201–210 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main difference in the fork is that yt-dlp uses the android interface and youtube-dl uses the web interface.
Huh? Both have command line interfaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree and I don't. We can rip dvds almost precisely, because spreading stuff beyond the ability for it to be easily controlled under single point of failure.
I bought a tshirt with the decss key on it when that went public.
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…
There is literally no possible way I can experience the sound or video without first receiving it. The only difference with "streaming" is that lawyers think it is somehow not downloading when you delete it afterwards. Magical thinking.
Somewhat relatedly: I've been using Uberspace for years now to host some personal stuff (e.g. my Nextcloud instance). It's really cheap (you can start for as low as 5€/month), and I don't know any other shared hoster that allows so much flexibility in what you run on your account. The docs are also superb. I can only recommend it.
It's amazing what kind of mental gymnastics can allow someone to think you can watch a video without downloading it. Lawyers live in a world very unlike reality.
I can listen to music on the radio, but it's a whole different issue when I pick specific songs to pirate for my own personal listening :p But that's not where the caring comes in; it's the tools I can use to pirate songs; hence youtube-dl going down and not the users who used it. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a TOS clause about videos on YT not being your property and that you can't export them off the platform…
What on earth are you talking about? Recording radio or television for personal use is illegal now? Are we so used to not owning a single thing that these things are alien to us now? I mean, I'm not misremembering the era where people taped shows to watch them later, am I?
Also, pardon my language, but fuck off with your "watching videos on YT's platform". It's my user agent, my hardware, my actions that are causing the video to be shown. I'm already making allowances to youtube by executing their code mostly unencumbered, I'm not bending over backwards and granting them extraterritorial rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok I'm curious; how can a person start their own country and currency? Video hosting is as easy as hosting Piwigo, GNU mediagoblin, Lychee, Zenphoto, or tossing something together in PHP. All that is free and open-source.
Hosting the software isn't free, neither is storing the content to be served, neither is serving the said content. I think you vastly underestimate the amount if bandwidth video takes.
It's free in the sense of all the software being available to do so for free (OS, webserver, php, media software), and free as long as you have something to run it on; chances are anyone reading this can use the same device to run the server.
Whether or not the people watching the videos from the server will have a good experience is something different :p But even a low-speed broadband connection in the US today has enough upload to handle small sites and I can vouch for this on measly 1MB/s upload (I've self-hosted videos over years with all the mentioned software).
YouTube is a provider that has the resources to allow people to upload videos, and watch them for free. It's their platform, and they have usage rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you missed the "not" Google proposal for the Browser Attestation API? No need to put too many respurces fighting for a single site when you can just lock it down to blessed browsers.
In order for web DRM to be feasible, it has to work without issues for 99% of average users while blocking the few who will go to great lengths to simulate attestation. That’s a hard goal. TPM1.2 (used up until a few years back) is already broken because it uses SHA-1. If someone finds an exploit for TPM2.0, a dedicated team could manipulate the entire sandbox down to the hardware to simulate a “blessed browser”, mak…
This is why I'm setting up a reverse proxy on another host in front of my web site, in case I get some fake takedown request from a competitor that causes my host to delete my account. At least if I use a proxy I can spend a small amount of time setting up a new proxy. I used to have a competitor who would email PayPal every couple of weeks to tell them our web site had CP on it just so PayPal would instantly shut of…