Uncategorized

Apple’s iTunes replaces Wal-Mart as No. 1 U.S. music seller

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Five years after its launch, Apple Computer‘s iTunes downloadable music service in February passed Wal-Mart to become the No. 1 music seller in the United States, according to figures released April 3 by NPD Group, a market research firm.

The firm said more than 4 billion songs had been downloaded from the iTunes store since its launch in 2003 and that as of February, the iTunes store accounts for 70% of all digital music sales. NPD said according to those figures, Apple’s iTunes store passes U.S. electronics retailer Best Buy for the No. 2 U.S. music retailer in 2007.

According to an April 2nd report in Ars Technica, an internal memo at Apple showed the company passed Wal-Mart as the top U.S. music seller Wal-Mart at the beginning of the year. Their projections showed that as of January 2008, Apple’s iTunes held 19 percent of the U.S. music market with Wal-Mart at 15 percent, followed by Best Buy at 13 percent. Rounding out the top five were Amazon.com and Target at 6 percent each.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Apple%27s_iTunes_replaces_Wal-Mart_as_No._1_U.S._music_seller&oldid=2470965”
Uncategorized

GitHub re-enables public access to youtube-dl after EFF sends a letter challenging the DMCA takedown

This article mentions the Wikimedia Foundation, one of its projects, or people related to it. Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Yesterday, code-sharing and hosting service GitHub re-enabled the public access to youtube-dl repository, a software which can download videos from the internet via the command-line. This move comes after Mitchell Stoltz, a Senior Staff Attorney of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), sent a letter to GitHub on the behalf of youtube-dl’s maintainers. The repository was previously blocked on October 23, after GitHub received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Started in July 2008, youtube-dl is a free/libré open source software written in Python which can download videos from various websites. Citing alleged violation of 17 U.S. Code § 1201 Circumvention of copyright protection systems, RIAA’s takedown notice had alleged youtube-dl was intended to circumvent the technological protection measures of streaming services and to redistribute music videos without authorisation. youtube-dl’s source code had a number of unit tests to check if the software works in different circumstances or not. Some of the test cases included URLs of some copyrighted songs.

In the letter to GitHub, EFF’s attorney Stoltz said “This file contains series of automated tests that verify the functionality of youtube-dl for streaming various types of video. The youtube-dl source code does not, of course, contain copies of these songs or any others […] the unit tests do not cause a permanent download or distribution of the songs they reference; they merely stream a few seconds of each song to verify the operation of youtube-dl. Streaming a small portion of a song in a non-permanent fashion to test the operation of an independently created software program is a fair use.” The letter stressed “youtube-dl does not decrypt video streams that are encrypted with commercial DRM technologies”.

The URLs to copyrighted songs were removed from the source code yesterday, and replaeced with a test video that uploaded on YouTube by Philipp Hagemeister, former maintainer of youtube-dl. Philipp Hagemeister had previously spoken about the takedown with Wikinews.

youtube-dl comes with a small JavaScript interpreter where it acts as a web-browser would behave while receiving video data from the server. The script has “extractors” for various websites to handle videos from different sources. “Any software capable of running JavaScript code can derive the URL of the video stream and access the stream, regardless of whether the software has been approved by YouTube”, the letter read. It borrowed an analogy of Doors of Durin from J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings for explanation: travelers come upon a door that has writing in a foreign language. When translated, the writing says “say ‘friend’ and enter.” The travelers say “friend” and the door opens. As with the writing on that door, YouTube presents instructions on accessing video streams to everyone who comes asking for it.

Yesterday, Sergey M, one of the maintainers of youtube-dl wrote on GitHub, “We would like to thank @github for standing up for youtube-dl and making it possible to continue development without dropping any features. We appreciate [GitHub] for taking potential legal risks in this regard. We would also like to thank [EFF] and personally [Mitch Stoltz] for invaluable legal help. We would also like to heartily thank our main website hoster Uberspace who is currently being sued in Germany for hosting our essentially business card website and who have already spent thousands of Euros in their legal defense.”

After GitHub restored the public access to the repository, Stoltz tweeted “I think of youtube-dl as a successor to the videocassette recorder. The VCR empowered people to take control of their personal use of free-to-air video, but it had to be saved from the copyright cartel. The same goes for youtube-dl. GitHub did the right thing here.”

youtube-dl is used by thousands of people around the world. Multiple Creative Commons-licensed and public domain videos on Wikimedia Commons are uploaded via a tool called video2commons, which relies on youtube-dl to download media. youtube-dl also lets users download videos from LiveLeak — a video-sharing platform for citizen journalism. Videos downloaded using youtube-dl are also used for the purpose of fair use, or for evidence.

