- cross-posted to:
- hackernews
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews
You must log in or register to comment.
Ngl if you pirate indie porn you are scum. Most people who make it aren’t well off.
I was wondering why these types of open source projects always push to Github, despite the latter always complying with DMCA. (I get that Github provides discoverabilty features, but it just isn’t worth it to have all your work taken down).
On a similar note, has anyone tried out https://radicle.xyz/? It’s supposed to actually make use of git’s peer to peer nature (and not the client server model that everyone adopts with git) and ideally provide discoverability features.
The said I’ve only read the faq and haven’t actually tried it myself. Basically I’m wondering if it’s worth doing a deep dive on this technology
It doesn’t catch on because entry level devs love committing private keys
Widevine, BTW, is a Google product that all the browser vendors agree to use. Its the only reason HTML5 has gotten anywhere.
The project is now being made available via a repo on cdm-project.com but how long that’s likely to last is unclear.
I’ve mirrored it to my own git server too https://git.ngram.ca/mirrors/cdrm-project I will ignore DCMAs because I (and the server) don’t live in the USA.
This just implies that the Microsoft employee was an OnlyFans subscriber simp.
There needs to be a widespread p2p solution for opensource projects before its too late. I have lost count of all the amazing stuff that has been gravity bombed from orbit.
There also needs to be a way for authors to submit things anonymously too and maybe sign their things with cryptographic keys to ID it. How many times has a company had a court order someone to cease and desist or simply acquire somebody’s work?
I found https://radicle.xyz/ but I’ve never used this technology before. Maybe someone can shed some light?
p2p solution for opensource projects
That’s called Git and it’s been around longer than GitHub. There is also Usenet which by now is mostly dead. People fell for centralized alternatives. Oops :)
You’d think Usenet is dead.
It’s not.Git is, but it has no process of discovery or hosting by itself. Those are needed to efficiently share open source software to large numbers of people.
git is clearly not p2p in the needed level or else we wouldn’t have faced this problem
Right? Git is literally decentralized. If you choose to use GitHub as a centralized Git service, that’s on you.
(I will caveat this by saying we moved 2009scape off GitHub and the number of new contributors probably got cut in half. Mainstream services have a lot more eyes)
I tried to follow that link and it seems Cloudflare blocked me. Don’t suppose you know who I’d need to talk to to resolve that would you?
2009scape is wonderful for those like me who need to scratch that RuneScape itch without a subscription. The fact I can play it off of a USB is testament to itself how incredibly awesome you guys are. Thank you for the project, sincerely. :')
How come Git is decentralized?
Doesnt it need a central component so I can pull your changes?Edit: Thanks to all that explained it to me :)
Fundamentally, the repository you have on GitHub is the same thing as the repository you have on your computer when you clone it. Pulling and pushing are shorthands for synchronizing commits between the two repositories, but you could also synchronize them directly with somebody else who cloned the repository. As somebody mentioned, you can also just host the same repository on two servers, and push to both of them.
The issue is that git doesn’t include convenient features like issues, pull requests, CI, wikis, etc., and by extensions, those aren’t included in your local repository, so if GitHub takes them down, you don’t have a copy.
An extra fun fact is that git can be considered a blockchain. It’s a distributed ledger of immutable commits, each one representing a change in state relative to the previous one. Everybody who clones a repository gets a copy of its entire history and fast forwards through the changes to calculate the current state.
But to push/pull you’d in theory need to port forward your git server/workstation, right?
You can have arbitrarily many git “remotes”: GitHub, gitlab, your own custom forge, etc…
Git a cmd tool only. Your can remote wherever you like.
Changes can come from anywhere. The Linux kernel itself doesn’t use any central repository like Github, it’s instead done via emailing patches that are eventually merged into the mainline kernel repository managed by Linus.
It is 100% decentralized.
It’s not always takedowns either, just the developer deciding to nuke their own repos. Real annoying, although it’s making me more vigilant about forking/mirroring important repos.
