71–80 of 253 posts
I've been using this ever since youtube dropped flash support. Early this year youtube began throttling certain file formats and qualities. The way around this is to call youtube-dl so that it uses an external downloader like, --external-downloader aria2c --external-downloader-args "-j 8 -s 8" I wrap the entire thing up in some shell script as a .bashrc function which takes a URL, touches the downloaded file (since y…
I’m particular to jdownloader. http://jdownloader.org Works on so many downloading services and also YouTube.
If you're publishing something for commercial, do you have a right to one day revoke that item you've published? I think many would say that no, you don't have that right. Fair use and all that.
But if you're publishing your diary or some other personal items about your life, not for something commercial, then I think many would argue that yes, you should have that right. To have the right to make all data about you disappear.
I'm pretty sure RMS explored these ethics before in some of his writings.
Personally, I'm a user of youtube-dl and have written some tools based on cloud tech that helps me automate archival of all media I come across that I find valuable. But I'm not so sure it's completely ethical in all cases.
I’ve actually used this one for quite a nifty Python script: Invoke a Workflow from a YouTube video on my iPhone -> Dropbox file gets appended with all the details of video -> Hazel is watching this file and triggers the Python script -> which converts the video to MP3, slaps on relevant tags and cover-art and uploads it to my iCloud Music Library [1]. So I can have an MP3 song on my iPhone minutes after I’ve watched…
$ youtube-dl --extract-audio --add-metadata --xattrs --embed-thumbnail --audio-quality 0 --audio-format mp3 URL
I think youtube-dl/archiver tools present some ethical problems. If you're publishing something for commercial, do you have a right to one day revoke that item you've published? I think many would say that no, you don't have that right. Fair use and all that. But if you're publishing your diary or some other personal items about your life, not for something commercial, then I think many would argue that yes, you shou…
They would have no moral right to republish that letter/video, but I would have no moral right to take their copy from them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube has the network effect just like every other big provider. You can’t ditch it unless the content you want to see has decided to move elsewhere.
Important and desirable media is almost always available from more than one source. If not, then Sometimes, it's as simple as asking the producer to upload to your preferred streaming endpoint.
Here's an example of something that is very important and desirable to me but doesn't exist anywhere else on the internet.
Since letting kids alone on youtube, is clusterf* of a nightmare, this is a godsend tool to archive approved channels to a local media server. This config file (with separate channel-list- and archive-files) template found here, has proven quite useful to me combined with some minimal batch job: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/858ny5/my_yout...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube has the network effect just like every other big provider. You can’t ditch it unless the content you want to see has decided to move elsewhere.
Important and desirable media is almost always available from more than one source. If not, then Sometimes, it's as simple as asking the producer to upload to your preferred streaming endpoint.
The people behinnd the portal could have a sign-up page so that any platforms that wish to host a non-exclusive copy can sign up in order for uploaders to be able to select them as well. This could potentially cause the portal hosters (internet archive?) to suffer a lot of upload, but then there are no legal troubles whatsoever (assuming the uploader had the copyrights) in preserving or migrating content.
The big networks might refuse to sign up (to prevent such a portal and hence competing content networks from getting a foot in the door regarding network effect), or make it hard to have the single portal entity mediate the uploading to them in the name of the content owner, but in a sense it is not more cat-and-mouse game, but a differently placed one: at upload instead of download.
I’ve actually used this one for quite a nifty Python script: Invoke a Workflow from a YouTube video on my iPhone -> Dropbox file gets appended with all the details of video -> Hazel is watching this file and triggers the Python script -> which converts the video to MP3, slaps on relevant tags and cover-art and uploads it to my iCloud Music Library [1]. So I can have an MP3 song on my iPhone minutes after I’ve watched…
Youtube-dl can convert to mp3 and add cover-art from the Youtube thumbnail, not real cover-art, but in most cases that is fine: $ youtube-dl --extract-audio --add-metadata --xattrs --embed-thumbnail --audio-quality 0 --audio-format mp3 URL
I think youtube-dl/archiver tools present some ethical problems. If you're publishing something for commercial, do you have a right to one day revoke that item you've published? I think many would say that no, you don't have that right. Fair use and all that. But if you're publishing your diary or some other personal items about your life, not for something commercial, then I think many would argue that yes, you shou…