Live data from Hacker News

The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

windowsread.me

241–250 of 251 posts

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#241
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate on the mechanisms at play? If what you claim is true, all websites would already serve ads from their own domain. The main issue I can see with this approach is that there would be an obvious incentive for webmasters to vastly overstate ad impressions to generate revenue.

Look up Facebook Conversions API Gateway

As far as I understand, the objective is completely different. Ads are shown on platforms owned by Meta, and the Conversions API runs on the merchant's website (server-side), and reports interactions such as purchases back to Facebook.

This is quite different from websites monetizing traffic through and trackers placed on their own webpages. Those can still be reliably blocked by preventing websites from loading third party content.

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#242

The claim that Google secretly wants YouTube downloaders to work doesn't hold up. Their focus is on delivering videos across a vast range of devices without breaking playback(and even that is blurring[0]), not enabling downloads. If you dive into the yt-dlp source code, you see the insane complexity of calculations needed to download a video. There is code to handle nsig checks, internal YouTube API quirks, and const…

"If you dive into the yt-dlp source code, you see the insane complexity of calculations needed to download a video. "

Indeed the complexity is insane

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45256043

But what is meant by "a video". Is this referring to the common case or an edge/corner case. Does "a" mean one particular video or all videos

"There is code to handle nsig checks, internal YouTube API quirks, and constant obfuscation that makes it a nightmare(and the maintainers heroes) to keep up."

True, but is this code required for all YouTube videos

The majority of YT videos are non-commercial, unpromoted with low view counts. These are simple to download

For example, the current yt-dlp project contains approximately 218 YT IDs. A 2024 version contained approximately 201 YT IDs. These are often for testing edge cases

The example 1,525-character shell script below outputs download URLs for almost all the YT IDs found in yt-dlp. No Python needed

By comparison the yt-dlp project is 15,679,182 characters, approximately

The curl binary is used in the example only because it's popular, not because I use it. I use simpler, more flexible software than curl

I have been using tiny shell script to download YT videos for over 15 years. I have been downloading videos from googlevideo.com for even longer, before Google acquired YouTube.^1 Surprisingly (or not), when YT changes something that requires updating the script (and this has only happened to me about 5 times or less in 15 years) I have generally been able to fix the shell script faster than yt-dl(p) fixes its Python program (same for NewPipe/NewPipeSB)

I prefer non-commercial videos that are not promoted. The ones with relatively low view counts. For more popular videos, I listen to the audio file first before downloading the video file. After listening to the audio, I may decide to skip the video. Also I am not overly concerned about throttling

1. The original Google Video made a distinction between commercial and non-commercial(free) videos. The later were always easy to download, and no sign-in/log-in was required. This might be a more plausible theory why YT has always allowed downloads for non-commercial videos

   # custom C filters to make scripts faster, easier to write
   # yy030 filters URLs from stdin
   # yy082 filters various strings from stdin, 
   # e.g., f == print format descriptions, v == print YT IDs
   # x is a YouTube ID
   # script accepts YT ID on stdin
   
   #/bin/sh
   read x;
   y=https://www.youtube.com/youtubei/v1/player?prettyPrint=false 
   curl -K/dev/stdin $y 

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#243

This seems to be starting with the assumption that it's possible to prevent people from downloading the videos. That is a false assumption. You can, after all, just play the video and record it. Even if the entire machine playing the content is flawlessly locked down, you can just record the output. The efforts at DRM done by companies like Netflix is done because the companies that licensed the content demand it. Th…

Downloading a Netflix show is not as easy as downloading a YouTube video is not like you go Netflix downloader put a link and download the video easily. Actually as it's was expensive for the piraters to get the show they only offer it with ads. Maybe you can find it with torrents but series are less common to find than movies

It may not be as simple as youtube, but ive literally never not found a pirate stream for a netflix show within 10 minutes of it being released + the run time.

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#244

Is Stacher open source? Last time I searched 'stacher open source' on Google, I found a Reddit thread discussing when it might become open source. EDIT: The reason I ask is that the article says Stacher is open source, and that is news to me.

To answer your question: it is not open source.

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#245
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there someone in the world for whom this demo https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/... does not play? Because that's what I use and am not aware of issues with it > Reddit struggles to provide a video player that is up to YouTube’s par. Do you have more resources than Reddit? Better programmers? It's hard to say whether MDN and I have/am better programmer(s) and resource(s) than reddit witho…

You're linking to a page with a 5 second 1MB video on it. Yes, it's easy to use the element to serve a video file no larger than a picture. No, that does not mean you have a system that will allow thousands of users to watch an 11 min HD video during their subway ride that starts instantly and never pauses, stutters, or locks up. I can't speak to Dutch websites but in the U.S., a news website will usually feel obliga…

Oh that's interesting! The US is portrayed here as this free for all country (limited unemployment money, health services, PTO...) but then subtitles are mandatory? That's cool! I presume we don't have such a law since the news sites I frequent don't seem to offer that for most videos (not counting youtube's autogenerated attempt for the few sites that outsource video hosting to google)

