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

How journalists use youtube-dl

freedom.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 348 posts

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#151

Post by actuator »

bigiain wrote: post #131
prox wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has zero interest in free downloads. They are in bed with the music industry which makes them some ad dollars and their client thinking is sub-zero. Thats because the public is not the client, the advertisers are. If I worked at Google I would be scratching myself behind the ears and take a long big look at what the company has become.

I suspect there's at least a small dose of ultra privilege of googlers involved too. The same way governments and bureaucrats fuck up things like Covid responses, because they can't even imagine people not having 9-5 office jobs which are totally suited to WFH, and then blithely implement disease protection schemes failing to account for low income and precariously employed people, many of whom are working 3 jobs to…

> Googlers have probably forgotten the olden times, when they didn't have Gigabit connections to their pockets and lounge rooms.

Sure, that's why projects like Project Loon were launched by Googlers.

I don't think the CC video thing is even ads related. Just that most videos are not CC and no one thought about creating an exception for CC videos.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#153

Post by roywiggins »

comeonseriously wrote: post #83
roywiggins wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RIAA alleges that it bypasses a form of DRM. Youtube tries to obfuscate the full URL of videos, so youtube-dl does a little dance to work out where to download it from. If this is a form of DRM, then the DMCA plausibly applies.

So, the argument is whether or not obfuscation is DRM? If that's true anyone can claim that some weird URL scheme is DRM. That's a dangerous slope to tread.

I think it is, too, but "is this sufficiently obfuscatory to fall under the DMCA or not" is really only something a court can decide- it's not a technical question. So "this is obviously not DRM" is an argument, but until a court says otherwise the RIAA seems to have a leg to stand on.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#154

Post by tracker1 »

retromagik wrote: post #106
nitrogen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Downloading videos to use later in editing for analysis pieces / editorial videos. I wonder if certain famous YouTubers used youtube-dl for this purpose. How else would you download, edit, and analyze a video's editing or special effects?

There’s plenty of online tools and browser extensions to accomplish the same task (I wonder how many of those use YouTube-dl on the backend)

Browser extensions are very similar, just as an extension instead of direct. Unfortunately, it's difficult to use non-store extensions in Chrome, and Google pretty much blocks anything that allows youtube downloads from the store. youtube-dl is likely the most popular option for this, and even then, the same (deeply flawed) logic could be used against any of them.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#155

Post by filmgirlcw »

labawi wrote: post #114
reggieband wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes but a tool is not illegal just because it can sometimes be used illegally. If some are OK with it and some are not, then it suggests it has legitimate purpose (though you need to go a lot deeper). Note, I'm not arguing copying small-label stuff is OK, I'm rather more OK with copying RIAA stuff. AFAICT, if a DRM prohibits fair use, breaking it is legal. In some jurisdictions. Or at least it should be. That should…

To be clear, I'm not arguing that it is illegal or that it should be -- clearly that it shouldn't! I'm simply saying that the program was designed to download content that the site and/or creators didn't want to be downloaded and that the vast, vast, vast majority of people using said program were using it to circumvent those restrictions.

Again, if anyone is guilty of anything, it's the users (like me) who use the program, not the program for merely existing. And frankly, since I don't distribute the content I download or profit from it in any way, I welcome the RIAA coming after me, just as I did 20 years ago when I was a high school student using Napster on her dial-up connection.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#156

Post by [deleted] »

backtoyoujim wrote: post #148
neodymiumphish wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process for a subpoena takes forever and isn't guaranteed. If I have a subject who has relevant video on a service like YouTube, and I decide to go the subpoena route, here's the process: - Find the exact video, document the URL, Content creator's account name, and video upload date. - Submit a preservation letter to Google to ensure the video will still be accessible when the subpoena is auctioned. - go to my pr…

"The process for a subpoena takes forever" No, it doesn't. And that "forever" are human rights that are established and should require a subpoena to contest.

[deleted]

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#157

Post by tracker1 »

Fnoord wrote: post #103
nitrogen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Downloading videos to use later in editing for analysis pieces / editorial videos. I wonder if certain famous YouTubers used youtube-dl for this purpose. How else would you download, edit, and analyze a video's editing or special effects?

On Twitch streamers have a browser window open and pause it to comment.

HDCP protections added to Chrome in 3...2...

edit: I only meant this in so much that it's entirely possible for Google, that controls both Chrome (the biggest browser) and YouTube (biggest online video site) to encable DHCP restrictions on video capture from within the browser for sites (such as YouTube) that might implement it. Given their proclivity towards giving the RIAA/MPAA whatever they ask for, it wouldn't surprise me.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#159

Post by Mister_Snuggles »

fabianhjr wrote: post #37
pwinnski wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The different, Google would argue, is that YouTube-dl doesn't download the ads, while a VCR captures ads and content alike. But really, if the VCR were invented today, it would be made illegal.

You can easily splice out the ads from DVRs/VCRs.

I even have a VHS VCR that does this automatically. It’s fascinating - once the recording is done it rewinds and watches the show at high speed, when it sees something in the signal that indicates that an ad was spliced in it marks the start and end. Then when playing back it fast-forwards over the commercials.

It worked brilliantly, back in the days of analog cable TV.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#160

Post by nullc »

subroutine wrote: post #93
nullc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow the argument that the procedural invalidity makes Github more culpable. In a normal, procedurally valid, DMCA the only harm to the host for not following the procedure is that they lose the safe harbor. In this case because it isn't a question of infringement there isn't a safe harbor at all. In either case a company can choose to take something down because it wants to reduce its exposure to litigatio…

Based on your response, and the parent comment, it seems like content hosts have a responsibility: to determine if a DMCA takedown request is valid. If a host doesn't see this as a responsibility, and simply complies with every DMCA (whether valid, invalid, or even fraudulent), I'd agree with op... the host is culpable whenever they comply with an invalid or fraudulent DMCA request. Maybe not culpable in a legal sens…

They don't have a responsibility except in a goodwill sense.

The DMCA gives hosts an option to have legal immunity for each specific case of infringement, to gain the immunity they need only take the content down at the cost of outraging a potential customer. They don't have to take the option, however.

It is common in industry for hosts to simply discard obviously invalid complaints particularly if the target is high profile. The legal immunity isn't very valuable if the complaint is baseless-- (sure, there might be frivolous litigation, but that is always possible).

It also seems pretty common for hosts to allow the target of the complaint to counter-notice in advance of taking the material down and then just skip the takedown, or they take it down but restore it immediately on counter-notice (youtube itself does this, or at least did when I was hit with a spurious dmca complaint there years ago). Both of these procedures don't follow the letter of the law and arguably cost the provider their safe-harbour. OTOH, almost no DMCA complaints are actually valid per the specific requirements of the statute, so maybe they don't actually lose their safe-harbour.

Post reply on HN