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

221–230 of 256 posts

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

#221

Post by yellowapple »

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.

Not even just websites. There are many browser extensions that provide exactly that function right in YouTube's web interface.

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

#222

Post by tempodox »

Sinescape wrote: post #170
tempodox wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site is online, but the download link ( https://yt-dl.org/downloads/latest/youtube-dl ) is borked: Due to a ruling of the Hamburg Regional Court, access to this website is blocked.

Shame it merely responds with HTTP 403 and not 451.

True, that would have been most appropriate.

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

#223

Post by johnnyanmac »

superkuh wrote: post #51

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.

it is a different world. You're seeing the video from a technical POV where you know youtube is streaming encoded bits to your computer, with you feeling you own those bits given to your hardware.

Google sees this as a transaction: you pay us for Premium, you get to keep the bits for longer, because offline viewing is a paid feature they advertise. Alternatievely, they see it as "you watch this undesirable ad and we give you what you want". downloading the video first goes past this transaction.

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

#224

Post by johnnyanmac »

contravariant wrote: post #207
Espionage724 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Now hang one hot minute! 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…

>It's my user agent, my hardware, my actions that are causing the video to be shown

technically, you are asking for a video to be shown and Google chooses to show it to you. We don't really have the power dynamic to say "we allow google to execute their code", because we are the ones seeking their service.

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

#225

Post by johnnyanmac »

999900000999 wrote: post #49

Such a complex topic. On one hand YouTube has tons of public domain content which should be free to download. On the other hand, YT DL had explicit test cases for downloading music videos with specific DRM. Don't poke the bear.

>On one hand YouTube has tons of public domain content which should be free to download.

technically, yes. Because you can upload anything, and at this point everyone has uploaded everything.

But on the other hand, you also can simply go to the respective websites to download such media if it is indeed public domain.

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

#226

Post by johnnyanmac »

jpc0 wrote: post #157
Espionage724 wrote: post #80

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.

still less than founding a country. You don't need to host Youtube levels of content to make a video hosting service.

If you say that is inferior to Youtube... well, you see why people don't move. In this case Youtube simply outcompeted you.

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

#227

Post by johnnyanmac »

eastbound wrote: post #77
Espionage724 wrote: post #71

[flagged]

Audiovisual material is the public forum of modern times. It’s important to be able to review and criticize a movie and reupload it on public forums. Imagine not being able to show the Nuremberg Trial to pupils in class, because it would be copyrighted. It would give free hands to war criminals. Imagine not being allowed to show negative footage of Biden because it’s copyrighted and the White House doesn’t grant the…

>Imagine not being able to show the Nuremberg Trial to pupils in class, because it would be copyrighted.

the Nuremberg trials were an international affair, they made it public so no one country could do that. If it was a german or american exclusive trial it would have 100% been done off the record, and maybe be uncovered decades later like some declassified CIA document.

>Imagine not being allowed to show negative footage of Biden because it’s copyrighted and the White House doesn’t grant the right to anyone.

yes, that is the first amendment, the government cannot overstep a citizen's freedom of press. So that makes sense.

Just like how military soldiers don't get the same rights as private citizens, private companies don't need to care about freedom of press.

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

#228

Post by johnnyanmac »

tamimio wrote: post #96
Espionage724 wrote: post #71

[flagged]

Doesn’t matter, saying you can’t download this publicly available video is like saying you can’t copy the text of this article, both are inane to think of.

>you can’t copy the text of this article, both are inane to think of.

so, like paywalled internet articles?

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

#229

Post by skissane »

qingcharles wrote: post #216
skissane wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is considered criminal depends on the jurisdiction, but I doubt making false reports to a private company is criminal in very many. I live in the Australian state of New South Wales. I just looked up our state law on this topic. Section 314 of the Crimes Act 1900 says: “A person who makes an accusation intending a person to be the subject of an investigation of an offence, knowing that other person to be innoc…

That's fascinating, thank you. I've been involved with criminal law for a decade and not seen a law like that. I wonder if the accusation has to be made to a law enforcement agency, or whether it would apply in my situation where the person made an accusation to a private entity?

> I wonder if the accusation has to be made to a law enforcement agency, or whether it would apply in my situation where the person made an accusation to a private entity?

I can't find any case law which directly answers your question; as far as I am aware, no case has ever been prosecuted under that law for the type of scenario we are talking about (but just because it hasn't happened yet, isn't in itself a bar for it happening some day in the future). This law never says the false accusation has to be made to a law enforcement agency, even though similar laws in other jurisdictions do explicitly say that; I don't see why a court would insert that requirement when the text doesn't explicitly contain it. But of course, nobody can be certain unless some day the matter actually comes before a court to decide.

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

#230

Post by slow_typist »

Hopefully some hacker news readers consider Uberspace as a hosting provider for their next side project. From what I see it is all laid out very well. No isolated VPS but ssh access and a ton of well written documentation. On the upside, they are responsible for keeping the base system updated. I’ve been a happy customer for a few months now, with limited requirements and experience, but I like it. Also the legal terms are super fair.
Post reply on HN