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

211–220 of 348 posts

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#211

Post by jcranmer »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #9

Youtube-dl had some good notes in their README about legitimate uses and an explanation about how they tried to avoid adding sites that specialized in infringing content, but they really did themselves a legal disservice by explicitly using copyrighted music video content as tests. That will not help their argument at all. Youtube-dl absolutely has important and completely legal uses, reporting being among them, but…

> The law only cares if the tool was "primarily designed" or "marketed" or "has only limited non-infringing purpose."

The first two elements have a mens rea implication behind them: you have to demonstrate the intent of the developers. That RIAA's strongest evidence of intent is buried in a unit test, and this seeming intent flies against the evidence in the far more prominent README that is discussing its unsuitability for infringing content. Furthermore, they can also demonstrate from their own practice in history that they refuse pull requests and close issues were people are clearly trying to use it only for infringing use cases.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#212

Post by beagle3 »

MKinley wrote: post #149
hiisukun wrote: post #73

I have friends in law enforcement who use youtube-dl to save copies of videos involving crimes or criminal allegations, from quite a few different social media and video sites. Speaking with them, it seems the associated metadata (json/xml?) and output log contain valuable information to go along with the video from an evidentiary perspective. Also the fact that youtube-dl has many test cases in the code goes towards…

I am not in law enforcement myself, but do some online investigations, and like many others in my field we use YouTube-dl to save a copy of video evidence relevant to a case we are working on. It can be instrumental for archiving the evidence if it is ever removed or taken down, can also be used to grab extra info (CC text log is one example) and then manually searched for specific strings. This tool has made ma y in…

How is this significantly different than placing a video camera in front of a screen?

Yt-dL is surely nicer and more convenient, but from an evidence standpoint, a one time $500 (to go wild) setup should have you covered, no?

(Mourning the loss of ytdl myself but trying to be realistic)

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#213

Post by TedShiller »

Banning youtube-dl won’t accomplish much.

I can simply record my screen with audio (for example using QuickTime Player) and save that as a video. I do that as a last resort if video download software doesn’t work. This method can never be stopped. If I can see it and hear it, then I can record it, with close to perfect quality. And it will get even easier with more user friendly tools.

Sorry, technology wins.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#214

Post by judge2020 »

beagle3 wrote: post #212
MKinley wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not in law enforcement myself, but do some online investigations, and like many others in my field we use YouTube-dl to save a copy of video evidence relevant to a case we are working on. It can be instrumental for archiving the evidence if it is ever removed or taken down, can also be used to grab extra info (CC text log is one example) and then manually searched for specific strings. This tool has made ma y in…

How is this significantly different than placing a video camera in front of a screen? Yt-dL is surely nicer and more convenient, but from an evidence standpoint, a one time $500 (to go wild) setup should have you covered, no? (Mourning the loss of ytdl myself but trying to be realistic)

Using a screen recorder like shadowplay or obs also doesn't seem like it would be out of the realm of possibility.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#215

Post by lmilcin »

tssva wrote: post #198
lmilcin wrote: post #22

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.

I imagine YouTube would argue this isn't a legitimate reason since they provide YouTube Premium as a paid subscription which includes as one of its perks the ability to download material for viewing offline.

I actually pay for YouTube Premium.

Have you ACTUALLY tried to download? I am using latest Chrome on Linux and I don't even have the option. Downloading to the phone is not a workable option for me, I need to be able to see it on laptop screen and I need a lot of it for weeks of being offline. And couple other problems like videos ceasing to be available for whatever unknown reason, suddenly.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#216

Post by talaketu »

beagle3 wrote: post #212
MKinley wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not in law enforcement myself, but do some online investigations, and like many others in my field we use YouTube-dl to save a copy of video evidence relevant to a case we are working on. It can be instrumental for archiving the evidence if it is ever removed or taken down, can also be used to grab extra info (CC text log is one example) and then manually searched for specific strings. This tool has made ma y in…

How is this significantly different than placing a video camera in front of a screen? Yt-dL is surely nicer and more convenient, but from an evidence standpoint, a one time $500 (to go wild) setup should have you covered, no? (Mourning the loss of ytdl myself but trying to be realistic)

Obviously CC stream is not readily searchable if you record it with a video camera.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#217

Post by MacsHeadroom »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #124
Google234 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair use does not override the TOS which YouTube-DP violates

You can’t issue a DMCA takedown for software that violates someone’s TOS. (Never mind that it’s someone else’s TOS.)

It wasn't a DMCA takedown notice. It was a DMCA section 1201 notice. Section 1201, which criminalizes circumvention of access controls, has nothing to do with copyright.

John Deere uses it to go after sellers of unauthorized replacement parts for their tractors.

Non-compliance is a felony carrying a 5 year / $500k punishment. Unlike takedown notices, there's no counter-notice opportunity for the receiving party. So if the receiving party believed the notice isn't valid, they'll need to argue that as a criminal defendant in criminal court.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#218

Post by numpad0 »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #203
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds a lot like saying that it is, indeed, incoherent, but don't worry because we can get a judge to decide whether or not you're going to jail ex post facto, at a cost to you of more than you paid for your house (win or lose).

I don't see where you're getting that. GP rightly pointed out that 1201 prohibits tools "primarily" designed for prohibited circumvention. That's a perfectly coherent thing to prohibit, and that has the perfectly clear, logical implications that GP described. Now, if what you really mean is that is is vague , then I agree. But I don't see any case for it being incoherent.

He probably consider any human judgement incoherent.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#219

Post by kortex »

beagle3 wrote: post #212
MKinley wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not in law enforcement myself, but do some online investigations, and like many others in my field we use YouTube-dl to save a copy of video evidence relevant to a case we are working on. It can be instrumental for archiving the evidence if it is ever removed or taken down, can also be used to grab extra info (CC text log is one example) and then manually searched for specific strings. This tool has made ma y in…

How is this significantly different than placing a video camera in front of a screen? Yt-dL is surely nicer and more convenient, but from an evidence standpoint, a one time $500 (to go wild) setup should have you covered, no? (Mourning the loss of ytdl myself but trying to be realistic)

This, along with screen capture, is known as a form of rebroadcast and it's used to obscure and obfuscate digital alterations, watermarks, deepfake artifacts and the like. When doing media forensics, it's optimal to get as close to the raw source as possible.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#220

Post by cheeze »

bonoboTP wrote: post #113
cheeze wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the RIAA has shown that this specific tool can't be 'public'. If we have to play by those rules, LEO should too. Boo hoo if it's harder.

> RIAA has shown They haven't shown anything. They made a claim. We'll know what rules we have to play by if it comes to a court ruling.

I mean, GitHub took it down, no?
Post reply on HN