As for that video being small and not receiving thousands of simultaneous views: sure, but buying sufficient bandwidth is not a "hire better programmers" problem. You don't need to beat Reddit's skills and resources to provide smoother video playback. Probably the opposite actually: smaller scale should be easier to handle than reddit scale, and they already had that all set up

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#246
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM isn't perfect of course, but it largely works. Unlike with Youtube videos, you can't just freely pull something off GitHub and crack Widevine level 1 DRM. The tools and extracted secret keys that release groups use to pirate 4K content are protected and not generally available. This doesn't matter if you want to find something popular enough for a release group to drop in a torrent, but if you have personal acces…

No, it really is not that complicated at all. You can just go online and grab software to bypass any and all DRM. It's called OBS. All DRM content must be rendered into meatspace at some point and there is literally no possible way to prevent this. Record your screen, record your system audio. It's pretty trivial

you mean screen recording? Or using a virtual display you can record? pretty sure this is false for the level 1 DRM used for 4k content. Still certainly will work for some things but never for 4K. Sites downgrade you to 720p if you're in a lower security context. Would love to be proven wrong.

Use OBS to capture the 4K version of this test pattern[0] off Netflix and I'll buy you lunch!

You can point a camera at your monitor of course, but with level 1 DRM the video decoding happens in a hardware video decoder that's not accessible by the operating system. If you try to screen record or use OBS on 4K content on macOS/Windows, you just get black. Same with phones. It's not "just use OBS". If it works for you it's probably because you're getting 720p content. (which admittedly provides the majority of the value)

[0] https://www.netflix.com/title/80018499 # <-- this test pattern is the most reliable way to actually know what resolution video Netflix is sending you.

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#247

One of the things that drives me crazy about YouTube is that if a video gets taken down, it shows up as a "This video is no longer available" with no further metadata. I am far, far more uptight about no knowing which video was removed than I am about the fact that it is no longer available. I have put serious thought into creating a tool that would automatically yt-dlp every video I open to a giant hard drive and ap…

You can't even tell what channel removed videos were from. Very frustrating.

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it really is not that complicated at all. You can just go online and grab software to bypass any and all DRM. It's called OBS. All DRM content must be rendered into meatspace at some point and there is literally no possible way to prevent this. Record your screen, record your system audio. It's pretty trivial

Netflix only serves 720p (or below) video to any platform that does not encrypt the video path that prevents OBS or anything else from screen recording.

Not anything else, eventually the signal needs to be unencrypted so your eyeballs can see it. You don't want to see static.

So between the LCD and the connection, the signal is passing in cleartext. You can intercept that.

There's HDCP converters available for cheap.

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#249
post #3

Youtube is a youtube downloader. Everything is a downloader. It's literally impossible to interact with a thing without downloading it and having the data. The difference is that the data is usually deleted later (a silly practice done to trick the lawyers into believing the world is like they think it is, hiding actual reality that would confuse and enrage them).

The word "download" is used in two senses. The first is the broader sense you're referring to, where it means "to receive data." The second sense means to collect all the data from a particular file or dataset and store it locally, as opposed to "streaming." That second sense is the one clearly being used when referring to "YouTube downloaders."

If you view the entire file they are the same thing. And they're always being collected and stored locally even if it's hidden from you.

And a static mp4 file encoded with ffmpeg -movflags +faststart -start_at_zero can be seeked within in any browser from any static webserver and viewed at any seeking time without downloading the rest. Is this streaming too?

Given the first example of fully watching and the second implementation of streaming with a simple static file you can see the streaming/file download distinction you make is much thinner than it first appears. At least from a technical perspective.

In lawyer-ese you are making a valid semantic point which I do acknowledge. "Streaming" in lawyer-ese means a corporation is doing it so there's: 1. legal liability 2. lots of abstraction layers involved so they don't get upset and 3. the local files are hidden from view of the user. Unlike the simple streaming example with a properly encoded .mp4 file.

Re: The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a website owner myself, I don't understand what's so hard now that we can write 1 HTML tag and have an embedded video on the page. You acknowledge that it's not that simple: > running ffmpeg at a few quality settings upon uploading (there are maybe 3 articles with a video per day, so any old server can handle this) Can any old server really handle that? And can it handle the resulting storage of not only the hig…

Doesn't cloudflare and amazon have this now? Pretty sure CF is developing a closed source player- but theres plenty of FOSS ones (rip the one jellyfin uses out of it- at worst). And, theres plenty of tutorials on using ffmpeg based tools to make the files. And yes, "oh no, I need to learn something new for my video workflow."

> And yes, "oh no, I need to learn something new for my video workflow."

That's rude and uncalled for. I didn't say I was unwilling to learn something new. I said the economics don't work out for the solution someone else proposed. And I also disputed the statement, "we can write 1 HTML tag and have an embedded video on the page." Now you've moved the goalpost to "learn something new" (which actually means "design and deploy an entire new system").

Post reply on HN