+1
Github is hosting and distributing a huge part of the OSS ecosystem for free? - Nobody blinks an eye.
Github follows the law of the land and has to take down one package ? - An inferno of infantile, recreational outrage.
The DMCA is decades old and everybody knows about it. You host on an U.S. company (which you do, when you’re using Github) then you better be careful. The company will follow the law.
Say no more.
Original blog entry translated from German with Google Translate:
Youtube-dl is online again on Github!
Not entirely voluntary on the part of Github. For ages they have had a bug that anybody can upload data to existing repositories. That doesn’t change anything at the checkout, because it is linked to a specific booth via crypto hash. The current hash cannot be changed in this way, you can only load additional data into a repo. However, they can then be called up via a direct link to the hash.
Somebody has done that with the GMCA repo, in which Github stores the DMCA reports. […]
[Edit] Just to clarify; you can now download youtube-dl from the official Github-repository where Github publishes the texts of DMCA takedown notices they received.
I didn’t understand how the code is accessible on that repo. Care to explain please 
Saw it 2 days ago on Reddit 
I don’t know what all the fuss is about YT-downloader is hosted now on gitlab where it should of been after Ms bought github.
If you’e referring to youtube-dl’s sourcecode, well, it isn’t. But the Github-DMCA repo now provides links to the original source. Which is funny enough in itself 
.
If you’re referring to the Github bug that was exploited, Krimkerre post may be a good starting point …
I agree with your general assessment about moving to gitlab but wouldn’t bet on that specific mirror being “official” 
.
According to the comments, the youtube-dl-git AUR package maintainer seems to be on the lookout for a serious mirror but has so far come up empty.
They gonna take down open-source ad-blockers next?
There is always LBRY, and you have your own copy on your devise if you chose to do so.
The probably wont go for ad blockers just now, because that would p*ss a lot off people off, and with alternatives making a small nudge in the YouTube-cake they don’t want to risk any revenue by making people move platform.
Of course YouTube immediately changed its code breaking youtube-dl and every 3rd party YouTube app that uses youtube-dl. My solution was to block YouTube at the etc/hosts file. I’ll live without YouTube reporting my viewing history to the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.
Google already working on making these obsolete … say hello to web bundles.
https://www.techradar.com/news/googles-new-web-standard-could-disable-your-ad-blocker
Wait, this is for their products right? such as chrome?
Sounds to me (haven’t researched it) like it will be how web SITES are delivered to your browser - as an opaque ‘blob’ with no access to separate items within it. Thus leaving you only avoiding the site as an option for ad (and other risk) avoidance…
I try not to use ad blockers. I also do not use Facebook, or Google which is where 75-90% of this stuff is coming from. I use Firefox and i have settings set to the best they can be and i stay off problematic sites the best i can. This is the problem with the Internet and i really dislike it. Ads are an invasion of privacy as far as i’m concerned. If i want to go to a site i choose to. I don’t need to look at ads to do it! If they want to have ads on their web page well i can’t do anything about it. But sites that do that lose my interest real quick.
Trackers are built into nearly all websites these days, without the use of blockers and content filters google and facebook will be able to keep a close eye on you just fine.
If ad blockers were removed or had to be removed to use a computer on the Internet, I would stop using the Internet.
I typically don’t use ad blockers but i understand the trackers also is an issue because that’s just another tool to get data to send more ads based on browsing habits.