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

The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–266 of 266 posts

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#261

Post by Hakashiro »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #76

How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more — while also making it technically incapable of being evil and closed? Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity?

The technologies exist.

The reality is YouTube bleeds money like crazy. Pretty much only huge enterprises like Google can afford to run a service like YouTube.

You can try. Many have tried before and YouTube continues to be king for a reason.

Good luck!

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#262

Post by feanaro »

paulcole wrote: post #253
feanaro wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> something the restaurant has forbid me to do according to their rules. Except they're not their rules. My computer, my rules. I really wish you'd chosen to respond to my technical question instead, though.

> are you actually arguing that we shouldn't have the ability to modify the markup and the code before we display it on our computers? I’m not arguing you shouldn’t have that ability. Morally, I feel I’m bound to play by the rules of the service if I want to use that service. If they’re showing ads I find distasteful, then I don’t use that service. I don’t find some technical workaround that allows me to do something…

Thanks for answering, I really appreciate it because it helps me to better understand your position.

I do feel the same general impetus not to be an ass to people. Not bringing a trash bag to steal all food from a buffet for myself is a part of my rule set too.

However, I feel strongly that websites are not very much alike to a physical place in which I have to observe the rules of the host. In fact, I cannot bring myself to view the website's code as rules.

To consider a web where I am merely a passive consumer of content served to me by an active publisher goes counter to the very nature of the open web with which I have grown up. The opposite view makes much more sense to me: I am an active participant and the website is the passive information vessel.

A malicious website enforcing its will on me feels like a decidedly perverted concept. My best attempt to explain why would be to liken it to an evil magic book which, upon being brought into my home, attempts controlling and limiting my behaviour. It is the book that is the guest inside my house and not the other way around!

I also do care about tracking quite a lot. I do not want to be tracked. To track me against my will feels like an act of aggression, or at least rude and distasteful, quite similar in tone to the actions of the rude garbage-carrying patron in your example.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#263

Post by eashman »

14 wrote: post #77
seanp2k2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long as the https://www.eff.org/issues/analog-hole exists, piracy cannot be stopped. The ever-escalating arms race between content and consumers will go on, but there will be no victory, only collateral damage. If you have content people value but they aren't willing to pay for it, find out why. Maybe it's because you're charging too much, running too many ads, making it hard to cancel, or they just don't actually…

You gave me an idea if someone was to design a small display attached to a camera paired specifically to capture high quality video not just someone propping up a camera but where external light was blocked and the image size and camera are perfectly matched with an audio input as well they may have a market.

This is similar to how they would broadcast film on television in the early days - using a Kinescope.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#264

Post by Mindwipe »

hirako2000 wrote: post #183
Mindwipe wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The German verdict would apply EU wide unless another court overrules it, and is useful precedent to getting similar judgements elsewhere. To be honest though, I don't think they need to win, just get clarity. YouTube have almost certainly committed to the labels that they do apply DRM to YouTube videos containing their content, and are telling them that the rolling cypher is it. If the labels take it to court and th…

it's a cat and mouse game that mice have kept winning. Pretending DRM is even technically an option to curtail abuses (or fair copies) is naive at best. a fallacy at worst. also to note that it is companies that act illegally in preventing fair use of copyrighted content. it's a battle where both sides pretty much decided to ignore the law. since registered companies are meant to respect the law to continue to operat…

> also to note that it is companies that act illegally in preventing fair use of copyrighted content.

No, they're not. Law on copyright does vary from country to country significantly, and you're citing "fair use" (a US legal concept that doesn't exist in Europe) about a European case, but generally speaking copyright exemptions are exemptions that are defences to stop other people suing you. They are not "rights", and there is no requirement for any other party to technically or practically enable them. I can keep my copyrighted work in a room you're not allowed to take a camera in, and that's perfectly legitimate. Likewise, companies can apply any digital locks they like.

(Note in some cases there are small, specific allowances on circumvention provisions for exercising of copyright exemptions such as the US Library of Congress list, but they are generally very small, very specific, and again do not require the copyright holder to enable it, just reduce their legal back up.)

No court would ever rule the way you want it to, because fundamentally you misunderstand the basic legal concepts.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#265

Post by feanaro »

jacobjjacob wrote: post #230
grozzle wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can also pay YouTube $0 a month and never see an ad again. I do pay money for Nebula, because they seem like their hearts are in the right place. I pay about $60, 70 a month to various podcast and video creators directly. I don't use adblock, vanced, and sponsorblock because I'm cheap. It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an…

If you really don’t like the product, the right thing to do would be to stop using it, not steal it. If the cost of a product exceeds its value to you, you just don’t buy it. It doesn’t mean you should get it for free.

Selectively blocking parts of a web page is not stealing.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#266

Post by webmaven »

guiambros wrote: post #4
webmaven wrote: post #3

I'm not sure what it says about me that my first thought upon reading this: > an independent club owner in San Francisco tried to run a promotional video given to him for a band he’d booked, only to find Instagram’s filer blocked it. He was able to reinstate the video, 17 months after the band had come and gone. Was "I bet that was jwz" . Indeed, a brief web search turned up this (via a recent-ish Cory Doctorow post…

Reminder to not link directly to jwz.org from HN. Here's a sanitized link: (or right click above and open in incognito) https://web.archive.org/web/20220121083848/https://www.jwz.o...

Oops. Here is Cory Doctorow's post (the jwz reference and link is about ¾ of the way down): https://onezero.medium.com/nonstandard-measures-cf47c67e8f05
Post reply on HN