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

The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 266 posts

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#231

Post by lelandfe »

feanaro wrote: post #228
lelandfe wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely things like Widevine show that that precedent has already been set? There are many online things that cannot be consumed by unblessed clients.

Surely the fact that a single blemish exists does not imply that we should just curl up in a hole and admit defeat. The fact that Widevine exists does little to damage the core of the above argument.

My point is that this is fundamentally not a viable argument anymore:

> If you are supposed to be able to access YouTube from Firefox or Chrome, then you are also supposed to be able to access it via youtube-dl

Were this an axiom, services like Netflix simply could not exist. We're defeated whether we admit it or not – browser DRM is not being yanked from browsers anytime soon. That's not even talking about its forebears, like Silverlight, Flash, Applets, etc.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#232

Post by paulcole »

feanaro wrote: post #229
paulcole wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can go to an all you can eat restaurant with my empty stomach. I can’t go to an all you can eat restaurant with an empty garbage bag to fill up with food for later.

It's a cute analogy, except it fails to explain why youtube-dl is the garbage bag in this instance. If we step away from analogies for a bit, are you actually arguing that we shouldn't have the ability to modify the markup and the code before we display it on our computers? If you insist on making a cute physical analogy, a more apt one would be of a tyrant buying out all the stores and allowing free entry on the con…

> it fails to explain why youtube-dl is the garbage bag in this instance

No it doesn't.

The buffet lets me eat as much as I want while I'm in their restaurant following their house rules. The garbage bag lets me take food out of the restaurant and consume a much larger amount of food however/whenever/wherever I choose – something the restaurant has forbid me to do according to their rules.

This feels very much like what Youtube DL allows me to do.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#233

Post by paulcole »

grozzle wrote: post #193
paulcole wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know you can pay YouTube like $10 a month and never see an ad again, right?

I can also pay YouTube $0 a month and never see an ad again. I do pay money for Nebula, because they seem like their hearts are in the right place. I pay about $60, 70 a month to various podcast and video creators directly. I don't use adblock, vanced, and sponsorblock because I'm cheap. It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an…

> It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an unobtrusive platform.

If you really didn't like that, you'd stop watching YouTube.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#234

Post by mardifoufs »

supercheetah wrote: post #178
arepublicadoceu wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And good luck buying any of these devices if you’re outside of the blessed distribution centers. Try buying any of those in Brazil or non US/UK/EU countries and you’re going to have tons of fun with import taxes and shipping. Suddenly, a cheap device costs more than a flagship iPhone or android with none of their benefits except the intangible freedom.

Slimbook in Spain is like the EU version of System 76.

Isn't system 76 european already?

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#235

Post by paulcole »

leothecool wrote: post #207
paulcole wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can go to an all you can eat restaurant with my empty stomach. I can’t go to an all you can eat restaurant with an empty garbage bag to fill up with food for later.

As a garbage bag manufacturer, can you advertise that your garbage bags are for that purpose?

No. But there are many great, moral, and legal uses for garbage bags which can be advertised.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#238

Post by TaylorAlexander »

madeofpalk wrote: post #143
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe this was true five years ago, but at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising. I don’t follow their financials but I assume the site was self sufficient with far fewer ads than today, and that now they are extracting profit (rents) from their established behemoth. Of course I could be wrong.

Of course they're trying to make a profit. Youtube, Google, nor Alphabet are a charity. "Profit is inherently evil" is a difficult point of view to have on this venture captial forum.

This thread has been a fascinating exercise in reading comprehension. I was replying to the statement "Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube."

Rent seeking is a form of making profit. So of course they are making a profit. The question is whether they are making a profit in order to fund their operations as was suggested by the person I was replying to, or if they are "rent seeking".

According to wikipedia "Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth."

That is why I said they "at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising". The claim I am making is a direct reply to the person who said they are not rent seeking, they are merely seeking profit to fund their operations. I am making the claim that they have moved beyond that to seeking profit without creating additional value in their service.

Now one can argue whether or not I am correct, but what was never under question was whether or not they are making a profit. The only thing being questioned was the purpose and result of that profit seeking.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#239

Post by TaylorAlexander »

donkeyd wrote: post #136
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe this was true five years ago, but at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising. I don’t follow their financials but I assume the site was self sufficient with far fewer ads than today, and that now they are extracting profit (rents) from their established behemoth. Of course I could be wrong.

> now they are extracting profit So? They're a business, what do you expect? The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.

Everyone replying in this manner is missing that I am discussing whether or not they are rent seeking. No one is questioning whether they are or should be making a profit. The person I replied to said they are not rent seeking, they are just seeking profit to fund operations. I claim they are rent seeking, which is according to wikipedia: "the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." No one is questioning that they are or should be making a profit, only the purpose and result of their profit seeking.

Re: The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues

#240

Post by TaylorAlexander »

paulcole wrote: post #175
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe this was true five years ago, but at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising. I don’t follow their financials but I assume the site was self sufficient with far fewer ads than today, and that now they are extracting profit (rents) from their established behemoth. Of course I could be wrong.

You know you can pay YouTube like $10 a month and never see an ad again, right?

I am discussing whether or not youtube is rent-seeking. The fact that I can pay money to get rid of all the ads is either orthogonal to my point or supportive of my point.
Post reply on HN