Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#41

Post by athms »

makeworld wrote: post #35
avhon1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The maintainers of the previous repo didn't get a chance to file a counter-notice. That's why many people are upset at github about this, they took down the repo (and all of the forks, I think?) as soon as they received the letter from the RIAA.

You can file a counter-notice after it gets taken down, and then the repo will be reinstated. That's my understanding of how it usually works.

I suspect the problem is the counter notice. You must agree to be held to US law and the maintainer resides in Germany.

According to the DMCA, the entity that files a counter notice consents to jurisdiction of the US district court of their residence. If not a resident of the US, jurisdiction is the district where the service provider is located. Once a counter notice is filed, one cannot argue the law doesn't apply because of lack of jurisdiction.

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#42

Post by djeiasbsbo »

archgoon wrote: post #32
Blahah wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would a unit test look like for a tool that downloads videos from third party sites?

One option is to simply write end to end tests, and not bother with unit tests at all. This does mean that you don't know if tests are failing because of a new code change or if the world has changed from underneath you. If you want to write a unit test, then the test would mock the response from the server. You would have an expected sequence of expected requests and their responses. You would only be testing that y…

I guess the difference with youtube-dl is that there can be a change in the code base aswell as a server side change.

The unit tests should only cover changes in the codebase... probing whether something serverside changed and whether the source material can still be downloaded can also be automated, but preferably not in a pipeline triggered by commits.

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#43

Post by Rochus »

lavoiems wrote: post #15

This repos removed the famous tests some days ago under a commit message "COMPLAINFREE". These tests can be found by looking at the git history: https://github.com/blackjack4494/yt-dlc/commit/dd2d55f10dac8... Would it be safer to thoroughly delete these tests from the git history?

No. Tests are an internal technical detail and not part of the product offering to users. Apart from that, a download from youtube in itself does not violate copyright laws.

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#44

Post by stunt »

danielheath wrote: post #27
ebg13 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but so what? Do you care about sharing with people (accomplished) or about getting karma points?

I mean, it's kind of naff, but the karma points are there because people like getting them.

The karma points are there to prevent spammers. It's effective enough.

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#45

Post by justinclift »

archgoon wrote: post #14
leonidasv wrote: post #6

Does this repo fixed the issue with the unit test downloading a copyright video?

If the test was downloading a video; it's not a unit test. I know that the definition gets stretched, but at the very least, a unit test should be deterministic. A test relying on a network communication with a third party system stretches the adjective 'unit' to beyond usefulness.

Weren't the tests under discussion from the original repo only downloading the first eg just enough to verify the content being pulled down was as expected, as would make sense for a video unit test

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#46

Post by em-bee »

athms wrote: post #41
makeworld wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can file a counter-notice after it gets taken down, and then the repo will be reinstated. That's my understanding of how it usually works.

I suspect the problem is the counter notice. You must agree to be held to US law and the maintainer resides in Germany. According to the DMCA, the entity that files a counter notice consents to jurisdiction of the US district court of their residence. If not a resident of the US, jurisdiction is the district where the service provider is located. Once a counter notice is filed, one cannot argue the law doesn't apply…

so instead,they probably have to sue github in germany

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#47

Post by [deleted] »

justinclift wrote: post #45
archgoon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the test was downloading a video; it's not a unit test. I know that the definition gets stretched, but at the very least, a unit test should be deterministic. A test relying on a network communication with a third party system stretches the adjective 'unit' to beyond usefulness.

Weren't the tests under discussion from the original repo only downloading the first eg just enough to verify the content being pulled down was as expected, as would make sense for a video unit test

[deleted]

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#48

Post by [deleted] »

justinclift wrote: post #45
archgoon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the test was downloading a video; it's not a unit test. I know that the definition gets stretched, but at the very least, a unit test should be deterministic. A test relying on a network communication with a third party system stretches the adjective 'unit' to beyond usefulness.

Weren't the tests under discussion from the original repo only downloading the first eg just enough to verify the content being pulled down was as expected, as would make sense for a video unit test

[deleted]

Re: Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms

#49

Post by ehsankia »

setr wrote: post #39
ehsankia wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this distinction really matter? Everyone is so quick to mention this, but personally 1. I see unit tests as examples of how you can use the software and 2. It's still a link to copyrighted content is software that can be used to download said content. Doesn't matter if it's in documentation, unit test or even code comment.

It does in the sense of intent -- if they built the tool for the express purpose of avoiding copyright restriction, they would do more than hide it in a random unit test or code comment. Putting it in the README itself would be a far stronger signal of intentional malfeasance. In the unit test... it's pretty clear the original developer's intent was simply to pick a video, and chose a trivially popular one (taylor sw…

Unit tests are explicit examples of how the program works. It's showing by example things the program can do. Hell, it's even testing them to make sure they still and always will work. You may as well name the unit test "testCanDownloadIllegalContent()"
Post reply on HN