shaka-player VS dmca

A quick search of 1003 in Shaka issues hints at that being related to a network timeout, and that's consistent with the player requesting a lower quality (it thinks the network can't keep up with the higher bitrate) until it eventually gives up. That could explain why there are so many VAAPI errors, as it's constantly testing new bitrates until it gives up. Super weird.

It uses a video player that was made by Google. It's shaka player: https://github.com/google/shaka-player. You can see a proof of Piped using this video player here: https://github.com/TeamPiped/Piped/blob/master/package.json#L21

https://github.com/google/shaka-player Will this work on react native?

I expect the Shaka player issue for Providers programming has been there forever due to DRM issues. It has always been there since I started using Stremium months ago anyway. I have Sling and Locast. It looks like your adblocker may be interfering with playback. I have disabled the three ad blockers I am using for the Stremium domain. I use a Chromebook to watch news during the day and today I can still watch any channel, including those that use the Shaka Player by moving the progress bar. My CB is touchscreen, but the PC works the same. Like everyone else I believe the video playback needs serious work. The RW/FF is busted too. Reddit is not the place to get support though. You need to contact them directly. They will usually get back to you, at least in my experience. I'm also looking the the Shaka Player github to see what issues they are working on because it is more likely that improvements will come from there, not Stremium. https://github.com/google/shaka-player

I believe that's mistaken. From the article:

> As far as I’m aware, Widevine is the only available DRM for a Chromium-based browser, especially so for Electron.

But according to this [0] the Chromium-based Edge browser supports both Google's WideVine CDM and Microsoft's PlayReady CDM. Not sure if that's really any help, but that's a different question.

[0] https://github.com/google/shaka-player/issues/2492#issuecomm...

Every DMCA takedown notice in https://github.com/github/dmca is a net win for git as a decentralized version control system, especially for repositories that require signed commits. Unfortunately, some people upload only a snapshot of their repository working directory instead of... using git like it is supposed to be used I guess?

I’m with you thus far, but I’m trying to parse the notice to see why GitHub is even complying (see https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/03/2024-03-1... ) and I think Torrentfreak got it wrong. I think they’re trying to claim infringement on Plex Server, but the English in the takedown notice is barely legible (and it feels like a mixup between trademarks and copyright), to the point that I find GitHub’s compliance odd.

Text of tweet thread:

Hello everyone. We have some unfortunate news to share with you.

Today, we received a DMCA takedown from Valve on all our public GitHub repositories and all its forks made by the community.

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/01/2024-01-1...

While we were discussing the project's future internally recently, we already came to the conclusion to stop the development of the project due to the current state of the code being unusable anymore with s&box's recent major engine changes, and that we overall moved on from it.

Sadly, this means this DMCA takedown is the nail in the coffin. We cannot bring it back and we've hit Valve's attention, it seems like they definitely don't want us to use their IP (which is totally fair and legal from them).

DMCA from GitHub: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-10-mazda.md

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-10-mazda.md

https://www.thedrive.com/news/mazda-slaps-developer-with-cease-and-desist-for-diy-smart-home-integration

https://web.archive.org/web/20231014070536/https://old.reddit.com/r/homeassistant/comments/1771ywu/removal_of_mazda_connected_services_integration/

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/mazda-connected-service/354221

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/removal-of-mazda-connected-services-integration/625885/36

https://www.home-assistant.io/

https://youtu.be/l2qKEkG29gI

https://youtu.be/NfiIXooD77s

https://youtu.be/PrtbYu1OYhY

https://youtu.be/nigJMu0lUbM

https://youtu.be/qLlxOD5IHYc

> Is there anything that average folk can do against these notices when they're sent to companies like GitHub?

They can file a counter-notice, commit to accepting service of process if the other party wants to sue, and wait 10-14 days. There's a guide at https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic... and there are plenty of example counter-notices in the https://github.com/github/dmca repo.

From the posted notice[1], they answered "No" to the question "Do you claim to have any technological measures in place to control access to your copyrighted content? Please see our Complaints about Anti-Circumvention Technology if you are unsure." Is that the same thing you are referencing?

[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-1...

I don't know why you're arguing with me when I'm literally giving you sources backing up that what I'm saying is a mere statement of fact: contracts are inherently subject to copyright law like any other text, although the individual violation may be hard to demonstrate and cases difficult to win.

If I understand your example correctly, you would take an existing SaaS's ToS (i.e. copy their copyrighted work), publish it as your own (i.e. lie) and then file a DMCA takedown request (i.e. commit perjury) to force them to remove their ToS? Yes, you could do that. But since you likely can't demonstrate that you're the original copyright holder (e.g. trivially their SaaS pre-dates your service and they probably have internal documents like e-mails surrounding the drafting of the ToS whereas you don't unless you forge those as well) and sending a DMCA takedown request for works you don't actually own is literally a felony crime, I don't think that's a winning strategy.

To be clear: yes, there are laws against abusing DMCA takedown requests, precisely because otherwise anyone could just send them out for fun. Specifically DMCA takedown requests include a statement under penalty of perjury from the copyright holder that they hold the copyright. So this isn't a special DMCA law but just a boring old felony crime involved in fraudulently filing illegitimate legal claims.

If you're wondering why you've never heard of this it's probably because you're thinking of sites like YouTube which don't actually receive DMCA takedown requests normally but instead provide an arbitration system to allow content owners to avoid messy legal back-and-forths over the back of Google and instead be trusted based on who they are (i.e. smaller creators will be stuck in appeals limbo trying to talk to a human whereas large corporations will usually be trusted by default). This does not however apply to e.g. GitHub, which is why there is a public collection of DMCA takedown requests hosted by them: https://github.com/github/dmca

To speed up this conversation: if you can think of another example where your conclusion is "but this is dumb" then it's likely because your example is, not the legal situation you're looking at. Also "but this is dumb" is not a counter-argument to "this is what the law is like". The law does not care if you think it is dumb and saying it is dumb is not a good defense if you end up in court.

Takedown notice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/06/2023-06-2...

The tool is still available on GitLab: https://gitlab.com/bipinkrish/DeGourou