofficial "safe harbor" status since net neutrality is dead.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Safe harbor is officially part of DMCA though where if you
| are notified of infringing content and take it down you
| aren't liable right?
|
| https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A.
| ..
|
| > DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability
| Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online
| service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright
| infringement liability, provided they meet specific
| requirements.
| wtallis wrote:
| The notice [0] says " _Kind of Work: Unspecified_ " and "
| _Original URLs: No copyrighted URLs were submitted_ " so
| the safe harbor provisions pertaining to copyright
| infringement aren't really applicable here.
|
| [0] https://lumendatabase.org/notices/34149383
| gumby wrote:
| It's still in Duck Duck Go.
| kulahan wrote:
| It's also still in Google if you search for a specific-enough
| phrase.
|
| `newpipe site` brings it up as the first result
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-11 23:00 UTC)