All you need for this is a global overlay network and a global DNS untied from physical infrastructure. Cryptographic identities (hash of pubkey will do) instead of IP addresses (because NATs are PITA and too many people use mobile devices behind big bad NATs), and finding (in something like Kademlia) records signed by authority you yourself chose to trust instead of asking DNS.
Then come encryption and dynamic routing and synchronization of published states.
One can have some kind of Kademlia for discovery of projects too, but on the next level.
I2P comes close, but it’s more focused on anonymity.
OK, I’m not sure what I wrote makes sense. These things are easy to grasp somehow, but hard to understand well.
OK, I’m not sure what I wrote makes sense. These things are easy to grasp somehow, but hard to understand well.
yeah it seems you forgot what you wanted to say midway.
to extend on it, I2P, Tor and other mixnets provide the only safe way currently to host projects that others don’t like, because such sites cannot be taken down. that’s both a blessing and a curse
I wanted to say something about easily hosting searchable repositories, and solving a few of the problems because of which the Web as it exists still has users.
Open-source projects are quiet safe on Github. Maybe don’t push illegal code? Seems pretty obvious to me.
Do you forget who determines what is illegal?
deleted by creator
Codeberg exists. But no people still have to just flock to corporate bullshit and then be surprised when they pull a corporate bullshit.
Codeberg is great, but it is hosted in Germany, and subject to their laws. AFAIK, Germany has laws against tools for “circumventing copy protection”, or “hacking”.
So I am not sure that they can provide a save haven for tools, where some lawyer could argue these points successfully in front of a court.
hehe
git clone this before it gets taken down
I mean, “fuck you OnlyFans” seems correct phrasing
Curious to know what this email conversation looks like. 🍿
sent a complaint
project has been ejected
Bad pattern.
The moment when GitHub was bought by M$, the risk of such behavior started.
To GitHub’s credit, when rightsholders allege violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, GitHub conducts its own assessment. If there is no basis for a claim, GitHub sometimes finds other copyright-related grounds, but here there is no pushback. That’s usually a sign of a complaint that stands up under intense scrutiny.
The mentioned repositories enable and encourage criminal behavior. And it’s quiet intentional. It’s because of piracy that we have DRM in the first place. The audacity now of pirates to wine about them not getting what they want like the entire world revolves just around them.
Baseless (and also wrong) assumption that piracy is responsible for by any means significant monetary losses aside, there are other reasons for bypassing that DRM bullshit. Like, off the top of my head:
- archiving – when you don’t have a local copy of a piece of content, it can be changed or deleted at any time;
- ability to access stuff on a wider range of devices – I want to be able watch my favorite coomtent creator in full resolution on my phone that has only L3 and quite outdated version of widevine without installing proprietary crapp, so what;
- bypassing bullshit restrictions – not sure if onlyfans in particular does that, but we have Netflix, for example, that would tell you to fuck off when you’re not watching from home be it VPN or an actually different location when traveling.
They know all that. They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.
That simplifies market analysis, removes the dilemma of supporting or not supporting some other way users want, and ideally selling the same thing a few times.
They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.
And they have every right to do so. If you like it or not. You don’t own and have not created the protected content. On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
they have literally given 3 of such bases
On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
they have literally given 3 of such bases
On the basis of having bought it. If they haven’t sold it but made such an impression, then they’ve committed a crime.
When you are buying a cure against all problems with miniscule text saying it’s just a metaphor, the seller is committing a crime. It’s the same here.
Morally. Regardless of how courts interpret this right now. That feature that courts and practice officially do not equal morality and thus we can decide differently this time, if we can provide an explanation, is the main advantage of English legal system and those descended from it over others.
Also baseless assumptions.
Btw, you don’t need to use whatever service you don’t own if you disagree with their practices. DRM is shit. But you’re not in any position to elevate yourself above that. You don’t own the services and you have not contributed in creating the protected content. You have no right to decide anything.
