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

Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 148 posts

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#51

Post by svnpenn »

nomilk wrote: post #36

Occasionally my personal/literature/academic/tech notes link to a youtube source, but when clicking on it I find the video has vanished with no way of knowing what it was or even what it was called (it's sometimes impossible to track down an identical/replacement source). I lost many valuable references that way. Wayback machine solves for webpages, but nothing I'm aware of (short of youtube-dl-ing the video yourself…

Any video you care about, you need to make it your own responsibility to backup the metadata and/or streams. If you're lucky you can internet search the video ID to get the metadata, even after deletion.

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#52

Post by Fang_ »

j1elo wrote: post #45

Afrer reading the description, this project seems to be solely focused on downloading all of a specific channel's videos. I've been taking my first steps at having a home server, and one of the things I'd love to do with it is having an archive of the videos that I have saved in my private playlists on YouTube. In my mind, the service would periodically check all my playlists, compare with what exists locally, and do…

Nice web ui aside, if I'm not mistaken youtube-dl already supports this kind of usage. You can `youtube-dl --download-archive archive.txt https://youtu.be/your-playlist` and it'll keep track in the archive.txt of everything it's already downloaded. Supplement with authentication options as necessary, set up a cronjob, done.

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#53

Post by _0ffh »

j1elo wrote: post #45

Afrer reading the description, this project seems to be solely focused on downloading all of a specific channel's videos. I've been taking my first steps at having a home server, and one of the things I'd love to do with it is having an archive of the videos that I have saved in my private playlists on YouTube. In my mind, the service would periodically check all my playlists, compare with what exists locally, and do…

I think youtube-dl as well as yt-dlp can both download playlists. You can create a script to download all your playlist and make it a cron job. Videos that do already exist in the target folder will be skipped automatically.

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#54

Post by mozman »

j1elo wrote: post #45

Afrer reading the description, this project seems to be solely focused on downloading all of a specific channel's videos. I've been taking my first steps at having a home server, and one of the things I'd love to do with it is having an archive of the videos that I have saved in my private playlists on YouTube. In my mind, the service would periodically check all my playlists, compare with what exists locally, and do…

I was doing this for awhile but it became expensive - tens of TBs on an expensive NAS just to hoard data.

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#55

Post by romwell »

mozman wrote: post #54
j1elo wrote: post #45

Afrer reading the description, this project seems to be solely focused on downloading all of a specific channel's videos. I've been taking my first steps at having a home server, and one of the things I'd love to do with it is having an archive of the videos that I have saved in my private playlists on YouTube. In my mind, the service would periodically check all my playlists, compare with what exists locally, and do…

I was doing this for awhile but it became expensive - tens of TBs on an expensive NAS just to hoard data.

FSM almighty, how much video are you watching to have that many favorite ones?

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#56

Post by olonn »

masukomi wrote: post #24
okasaki wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But most people have more free disk space than 10gb, and most people also have more than 1 device. I have 2 phones, 3 laptops, a desktop and a NAS, with some 40TB between them. My workplace has a private cloud with some 70PB of storage, plus tape, and tons of desktops and laptops.

a) i seriously doubt your "most" claim about free disk space. Maybe "most privileged white folks in rich countries" but not "most people" b) just because i HAVE 10Gb of free disk space doesn't mean i'm going to offer it up for archiving of random internet crap c) if it was on my phone it'd cost money and now we're very actively ignoring just how expensive it is to be online in 3rd world countries if you're not a rich…

[flagged]

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#57

Post by RockRobotRock »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #40
nomilk wrote: post #36

Occasionally my personal/literature/academic/tech notes link to a youtube source, but when clicking on it I find the video has vanished with no way of knowing what it was or even what it was called (it's sometimes impossible to track down an identical/replacement source). I lost many valuable references that way. Wayback machine solves for webpages, but nothing I'm aware of (short of youtube-dl-ing the video yourself…

I do not see how that becomes possible without the Internet archive effectively mirroring a large percentage of YouTube. I recall at one point, IA wanted to archive just the video metadata and realized even that would be technically challenging.

It would be nice to prioritize videos which are deemed at "high risk" of being deleted, with bayes statistics or machine learning or something like that.

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#58

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

romwell wrote: post #55
mozman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was doing this for awhile but it became expensive - tens of TBs on an expensive NAS just to hoard data.

FSM almighty, how much video are you watching to have that many favorite ones?

With the rise of cheap 4k cameras, it goes faster than you think. I download guitar training videos where a 25 minute tutorial can be 2-3gbs. I believe those are “only” 2k resolution. If you do not download them in a space conscious format or recompress (using mildly aggressive settings can drop them to 100mb), a handful of videos can quickly fill a hard drive.

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#59

Post by judge2020 »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #40
nomilk wrote: post #36

Occasionally my personal/literature/academic/tech notes link to a youtube source, but when clicking on it I find the video has vanished with no way of knowing what it was or even what it was called (it's sometimes impossible to track down an identical/replacement source). I lost many valuable references that way. Wayback machine solves for webpages, but nothing I'm aware of (short of youtube-dl-ing the video yourself…

I do not see how that becomes possible without the Internet archive effectively mirroring a large percentage of YouTube. I recall at one point, IA wanted to archive just the video metadata and realized even that would be technically challenging.

IA does seems to archive YT video content, at least last time I tried to watch a deleted but popular video.

Re: Yark: Advanced and easy YouTube archiver now stable

#60

Post by HPsquared »

mozman wrote: post #54
j1elo wrote: post #45

Afrer reading the description, this project seems to be solely focused on downloading all of a specific channel's videos. I've been taking my first steps at having a home server, and one of the things I'd love to do with it is having an archive of the videos that I have saved in my private playlists on YouTube. In my mind, the service would periodically check all my playlists, compare with what exists locally, and do…

I was doing this for awhile but it became expensive - tens of TBs on an expensive NAS just to hoard data.

You can probably set flags to download in lower bitrate formats. Some formats use a LOT less data than others, and usually the extra quality isn't really needed anyway if it's only being kept for reference. The difference between 1080p (or, say, 4K60) and 240p or 360p is massive.
Post reply on HN