This is like the reverse of those common disclaimers on hacking tools and tutorials which claim:
This is for educational use only.
I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that?
As for what was written in some code somewhere in the repo, it could have been written by anyone, even an RIAA plant who contributed that trojan horse to the project.
What makes anyone think what was said there is endorsed by or even representative of the views of the rest of the authors of youtube-dl or is what youtube-dl is for?
God, it pisses me off to no end to think that I'm going to be forced to use youtube's piece of shit, slow, ad-infested, tacker-infested, feature-poor, non-automatable browser interface.
But, after taking a few deep breaths, I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement.
>I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that?
I think the answer is that this doesn't always sufficiently protect them, but these small bits add up. It's useful to be able to point at words written beforehand that could help you in a legal situation. This is what corporate speak is about too and enough people engage in it that it likely does something.
> I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement.
i dont think you have to wait that long. its client side, its open source, people have the code, it will most likely be maintained further, just not on github.
This is like the reverse of those common disclaimers on hacking tools and tutorials which claim:
I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that?As for what was written in some code somewhere in the repo, it could have been written by anyone, even an RIAA plant who contributed that trojan horse to the project.
What makes anyone think what was said there is endorsed by or even representative of the views of the rest of the authors of youtube-dl or is what youtube-dl is for?
God, it pisses me off to no end to think that I'm going to be forced to use youtube's piece of shit, slow, ad-infested, tacker-infested, feature-poor, non-automatable browser interface.
But, after taking a few deep breaths, I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement.