191–200 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I mean, technically, can this be called obfuscation when Google provides to you the code to de obfuscate it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 su…
> DHCP protections... I'm guessing you meant HDCP? I'm pretty sure that encrypted media sites already use HDCP because my projector glitches for a few seconds sometimes when I first navigate to Prime Video, and whenever I have a secondary analog VGA monitor connected Prime Video will only play in standard definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please quote relevant TOS.
B. Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display,…
"You shall not download"
Or what? Can Youtube actually sue me for damages, they haven't suffered any. Some videos are lisenced as Creative Commons. I seriously doubt this has any legal force.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: How is Section 1201 anything other than incoherent? Suppose there is some legitimate non-infringing use of some material. Interoperability, law enforcement use, fair use, accessing public domain material which is distributed using the same technological measures, whatever. You create and distribute a piece of software to interface with the material for those purposes. It's the same piece of software…
Section 1201 requires that the piece of software is meant primarily for infringing purposes. Which means that it being able to infringe alone isn't enough for it to violate 1201, but also that because it can be used for non-infringing purposes doesn't mean it doesn't violate 1201. As with many many laws intent matters and deciding intent is why we have judges and juries.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CFyy7Csjpl8/?igshid=s29gkfosrt2q
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBV9SKQZzAWuIXspogOq3...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's engineering is not about providing a good user experience, but about using metrics to squeeze out the last 1% of inefficiency. This inevitably makes the system fragile and leaves some people out in the cold, but you're the product, not the customer. Some people would argue that optimising YouTube for the bottom 1% of Internet connections makes no financial sense, but I have gigabit fibre and YouTube stutters…
Your comments seems contradictory. How is optimizing to provide a good experience for those with bad internet not providing a good user experience? I have fast internet and it works fine for me, maybe the problem is on your end?
Engineers at Google get bonuses for shaving 0.1% off of something, because at their scale that could be millions of dollars saved.
Hence protocols like HTTP/3, which exist almost entirely to optimise some Google backend by single-digit percentage points.
YouTube has had every last percent of "inefficiency" squeezed out of it, to the point where lots of users have a degraded experience.
Google famously doesn't care about user experience at all. They care about costs and their own internal KPIs, which are all tied to advertising revenue, not "video playback smoothness".
This is why Firefox was 5x slower on YouTube for years. This is why Google famously has next to zero "customer support", even if you pay them. They don't view you as a customer. You're the product.
Firefox users click on ads less. Firefox users tend to have adblock. They're not good products.
Similarly, Google is fighting a turf war with the likes of NetFlix and Apple for advertising eyeballs, so they do not want to ensure that Apple TV can play back YouTube in the best possible quality. They optimise for Chrome and Chromecast first, everything else a distant second. Got to build that walled garden!
I pay NetFlix the same amount monthly as I pay for YouTube Premium. NetFlix provides support, YouTube doesn't. NetFlix works flawlessly on every device I have, YouTube doesn't.
YouTube doesn't play 4K on my Apple TV 4K! It doesn't play 4K on my flagship Samsung TV! It downgrades my iPhone for 480p even on WiFi!
This kind of anti-consumer (anti-product?) bullshit is why Google needs to be broken up.
The vendor that makes the device, the browser, the search engine, the network protocol, and the advertising platform shouldn't also be television for half the world.
They shouldn't get to degrade the experience to benefit their browser team. They shouldn't get to slow down the experience for a competing browser. They shouldn't get to simply ignore customer complaints. Television broadcasters in most countries have to answer to an ombudsman. YouTube doesn't.
That's too much control that invites anti-competitive, anti-human behaviour. The incentives are all wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because this is about distribution, not a home copy. You could copy and paste the test code into a terminal window and download the video. That’s not the same as a home recording. ...yes, it is? What difference are you imagining?
The difference is that my home copy is my own work and action. The distribution, in this case, via source code, allows anyone to download that copy. If the code snippet that downloaded infringing materials didn't exist and the user had to find the parameters themselves, that's fine. But it does exist and was included alongside a tool that makes that recording possible. A better analogy would be like, if you had a vid…
That's what's happening here. Github is selling (for free) recording machines.
If you have the recording device, then you can use it to record video that gets transmitted to you. But there isn't a place you can go to have the video duplicated for you. You do it yourself.
Obviously, lots of people use it for legitimate reasons. I for example, use it to download large amounts of material for when I am offline while sailing. Programming tutorials to learn some useful stuff while offline, entire university courses on interesting topics, etc. There aren't many practical ways for me to do it.
Sorry for being behind on this discussion, but how can there possibly be a legal basis for taking down open-source software on the basis that it might be used for infringing someone's copyright? Can they takedown my web browser and operating system too? These are general purpose tools. It's sad that the conversation is all about justifying its use - I think the takedown is absolutely unjustified. GitHub should have l…
I guess it's time to do sudo apt install youtube-dl