thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

If you're an artist who turned down a record deal to stay independent, I salute you.

Same if you're a programmer who didn't host your code (solely) on GitHub.

To say no to Evil Corp isn't as easy or straight forward as it sounds I'm sure, so for those who did it (possibly to your detriment) I salute you.

· · Web · 3 · 5 · 10

thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 


Show thread

thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@swaggboi hehehe😂 I head that justin timberlakes lawyers/attorneys sued with the help of RIAA them. But god knows who is guilty of taking youtube-dl from the people there is a special place in hell for them😂

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@swaggboi In which world is GitHub "evil"?

They are a code hosting site in the US... they *have* to comply to DMCA takedowns as per local law.

Wouldn't matter who hosts it, could have been and they would have had to take it down as well.

If the police comes knocking with a warrant into your home let's see if you refuse them shall we? Companies aren't any different and certainly not above the law.

I don't like it either, but that needs to be fixed in a court / with a law change.

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@reto My bad... I didn't realize they were complying with DMCA takedowns as per local law. SYKE... I DID REALIZE THAT

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@swaggboi Then what's that garbage about "evil" company?

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@reto @swaggboi github is evil because they encourage the centralization development, and have lead to a situation in which these DMCA claims are significantly impacting oss development.

Sure, no one would blame you if you had to take down code by official request, but if you've spent the past years centralizing development to a single point of failure, then it's a little bit more suspect.

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@gopiandcode @swaggboi Give me a single code hosting platform that *isn't* centralized in the sense that most development of a single repo happens only on there., codeberg, gogs, gitea etc. are posterchilds of "free" and selfhostable, yet most things will eventually happen only on a single instance for any given project.

Those will have the exact same problems if say a DMCA takedown (humor me) comes in for ANY repo sharing the code on that instance (and there are plenty of people there as well) will be inaccessible as well.

The only way to circumvent that is if people actually locally fork the repos they interact with, which at least developers already do, package managers tend to directly fetch from $origin

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@reto @gopiandcode git isn't centralized

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@swaggboi @gopiandcode indeed it isn't, and this is also why lots of people put the code back up isn't it?

Yet the dev process will eventually centralize, as you need a single point of reference what the "main" tree is... torvalds/linux say, not some other developer's

Luckily in this case it's python as well, so whoever has the binary also has the source. In a compiled language it's less easy to recover as probably a lot of the "users" (not devs..) fetched the binary blob and not the source

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@reto @swaggboi right, but while development might centralise at a single point, being open source can make it easier to change the point of centralisation - if a single point happens to be hit by a claim, then there's nothing stopping another user offering instead to host development (if the service also happens to be federated, then the process of transfer should be even easier).

In the case of github, they've forced the centralisation of development (and discover/communication etc.) onto a single closed-source platform, allowing for a situation in which a single repository can end up being effectively nuked at the behest of malicious corporate overlords.

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@gopiandcode @swaggboi I don't understand / agree with your point.

The fact that the code of the hosting site isn't open is irrelevant as far as the DMCA takedown is concerned.

If the main mailing list operator of a project gets a DMCA takedown, that mail server will probably be affected as well, meaning communication stops just the same and people need to find different ways of communicating. Meaning the end result is just the same whether that code was hosted on github or

Granted, with a mailing list you just hope that someone has a complete archive and mirrors it to the new place, that way you still have the "issues" so to speak.

Then again, mailing list tend to be shitty issue trackers so we are back to people wanting more integrated solutions (gitea, gogs, codeberg) where the issues would be in the DB as well, that having been taken down you again loose all the issues.

So... long story short, there's no difference if that code is hosted on Github or on some other FOSS code sharing site (github like) and some difference if the hoster uses a mailing list approach (which isn't very popular for usability reasons)

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@reto @swaggboi > The fact that the code of the hosting site isn't open is irrelevant as far as the DMCA takedown is concerned.

That's entirely fair point - I laid out my point a bit poorly there.

There are two aspects of an open source project that I think are important for its survival:

- the actual database (pull requests, branches, issues etc.)

- the community and discovery mechanism

Github is evil in that sense as it's centralized both discovery and development into a single platform - this seduces developers into relying on the platform for both aspects, and thus makes oss development vulnerable to being attacked by legal teams. If you're nuked off the platform, suddenly you loose both your source database and whatever you had come to depend upon for discovery/community.

Now, ideally, a code hosting service should support federation in both of these aspects. For the source database, it should allow exporting the database, and for discovery, something like a federated approach like activity pub would do.

The point about open source was poorly placed and, as you said, largely irrelevant to the argument - what I was trying to convey here was that unlike with Github, these alternative approaches, by virtue of being open source, could actually be modified to encode these kinds of changes. (e.g

re: thoughts on RIAA/GitHub 

@reto @gopiandcode @swaggboi the central point should be a tor hidden service or equivalent, and have clearnet mirrors for "convince". having a single place to collaborate and exchange patch doesn't mean it has to be non-resilient.
@shironeko @reto @gopiandcode @swaggboi why should anybody trust somebody who can't spell "convenience" and doesn't know how to form plurals?

Come on, we can keep this civil. At least some people don't speak English as a native language so give them some slack.

I'm sure your Japanese / Chinese / French / German / $whatever are less well developed than our English, but feel free to respond to us in our native language.

@shironeko @gopiandcode @swaggboi
@reto @gopiandcode @shironeko @swaggboi you're welcome to read the first line in my bio. I hold others to the same standard I hold myself.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!