Thanks for this great example of how much metadata can work against the person generating it.
And I also want to thank the author for the wiki regarding the identification of the MUA by the Message-ID, that was a nice new detail I didn't know :)
As explained in "Lawful Masses with Leonard French" [1] it is enough to have marketing material which advertised copyright infringement to be taken down.
Don't know if it is enough to claim you can download Youtube videos to fulfill this point. From my point of view it is thin ice these days to claim anything...
The referenced video has a CC-BY license. Downloading and sharing is therefore legal according to copyright law. Anyway, in most countries downloading per se is not illegal when the content wasn't obviously illegaly uploaded. No copyright protection mechanism was circumvented.
At the start of his latest video he indicates the fact that it's not in the readme/end user marketing and just appears in an internal test case, and also that test case appears to be only obtaining metadata and not the video content seems to have changed his mind somewwhat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCrJM-MrKyI
I think that is one of the reasons why in Germany a registered association named "Zwiebelfreunde e.V." (can be translated to "Onion friends") was founded.
By this it is a legal entity and legal trouble can be handled better than if its against a person but the members of the board still gets trouble with the law. Not long ago they were raided because they were treated as witnesses in a case.
(Yes, in Germany even as a witness you can be raided ...)
Not just in Germany. US providers can also be forced to hand over data to be used in cases against others. It's just usually not done with a raid since providers will turn over data when asked.
Just for context: This is relativly new in Germany. In 2017 there was a change which has as consequences
- witnesses _have to_ appear in person if requested (by police or DA)
- witnesses _have to_ make statements regarding the case at hand
This is quite a nice tool if you lack moral. You might request the suspect to appear as a witness and try to leverage the new requirements to make the suspect reveal damaging information.
Maybe this was the reason that Germany was mentioned before.
>This is quite a nice tool if you lack moral. You might request the suspect to appear as a witness and try to leverage the new requirements to make the suspect reveal damaging information.
Germany doesn't have protections against self-incrimination? Or does this rely on the suspect being too cooperative for his own good?
Seems to be using a university proxy to get around FT's usual paywall. I had not seen this method before, am somewhat surprised the university proxy doesn't require some kind of SSO/auth. (if it's indeed working the way I surmise.)
To quote from a comment I made in response to a similar query the other day: I've an FT subscription and often post articles, but I try to do a search and find an alternate link - quite a bit of FT content is syndicated fairly quickly to non-paywalled sites. A few days ago, an FT article that I'd posted and then searched for showed up with the OCLC domain [1]. I've been trying to figure out how it all works, but have failed. If you try to hit "baldwinlib.idm.oclc.org", you get a login page.
Anyhow, it seems to offend some people if links are posted to paywalled sites, and it seems to offend others if one posts a paywalled link and then adds a non-paywalled link in comments. I have, therefore, been experimenting with posting the non-paywalled links via these resources if a search doesn't turn up a syndicated copy of the original article.
I suspect that the university-linked resource sites referenced here will probably close these loopholes pretty sharpish.
If any moderators see this, I would be happy to learn of any HN party line, or preference, about this behaviour. (Guidance welcomed by comment or by email. Thanks.)
Not a mod, but afaik the policy is to always submit the canonical source and share workaround links in the comments (e.g. the FAQ explicitly say that submitting links to paywalled content is fine, as is asking for and sharing workarounds in comments)
Yes, I had read that and abided by it until I noticed that every time I added a comment with a workaround link (rather than to a syndicated copy), the comment would be downvoted - often repeatedly so that it could no longer be seen.
Agree that the official source link is the link to post, which you appear to understand - yet then claim to violate due to the reasoning you described. Once the blocks happen, all the links you posted will be broken, please stop doing this.
No problem, agree with your intent, but appears you understand it more likely than not will result in problems. Thanks!
PS - While it unclear in this situation, other issues with proxies & mini-URLs is that they might easily be used to mine IPs, set cookies, launch attacks, etc.
And I also want to thank the author for the wiki regarding the identification of the MUA by the Message-ID, that was a nice new detail I didn't know :)