search

js-org / js.org

Dedicated to JavaScript and its awesome community since 2015
https://JS.ORG
5.25k stars 3.48k forks source link

Violation of the Terms of Service of JS.ORG - nuclear.js.org #9295

Closed indus closed 2 weeks ago

indus commented 2 weeks ago

@nukeop I have been informed about a violation of the Terms of Service of JS.ORG by the page nuclear.js.org (#2905)

Specifically, it concerns §4 of the ToS “Rights and Duties of the user” which states:

... In particular providing content like the following is prohibited:

  • Piracy (warez, videos, MP3s, DVDs, software, etc.) ...
    • Copyright offense ...
    • Content which led to committing criminal acts or acts that undermine the civil order, or otherwise contrary to national or international laws ...
    • Sites with other illegal content ...

I must assume that the use of the music player advertised on the site violates several national and international laws for the following reasons:

The app facilitates copyright infringement and violates DRM anti-circumvention regulations.

The app also bypasses advertising and sponsored segments of the content accessed via the app. This reduces the ability of creators to profit from their work and must be seen as piracy of the content accessed via Nuclear.

Since the site actively promotes the player, I consider §4 of the ToS to be violated.

For this reason, the subdomain is suspended with immediate effect in accordance with the ToS.

nukeop commented 2 weeks ago

No grace period?

What's the appeal process? I can assure you no such infringement takes place; I am also 100% certain you were falsely notified about this because of a guy with a grudge against me who's doing this because of a completely unrelated matter. He was actually banned off Github just the other day for harassment.

MattIPv4 commented 2 weeks ago

No grace period

Given it was reported that the site is hosting illegal content, I think its the right move to remove it first and ask questions after, as to not put js.org as a whole at risk.

I can assure you no such infringement takes place

Looking at your README, it states "Searching for and playing music from YouTube". My (admittedly not 100%) knowledge of YouTube believes that extracting/downloading content from YouTube is a violation of their terms, and presumably infringes on their rights (and the creators' rights) as copyright holders of said audio/video?

nukeop commented 2 weeks ago

Also, I'd like to point out that the content at the time of acceptance was virtually the same as it is now. Surely if it passed your scrutiny 5 years ago, you can at least let it stay until we talk it out, or redirect it to a domain I control.

MattIPv4 commented 2 weeks ago

Surely if it passed your scrutiny 5 years ago

Speaking for myself, when I review PRs here, I don't check every detail of them to make sure they are compliant with every aspect of the law, I just check that they are related to JavaScript and the PR is well-formed. I generally have trust that folks submitting things aren't breaking the terms of other platforms.

MattIPv4 commented 2 weeks ago

https://youtube-ext.js.org/ is just documentation for a package, it is not extracting anything from YouTube on js.org. This is the same boat that youtube-dl falls into, what is on GitHub is just code, not any stolen content.

https://youtube-lite.js.org/ appears to just use the YouTube API to talk to YouTube, and then shows a regular YouTube embed (which will include ads etc., not violating YouTube's ToS).

I haven't actually run Nuclear as Stefan took it down before I could, but looking at your README screenshots, it seems to extract and play the audio, so it wouldn't be rendering a standard YouTube embed that'd play ads etc. as YouTube wishes? That would be why I'd view this as a problem for js.org, as you'd be "hosting" content on js.org that directly infringes, rather than just documentation for a tool that someone can use on their own.

Perhaps we're misunderstanding how Nuclear works though, and you are using a standard YouTube embed (and the same for other platforms as they require) so that you're not violating any terms for those platforms?

nukeop commented 2 weeks ago

Let me clarify this for you:

indus commented 2 weeks ago

First of all I want to make clear that I understand the problems that the abrupt suspension is causing you. But I would like to ask you to understand that I really have to avoid the risks that are inherent in your project for JS.ORG.

Let me clarify this for you:

* Nuclear **does not circumvent any DRM mechanisms**, nor does it import any code that does that.

