How journalists use youtube-dl

Post by llacb47 » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:57 PM UTC

bleepblorp wrote: post #25

[Post deleted after 60 minutes. It has had adequate exposure.]

    The headline on the article should reflect the fact that Microsoft/Github pulled youtube-dl offline by choosing to respond to a DMCA takedown order that is not procedurally valid. The privatization of law enforcement through DMCA takedown orders does not extend to alleged circumvention tools; it includes only copyrighted material that is allegedly 'pirated.'
    The RIAA is engaging in an abuse of process that Microsoft has no obligation to cooperate with. The fact that Microsoft didn't tell the RIAA to go Disney themselves means that 100% of the blame lies at Microsoft's feet. No exceptions.

    . .

    That said, the youtube-dl maintainers should file a bar association complaint against the RIAA lawyer(s) who wrote the DMCA takedown. Filing invalid motions is an ethical violation that should result in sanctions.

Post by labawi » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

reggieband wrote: post #89

filmgirlcw wrote: post #64

I left a comment about my own non-infringing use cases of the tool earlier — and I think it’s important that the non-infringing use cases get mentioned. Having said that, can we please stop pretending like any of us weren’t using this to infringe copyright? Most of us weren’t distributing anything, but I think most of us were aware this was at the very least a grey area, if not outright infringement. I’m a huge fan a…

To add to this (which I 100% agree with) is the chorus of voices suggesting that their usage was OK because they weren't downloading RIAA content. Just because someone isn't an RIAA member doesn't mean they don't have copyright over the content they upload to YouTube. There are some YouTube creators that would be totally fine with you downloading their content but you can't assume every creator is the same. Just beca…

Post by heavyset_go » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #3

My two big uses cases for youtube-dl: 1) Downloading videos to use later in editing for analysis pieces / editorial videos. 2) Download videos that may disappear in a "No longer available" blackhole. The 2nd is incredibly useful and telling when you go back, look up videos by their ID, and see what has been deleted. I'd also recommend changing the OUTPUT format to include the channel name or Twitter account, so you c…

Post by heavyset_go » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 11:01 PM UTC

jyrkesh wrote: post #50

incompatible wrote: post #45

YouTube even offers a Creative Commons feature, such as on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUY01kW8p2o : if you scroll to the end of the description it reads: License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). I've never understood why they don't offer a download option for such videos: the likes of youtube-dl is the only way to get a copy, and it's perfectly legal. Likewise for public domain videos.

I don't think it's any more complicated than that it's because they can't roll ads on videos that are downloaded. youtube-dl et al are niche enough that it doesn't put a real dent in their ad business, but making it more convenient with a Download button might.

Post by Google234 » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #116

djsumdog wrote: post #3

My two big uses cases for youtube-dl: 1) Downloading videos to use later in editing for analysis pieces / editorial videos. 2) Download videos that may disappear in a "No longer available" blackhole. The 2nd is incredibly useful and telling when you go back, look up videos by their ID, and see what has been deleted. I'd also recommend changing the OUTPUT format to include the channel name or Twitter account, so you c…

#1 is an activity protected by fair use, and something fairly important. Imagine a world where you can't reference images or clips in your journalism or reviews, forever having to rely on only licensed material and descriptions.