Agreed to disagree then. IMO, if a company thinks it’s OK to throw me over the dick hiding behind being afraid of shadows, deny me access to legally obtained content on my devices, walk back on previous deals, and so on, then I have no problem with getting unrestricted access to stuff they decided I don’t technically own. Fuck the fucker, simple as that.
Format-shifting and time-shifting your legally acquired and licensed media is not illegal. If the DRM is preventing someone from doing that then it is within their rights to remove the DRM. Recall that not everyone lives in a country subject to the draconian DMCA law.
Are you serious right now? You can’t actually believe ordinary people will go out of their way to visit some random Github repository just to remove the DRM for their convenience. I guarantee you that 100% of contributers and users of that repo are doing piracy.
oh you’re very confidently wrong, I very much will, you corporate bootlicker
Because that was the intended use case for this repository.
Don’t people buy stuff on OF, more than just a sub? Is it easily available for download in a common file format or is access stuck on the website even though you bought it?
I agree that straight piracy of content is bad. Piracy is primarily a service problem, TV and movie piracy was down in the mid 2010s until all the streaming services divided. Music piracy is basically gone thanks to early iTunes and even more so with today’s streaming services. OF piracy will always be a thing because people want their free porn and the parasocial relationship they don’t get on the regular free sites.
If corporations refuse to just sell us the file and can randomly revoke access or change the content (like Amazon’s been doing with book), then the community will find ways to strip out the DRM and other protections just to preserve the content they bought.
I don’t have a problem with github removing of projects that aim to circumvent purchasing content, but projects that simply “unlock” purchased content should be allowed to thrive.
Edit: I should add, if corporations can’t be bothered to respect what the word buy means, why I should I bother to provide them money? morality is a two way street, if one side is dishonest and shady, do they really have a right to whine when others steal from them?
Edit 2: in case it wasn’t clear the “dishonest and shady” one is the corporations. Its to the point were I pretty much only pay creators directly (patreon, etc) where I know good chunk of my money goes to the artist not the publisher/middle man. If I’m buying a movie or something its either a DVD or getting screen caped on the first watch for archival purposes.
Edit: I should add, if corporations can’t be bothered to respect what the word buy means, why I should I bother to provide them money? morality is a two way street, if one side is dishonest and shady, do they really have a right to whine when others steal from them?
Ah, yes, remember all that tone of honesty and seriousness from companies in the 00s against bad, bad pirates, and also scorn at FOSS, like those amateur toys, we make better things? And now from time to time those “serious professional” programs from then are found to contain GPL violations. Or how Sony put a virus on music CDs.
TBH, there was a time when things were better with actually buying software and music and such. And probably the surge of piracy was first.
But somehow that doesn’t hurt Steam. Quoting GN - because piracy is a service problem. People generally pirate what they can’t comfortably buy. There were games I’ve never seen in stores in my childhood (no official localization, and by the time I got interested in them people selling bootleg discs in subway road crossings were coming out of fashion here). Piracy was the way I got them.
Piracy will always be a problem, someone is always looking for the free route. The paid routes used to be guarantees of availability, malware free, and a quality copy. Now its almost the opposite, a pirated file is always available, usually malware free and higher resolution than whatever the data mining services feel like feeding you.
deleted by creator
It’s very simple, one should legally target what’s advertised as selling when it’s not really selling. Heavily. Like fraud. Like obvious crime.
That will improve the situation.
Pirates breathe air, therefore oxygen is enabling copyright infringement
Right. Let’s legalize nukes and bio-weapons for the average Joe. I’m sure someone is going to find a legitimate use for them that doesn’t involve using them as a weapon. There is always someone who uses them in a fair way. So it’s perfectly justified to allow them as they basically compare to oxygen now.
Logic checks out?
Don’t forget to wipe your nose. You got a little shit there stuck there from all the corporate ass licking.
