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

Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 635 posts

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#531

Post by johnisgood »

pmdr wrote: post #200
MangoToupe wrote: post #36

At some point we’re going to need a better place to put videos than YouTube. The lack of any democratization of bulk storage is beginning to be a real problem on the internet. Yes, we have archive.org. We need more than that, though. I’m sure there’s some distributed solution like IPFS but I haven’t seen any serious attempt to make this accessible to every day people.

> I’m sure there’s some distributed solution like IPFS Almost 25 years on the internet and I have not been able to download anything from IPFS. Does one need a PhD to do so?

Same. Are we missing information, or is it really stagnating and not being utilized for whatever reasons?

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#533

Post by ddtaylor »

knowitnone3 wrote: post #478
trenchpilgrim wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically, yt-dlp uses legacy API features supported for older smart TVs which don't receive software updates. Eventually once that traffic drops to near zero those features will go away.

So more people using yt-dlp will increase the likelihood of Youtube keeping legacy APIs?

They probably have metrics they track, such as purchases or customer activity.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#534

Post by meeb »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #512
meeb wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the mention :)

Do you have any plans for the target to be S3 compatible in addition to a posix file system? If I wanted to sync a YouTube channel to a Backblaze B2 bucket or Minio, for example.

No plans for that currently, you're welcome to open an issue on GitHub though and I'll investigate if it's sensible to implement.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#535

Post by mavhc »

trenchpilgrim wrote: post #170
mavhc wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why can't they monetize elsewhere?

> Here's the problem (and it's not insurmountable): right now, there's no easy path towards sustainable content production when the audience for the content is 100x smaller, and the number of patrons/sponsors remains proportionally the same. https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/self-hosting-your-own...

So they're not paying YouTube but get free advertising for their product from it, which brings in 100x more users that elsewhere? Seems like an OK deal.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#536

Post by yacthing »

godelski wrote: post #479
yacthing wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're both programmers so we're both know we're talking about a one line regex... As a big tech programmer, it's almost never that simple... Small edges cases not covered by a one line regex can mean big issues at scale, especially when we're talking about removing things from a calendar.

> As a big tech programmer, it's almost never that simple... I'll be fair and agree that I'm being a bit facetious here. But let's also admit that if you are unable to dedupe entries in a calendar with identical names then something is fundamentally broken. I did purposefully limit to holiday calendars as an example because this very narrow scope vastly simplifies the problem, yet is a real world example you yourself…

That's a lot of words, but I think it boils down to: you're making an assumption that two calendar events with identical naming and identical time entries will always have a desired behavior of being deduped.

- Maybe you want to separately invite people to the same thing and have different descriptions, now you're increasing the number of things to equate.

- Maybe a user creates one event that is simply a title and a time, and they then want to create a second one for another purpose. However, it keeps getting deduped and they don't know why. Now you have a user education problem that you have to solve.

- Now you might think: well just make it a toggle in the settings! Okay well now you have to add a new setting and that expands the scope of the project. Do you make it opt-in or opt-out? If it's opt-in, what if no one uses it? Do you maintain the feature if there's a migration? If it's opt-out, you still have the above problems.

I could go on. And this is mostly an exercise of not underestimating a "simple" change. Calendars (and anything involving time) in particular can get very complicated.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#537

Post by goku12 »

bitwize wrote: post #175
jasode wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you ever wondered why the likes of Google and Cloudflare want to restrict the web I disagree with the framing of "us vs them". It's actually "us vs us". It's not just us plebians vs FAANG giants. The small-time independent publishers and creators also want to restrict the web because they don't want their content "stolen". They want to interact with real humans instead of bots. The following are manifestations of…

Duh. I've known this for decades. The biggest advocates for DRM I've known are small-time content creators: authors, video producers, musicians. They've been saying the same thing since the 90s: without things like DRM, their stuff would be pirated, and they'd like to earn a living doing what they love instead of grinding at a day job to support themselves while everybody benefits from their creative output. In addit…

That isn't entirely true. Perhaps it's because small content creators aren't a monolithic group. There are a few who try the alternative approaches and succeed. For example, whenever buying ebooks, I first check if the author sells it directly or through small publishers. It's always a better deal if they do. Cheaper than what you pay on amzn, DRM-free and occasionally lifetime free updates (eg: The Kubernetes book by Nigel Poulton). Despite the lower price, the author gets most, if not all of what you pay. They're sometimes liberal with the sharing policy too. They ask you to not share it around in large numbers, while conceding that just a copy or two is expected. I find this to be a reasonable demand. Therefore I encourage people to buy a copy for themselves if they like the book.

