> make youtube great again I wish we would all just stop doing this. At least fora bit.
if you don't get the sarcasm, I can't help you.
Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
231–240 of 259 posts
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#232That's pretty great, just tried it. I'd have a few feature requests: - Make it possible to delete downloaded videos - Show more than just a few weeks worth of videos per channel. For example, if I look at @AndrejKarpathy I only see his latest two videos. - Have a way to view a video at a reasonable size in between the small preview and full screen - Add a way to download a single video without subscribing to a channe…
tried to find a solution for your 3rd point, would love to get your feedback
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
> YouTube is a weird position. A lot of content is public domain and should be freely downloaded. Other content isn’t. It depends on the jurisdiction actually. In mine (France) and a few others, the right to save material is granted to every citizen no matter the license of the said material as long as the copy is made for private use only (it's called «droit à la copie privée» which translates to “right to private c…
Does this mandate American companies provide a mechanism for a personal copy ? In theory YouTube could geo lock these features if made to implement it.
No, unfortunately, and DRMs are still legal. Which is a shame given that we have to pay a tax to the copyright industry whenever we buy a storage media (be it an SD card or an HDD) in exchange for this right…
What I mean is that there's no legal reason for Youtube to prevent downloading their videos (they can't be sued by IP holders for providing a download link for that matter).
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
> prefer to get stuff for free rather than paying for it This is how you describe a glorified VCR?
What is describing is a platform that reimplements the YouTube frontend with the primary purpose being not having ads without paying.
It does a bunch of useful things and that's one of them.
Also the videos are free either way. It's true that people are avoiding paying for an ad removing feature, but installing your own software to get features is pretty reasonable.
And ad removal is well established as a feature people use and it being fine that they do so.
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterexample: steam They seem to be the only ones who get how piracy can be fought. And its no secret either, gabe newell has that "piracy is a service issue" quote for anyone to read. Its just that these companies dont want to consider not squeezing the life out of their users for shareholder benefit
Games have the best DRM of all though. They have extremely complex to crack software drm, integrate with 3rd party servers for online, and run the risk of installing malware if you get a bad cracked copy. Steam does do a great job of making stuff accessible and convenient. But plenty of people would still pirate over paying $90 for the new game if it wasn’t so hard.
The DRM provided by steam itself is pretty basic and crackable.
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true, there are still lots of ads that you'll have to sit through. They're just not out there by Google, they're out their by the video creator. Which, I get it, YouTube isn't paying them enough and they gotta eat. So, it kind of feels like YouTube letting them post their own ads is an intentional choice on YouTube's part to not give me the service I'm paying for.
This is a weird take. What is an "ad", and how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship? If a channel posts a review of a piece of hardware that was sent to them for free by the manufacturer is the entire video an ad?
> What is an "ad"
While the line is fuzzy, there's definitely a line. For example, when a video cuts away from the content to talk about a sponsor that's a clear ad.
> how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship?
Removing would be somewhat difficult. Banning would not be complicated. Companies word those kinds of agreements all the time.
> If a channel posts a review of a piece of hardware that was sent to them for free by the manufacturer is the entire video an ad?
I'd say it depends, but the answer doesn't really matter. That's a straightforward category that can be allowed or not allowed directly, no need to worry about semantics.
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
This year AlphaGoogle has an initiative to kill ad-blockers. To that end, Youtube now aborts playback after 60 seconds if it cannot contact its ad server to play commercials. It's clear where this is heading: 1) Youtube will go after software like yt-dlp to ensure only AlphaGoogle-sanctioned players can play its videos 2) Youtube will encode commercials directly into the videos it streams Both will come to pass. It's…
And we'll have middleware that detects and splices out commercials based on frame fingerprints not long after. People hate ads. It'll definitely trouble the non-technical set though.
I look forward to the day (if it ever comes) that on-device
AI is powerful enough to identify commercials in podcasts and splice them out.
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this mandate American companies provide a mechanism for a personal copy ? In theory YouTube could geo lock these features if made to implement it.
No, unfortunately, and DRMs are still legal. Which is a shame given that we have to pay a tax to the copyright industry whenever we buy a storage media (be it an SD card or an HDD) in exchange for this right… What I mean is that there's no legal reason for Youtube to prevent downloading their videos (they can't be sued by IP holders for providing a download link for that matter).
So does that mean if you watch Netflix in Canada or France you can send a letter requesting a copy of their media ?
It seems like a good idea, Bojack Horseman is probably going to be taken down at some point, but enforcement remains elusive.
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a weird take. What is an "ad", and how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship? If a channel posts a review of a piece of hardware that was sent to them for free by the manufacturer is the entire video an ad?
> What is an "ad" While the line is fuzzy, there's definitely a line. For example, when a video cuts away from the content to talk about a sponsor that's a clear ad. > how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship? Removing would be somewhat difficult. Banning would not be complicated. Companies word those kinds of agreements all the time. > If a channel posts a r…
HN is such a weird place. "Free speech" libertarianism when it comes to companies restricting hate speech on their platforms while simultaneously advocating for companies to ban sponsored content.
Re: Show HN: A personal YouTube frontend based on yt-dlp
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is an "ad" While the line is fuzzy, there's definitely a line. For example, when a video cuts away from the content to talk about a sponsor that's a clear ad. > how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship? Removing would be somewhat difficult. Banning would not be complicated. Companies word those kinds of agreements all the time. > If a channel posts a r…
HN is such a weird place. "Free speech" libertarianism when it comes to companies restricting hate speech on their platforms while simultaneously advocating for companies to ban sponsored content.
I have taken neither of those positions. And I would not take the first position.
Even so, I can see how someone could have those opinions if they strongly distrust attempts at restricting hate speech. The desire for a platform that lets you say whatever you want, but not in exchange for money, is something that makes sense.