* Nuclear uses the same mechanism that an embedded Youtube player uses for retrieving an audio stream associated with a video. We don't use the same embedded player, but since it has no DRM, it's not required.

* Youtube only shows ads in embedded videos on whitelisted, "brand-safe" sites: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596. Websites have to pass vetting to be allowed to display ads in embedded videos. So it is a conscious decision on Youtube's part not to play ads on external websites, unless they are a part of this program.

* Youtube itself readily returns a list of direct URLs to streams without any authorization or circumvention required.

* This is almost the same mechanism as youtube-dl, mentioned by me earlier. I mentioned it because they followed the same process, except they were required to initially take it down upon receiving a DMCA request. It is important to stress that Github themselves inspected youtube-dl, and found that **no infringement** takes place. I'd like to bring this case into focus as it's a strong precedent for why nothing on nuclear.js.org, nor nothing in the program itself contains anything "illegal", even by a stretch of the term.

It is not so easy for me to judge on all of this. But the decision of other organisations is not a blueprint to the decision of this service...

* If you could share exactly what accusations were made, maybe it would be easier to address that point.

The accusations we have to discuss are made in my first comment of this issue.

* One more important point: **the only thing hosted on js.org is Nuclear's website**, akin to documentation. All binaries are hosted on Github.

Even your page is hosted on GitHub, isn't it? The problem I see is that you are promoting the player with questinable legal status on your page.

nukeop commented 2 weeks ago

Sure, I understand completely, and I trust you will weigh all the evidence and arguments to make the correct decision. It's not that big of a deal, so take all the time you need.

You are correct, the website is hosted on Github Pages: https://github.com/nukeop/nuclear/tree/gh-pages

In the meantime, let me know if there's anything else I should clarify to help you understand the situation.

indus commented 2 weeks ago

I think that was a misunderstanding. I'm not using hours of my time to judge on the legal status of your project as I wouldn't be able to come to a definitive answer. Keep in mind that this is a free service that doesn't have a copyright layer at hand.

I only see two options:

I'm sorry that I don't have a more pleasing option for you. But it is your beef with another entity that gives JS.ORG and me in person trouble and stress I really don't want.

indus commented 2 weeks ago

DNS registrars, that is no takedowns without concrete evidence.

The other difference is that a registrar gets payed and JS.ORG is for free.

If you are only going to be satisfied with a lawyer taking a look at this - sure, we can arrange that.

If you have a lawyer at hand, let him write a assessment that your project doesn't break any laws together with the contract that you are taking full responsibility you have suggested. That would give me peace.

As the consequences for losing a domain that's been used for years are pretty severe I already have another .com domain for Nuclear

Would it help if I setup a redirect for some time?

indus commented 2 weeks ago

I’m open to paying for the subdomain if ...

One of the best things of this service is that it doesn't need any money. This makes it easy to tell people that my opinion on messy situations is not for sale. A financial contribution from any of the involved parties is the last thing I want - for obvious reasons.

It’s a dangerous precedent...

There may be something to that. But so far we've only had a difficult situation every few years (maybe 3-4 in the last 9 years). I don't think that will necessarily change.

Let’s take 24-48 hours to think this over

I would very much welcome that - tomorrow 10/04 is my 10th wedding anniversary and my wife probably wouldn't have any appreciation for my "little internet problems" 😬

indus commented 2 weeks ago

@nukeop I've just seen https://github.com/nukeop/nuclear/issues/1715#issuecomment-2391554418

I sincerely thank you for taking JS.ORG out of a fight that I personally consider idiotic and completely unnecessary with this suave move. And sorry for not beeing the shield you may have hoped for.

I wish you all the best with your project.

nukeop commented 2 weeks ago

Thanks, is it possible to set up a redirect to the new domain for now, at least for some time?

indus commented 2 weeks ago

Thanks, is it possible to set up a redirect to the new domain for now, at least for some time?

yes - but may take some time to propagate through DNS.

nukeop commented 2 weeks ago

Awesome, that's going to let Google update it soon. Thanks for the help and I think this can be closed now (from my side).