I have heard someone trying this approach with music albums and succeeding at it. The album is more likely to go viral due to the easiness in sharing, while you'll always find consumers who volunteer to pay you. While the returns per copy is low, the large number of copies means that your profits may be higher than if it were DRM-encumbered. Musicians may also like the fact that there are no powerful middlemen that they have to contend with. In fact, this is what YouTube creators already do when they choose alternative monetization paths like Patreon.

What's really needed is for people to support and encourage this model and such creators. We used to earlier blame them saying that people choose convenience and short term savings over long term market health. But that's no longer applicable. People are so fed up with being exploited under consumerism that they've started boycotting these big players to regain their independence and self sufficiency. The real issue preventing open digital markets is just the lack of awareness of their existence. This message has to be spread somehow.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#538

Post by non-nil »

Gabrys1 wrote: post #529
cranberryturkey wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as soon as they have a map app that works with car play i'm switching to linux phone.

There are boxes you plug to your CarPlay enabled car that run Android. Run Google Maps on that and you're golden. No need to carry/connect your phone to the car anymore

I don't think you mean a wired-to-wireless dongle, which is all my searches turn up. Can you give me an example of such a device?

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#539

Post by godelski »

yacthing wrote: post #536
godelski wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a big tech programmer, it's almost never that simple... I'll be fair and agree that I'm being a bit facetious here. But let's also admit that if you are unable to dedupe entries in a calendar with identical names then something is fundamentally broken. I did purposefully limit to holiday calendars as an example because this very narrow scope vastly simplifies the problem, yet is a real world example you yourself…

That's a lot of words, but I think it boils down to: you're making an assumption that two calendar events with identical naming and identical time entries will always have a desired behavior of being deduped. - Maybe you want to separately invite people to the same thing and have different descriptions, now you're increasing the number of things to equate. - Maybe a user creates one event that is simply a title and a…

  > will always have a desired behavior of being deduped.
Okay, let's say people like repetition. Optional flag. Great, solved.

  > Maybe you want to separately invite people to the same thing
To a... holiday? Sorry, I already cannot invite people to a holiday in my existing calendar. I have no ability to edit the event. This capacity does not exist in my Apple Calendar nor Google Calendar and I'm not going to check that Outlook Calendar because the answer doesn't matter.

  > Maybe a user creates one event that is simply a title and a time,
Again, no need to auto-dedupe. But having collisions and requiring unique name entries is not that uncommon of a thing.

  > And this is mostly an exercise of not underestimating a "simple" change
Except to introduce your complexity you also had to increase the scope of the problem. Yeah, I'm all for recognizing complexity but come on man, we're talking about fucking Apple who makes you do it their way, by visiting 12 different menus, or the highway. We're talking about the same company who does not have the capacity to merge two contacts and only has the option "find duplicate contacts" but is unable to find duplicates despite multiple matching fields.

So what's your answer? Keep the bullshit and do not provide an option to allow merges or dedupes? Literally all the problems you've brought up can be resolved by prompting the user with a request to merge OR just giving them the ability to do so. You really think triplicate entries is a better result than allowing a user to select three entries, right click, "merge entries"? Come on...

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#540

Post by kelnos »

indymike wrote: post #379
godelski wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking to "my friend" about how I'm annoyed my calendar duplicates holidays because it imports from multiple calendars and he asked me "what value" would be provided if this was solved. Confused I said it pushes things off so I can't read events. He clarified he meant monetary value... We're both programmers so we're both know we're talking about a one line regex... I know quite a number of people like this an…

Hmm. If the annual subscription is $100 then the value of fixing this is $100. If it is free, then, what's the profile worth for a year... there's the value. User retention is a thing.

Right, but fixing something is only worth $100 if they actually are losing paid users over that thing.

I suspect they aren't losing users over duplicated holidays in the calendar.

Post reply on HN