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

YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#181

Post by brucethemoose2 »

f33d5173 wrote: post #169
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a feeling Google/Alphabet/YouTube aren't investing a lot of money into this, because they know their opponents have almost infinite resource, of free time and dedication. They aren't investing because its a CLI tool. Its not really a threat. If it was, like, a "1 click download free music from Youtube!" app that was trending like crazy, Google would focus more on fighting it. The project is balanced between…

There are many websites that provide exactly that function. I suspect most of them are based yt-dl{,p}. By killing cli tools, google can effectively stifle such websites as well.

But they are too sporadic to become popular.

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#182

Post by tivert »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #166
tivert wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t know how any sane person thinks a bunch of larpers - even if they themselves don’t see them as such - can defend themselves against a willing US military… I know, that's why Afghanistan is a shining star of liberalism in the Central Asia. The Taliban never was able to defend itself from the willing US military and was defeated years ago.

Do you, in all honesty, think the US showed its full might against the taliban in an all out war? The war served its purpose and when it was no longer profitable enough they moved.

> Do you, in all honesty, think the US showed its full might against the taliban in an all out war?

No, the one thing the US government held back were nukes.

Of course, I could see how those were off the table against a foreign country, but those concerns wouldn't apply to domestic use. The LARPers would stand no chance against H-bombs, which shows the truth of your original point. Small arms can't defend against a willing US military, because a willing US military will just nuke them.

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#183

Post by dragonwriter »

tivert wrote: post #151
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how any sane person thinks a bunch of larpers - even if they themselves don’t see them as such - can defend themselves against a willing US military…

> I don’t know how any sane person thinks a bunch of larpers - even if they themselves don’t see them as such - can defend themselves against a willing US military… I know, that's why Afghanistan is a shining star of liberalism in the Central Asia. The Taliban never was able to defend itself from the willing US military and was defeated years ago.

It might have been, if it hadn't been for the fact that the US leadership at the time didn’t want to fight them at all, it wanted to fight Iraq, and when it turned out that it couldn’t use 9/11 direcrly as an excuse to do so it went to work directly on making that excuse so it could, producing a lingering disaster in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere instead of getting the job done in Afghanistan.

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#184

Post by jakeogh »

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #159
tivert wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>> The words "the people" mean the government, just like it means in the First Amendment (properly understood). I don't know how anyone with a functioning brain could interpret it to mean that individual citizens have a right to own military-style guns. This very question was settled by SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

It's a very well written opinion. Here is the audio of Justice Antonin Scalia reading Heller(2008)[1] for the majority:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... (Justice Breyer also reads the dissent)

[1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#185

Post by belorn »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #171
pwdisswordfishc wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your radio doesn't have to download a copy of the song to play it. Yes, it does. It’s called ‘receiving the signal’.

All a conventional radio does is translate electromagnetic waves that are already surrounding it into sound waves that we can hear. An intellectual-property-maximalist lawyer could cogently argue that a radio that records the signal onto a tape or other storage device is somehow violating the IP rights of the authors, as it is interacting with the work in materially different way than an ordinary radio. Not that I wo…

Radio has since the mid 1990 moved towards digital signals, and by now almost all conventional radio receivers do not covert electromagnetic waves into sound waves. They covert electromagnetic waves into a digital sound file, which then get copied into local memory and run inside a software program that plays the sound (and generally outputs meta data). It can also buffer sound if it wants to.

As a interesting side-note, Norway has stopped using FM radio in favor of digital radio, and Sweden is on route to do the same. The primary argument here on Sweden in favor of keeping FM radio is that older car models might still not be compatible with digital radio, and the FM radio could in theory be useful case of national emergency.

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#186

Post by PartiallyTyped »

tivert wrote: post #182
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you, in all honesty, think the US showed its full might against the taliban in an all out war? The war served its purpose and when it was no longer profitable enough they moved.

> Do you, in all honesty, think the US showed its full might against the taliban in an all out war? No, the one thing the US government held back were nukes. Of course, I could see how those were off the table against a foreign country, but those concerns wouldn't apply to domestic use. The LARPers would stand no chance against H-bombs, which shows the truth of your original point. Small arms can't defend against a w…

The US would infiltrate and dismantle any uprising before it could pose a threat to the local state.

The sheer number of things that must go wrong for the US army to reach out to nukes is enormous.

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#187

Post by agensaequivocum »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #174
agensaequivocum wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few points: * How effective one may be in defending himself does not change the right in anyway. * This is why the right extends to all arms of modern warfare. E.g., machine-guns, mortars, grenades, tanks, night vision, etc. * The Founder were very much against a standing army...we should probably abolish it. * When combatants are mixed with non-combatants, one cannot just drop a bomb. Because of this, well armed i…

You can’t own guns banned by your state. Afaik you can’t own a rocket launcher, missiles, AAs, AT mines, nukes etc. Re 4: a willing army can very much do whatever it wants. There are no laws of physics that prevent whatever happened in Bakhmut from happening.

Aside from machine-guns made after 1986 and possibly nukes, you can own any weapon in most states. The things you mentioned are considered Destructive Devices and require payment of a $200 tax stamp.

Sure. If the government just preemptively nukes all American cities and towns then so be it. But to say that civilian firearm possession cannot slow, stop, or impede a tyrannical government is wrong.

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#188

Post by wackget »

>> “[T]he average user must recognize that YouTube content, unlike media content on other websites, cannot be downloaded with a simple right-click and must be aware that this is achieved using technology on YouTube and that youtube-dl ‘overrides’ this protection. It is therefore to be assumed that the average user acts in bad faith,” the Hamburg Court wrote.

This argument seems ass-backwards. Why is it not YouTube which acts in bad faith by not providing the means for users to download videos in the first place?

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#189

Post by anticensor »

getcrunk wrote: post #136
netsharc wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling Google/Alphabet/YouTube aren't investing a lot of money into this, because they know their opponents have almost infinite resource, of free time and dedication. Besides how would you like to work in the YouTube "DRM" team, where every few weeks you'd show up to work and the news is "well, they cracked it again, your last few months' of work is useless.".

YouTube doesn’t have DRM on non paid content. If they did, the situation would be way different.

Except in mandatory DRM jurisdictions.

Re: YouTube-Dl Site Goes Offline as Hosting Provider Enforces Court-Ordered Ban

#190

Post by digging »

wackget wrote: post #188

>> “[T]he average user must recognize that YouTube content, unlike media content on other websites, cannot be downloaded with a simple right-click and must be aware that this is achieved using technology on YouTube and that youtube-dl ‘overrides’ this protection. It is therefore to be assumed that the average user acts in bad faith,” the Hamburg Court wrote. This argument seems ass-backwards. Why is it not YouTube wh…

Because there is no such thing as selling a product in bad faith under capitalism. Except the acts explicitly named as illegal by existing laws. Those are obviously bad faith acts, which is why we made them illegal at the beginning of time. But if an act isn't illegal, and if you believe you'll profit from it, then it is by definition a good-faith act.
Post reply on HN