In the blog post announcing “youtube-dl is back”, GitHub said, “Although we did initially take the project down, we understand that just because code can be used to access copyrighted works doesn’t mean it can’t also be used to access works in non-infringing ways. We also understood that this project’s code has many legitimate purposes, including changing playback speeds for accessibility, preserving evidence in the fight for human rights, aiding journalists in fact-checking, and downloading Creative Commons-licensed or public domain videos.”

GitHub also announced any new 1201 takedown notices will be “carefully scrutinised by legal experts” to reject “unwarranted claims”, and said it will side with software developers if the claims are ambiguous. The announcement also mentioned GitHub Trust and Safety team would treat developer’s tickets as a “top priority”. GitHub also pledged donation of USD 1 million for developer defense fund “to help protect open source developers on GitHub from unwarranted DMCA Section 1201 takedown claims”.

GitHub had blocked public access to many forks of youtube-dl upon receiving the DMCA notice in October. Wikinews notes public access is not yet restored for the forked repositories listed in RIAA’s copyright notice and still displays “Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown”.

During the period when GitHub had disabled public access for the repository, Sergey M had been developing youtube-dl and hosting it on GitLab, another code-sharing and hosting site. However, since GitHub has restored public access of youtube-dl, Sergey M has made the GitLab repository private.

Wikinews reached out to Sergey M. about the future developments of youtube-dl as well as GiHub to explain about developer defense fund.

[edit]

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=GitHub_re-enables_public_access_to_youtube-dl_after_EFF_sends_a_letter_challenging_the_DMCA_takedown&oldid=4594238”
Sports

Are Cheap Resumes Worth It? The Hidden Cost Of A Cheap Resume

By David Alan Carter

The cheap resume… is it a bargain job-hunting tool? Or are you paying more than you realize, and jeopardizing your professional future? A former recruiter sheds light on the perils of bargain hunting when one’s career is at stake.

_____

If you’re talking cheap, you’re talking my language. I’ve been known to drive all over town to shave a few cents off the price of gasoline – to get me back to my side of town. When it comes to bargain resumes, however, the stated price is often just the tip of the iceberg. With seemingly “cheap” resumes, there can be a larger cost that often goes unseen. Here are two points to keep in mind before signing up with that cheap resume writing service…

Cheap Resumes Most Likely Come From Factories

Unbeknownst to most folks, there are resume factories just like there are wingnut factories; each spitting out a high volume of product that all pretty much look alike. That’s fine for wingnuts. Resumes, on the other hand, are marketing documents that should be individualized to each particular job seeker. A resume factory that’s getting by on a razor thin profit margin simply can’t afford to dedicate much time – if any – to personal attention. The client is typically asked to fill out a questionnaire, the writer feeds that information into a template, and the wingnut (er, resume) comes spitting out the other end of the shop floor.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1avjkJ76M_M[/youtube]

With the job market the worst in decades, do you really want to be presenting yourself to prospective employers as just another wingnut?

A Cheap Resume That Doesn’t Land Interviews Gets Expensive, Fast

Let’s say you’ve been laid off or otherwise lost a job that paid $42,000 per year, and you’re simply trying to get back into the job market in that same salary bracket. Doing the math, that means that for every week you remain unemployed, you’re losing just over $800.00 in potential wages. Now consider that your run-of-the-mill “factory” resume is going straight into the circular file of employers when it hits their desks. Other resumes are getting favorable attention; candidates are getting called in for interviews. But not you. All of a sudden, that “cheap” resume is costing you $800.00 per week, and every week that your phone doesn’t ring.

Lost a job that paid $75,000 annually? Then you’re out a whopping $1,442.00 each week your resume doesn’t score. Tack that on to the price of that $50 “bargain” resume, and you’ll begin to get an idea of the true price you’ve just paid for a document that has a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.

Look Beyond Price For Value

Don’t let the initial price of a resume be your only guide in determining which resume writing service to go with. Consider other key factors including the credentials of the writer, the experience he or she brings to the table, and the willingness of that writer to conduct a telephone interview to fully explore your work background and goals. Also important: the availability of a guarantee (ranging from a guarantee of satisfaction, to a guarantee of interviews). Believe it or not, there are resume services out there that offer all of the above, for less than you might think. You don’t have to take out a second mortgage to get a resume that’s polished, professional and puts your best foot forward.

Bargain hunt the price of coffee makers and laundry detergent and paper plates. But think twice before bargain hunting a cheap resume writing service.

About the Author: David Alan Carter is a former recruiter. Writing for the website http://www.TopResumeServices.com, Carter has confronted the Web’s most popular resume writing services in his Resume Service Reviews, evaluating quality of workmanship, spelling out their pricing, and giving each a star ranking.

Source: isnare.com

Permanent Link: isnare.com/?aid=581261&ca=Career