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

241–250 of 348 posts

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#241

Post by fyfy18 »

jyrkesh wrote: post #50
incompatible wrote: post #45

YouTube even offers a Creative Commons feature, such as on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUY01kW8p2o : if you scroll to the end of the description it reads: License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). I've never understood why they don't offer a download option for such videos: the likes of youtube-dl is the only way to get a copy, and it's perfectly legal. Likewise for public domain videos.

I don't think it's any more complicated than that it's because they can't roll ads on videos that are downloaded. youtube-dl et al are niche enough that it doesn't put a real dent in their ad business, but making it more convenient with a Download button might.

Make it part of the Premium subscription then (which is ad-free). If people or companies have a legitimate use for downloading videos, paying $10/mo (or however much it is) isn't going to break the bank.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#242

Post by californical »

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.

Then you’re violating YouTube’s terms of service, sure, but the tool you’re downloading with is not unlawful because you’re violating YT’s terms

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#243

Post by Shared404 »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #207
dEnigma wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really distressing to see how many of the videos in my, admittedly quite large, favourites list are gone by now. Even ones that I only added in the past few weeks. Either simply "Deleted", "Private" or "Removed/Blocked by the copyright holder". In most cases I have trouble even finding out what the title of the video even was.

This is an example of the dichotomy between "the internet remembers everything" and the inherent ephemerality of electronic data (effort is required to ensure it remains un-destroyed). I self-host some things because I like the technical challenge, and what I've found is that the effort required to maintain the online presence of the data is quite demanding. Less so if it's outsourced, but without actively 'tending t…

It really is an interesting balance between "The internet may never forget" and "The internet may never remember".

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#244

Post by qiqitori »

Google234 wrote: post #179
indymike wrote: post #125

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,…

IANAL, but for me the terms used here are kind of problematic on a technical level.

- "unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content." -- If there is a download link somewhere in the comments you're allowed to download using youtube-dl?

- "provided functionality" -- either functionality is available or it's not. Whether there is a button for it on the UI or not is entirely different. (However, this sort of seems to imply that the HTML specs are legally binding?)

- Your internet connection is only capable of sending and receiving packets, and it isn't wrong at all to describe "sending" as "uploading" and "receiving" as "downloading".

- It says that you aren't allowed to (among other things) "display" any Content for any other purposes -- other purposes than what? "For your information and personal use"?

- It used to be that you could just copy video files from your browser's cache directory, or you could use hard links -- then you wouldn't even have copied them technically. (Not sure if that's still possible on youtube -- but again what if you had a browser that generated PNG files instead or or before "displaying" stuff on the screen?)

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#245

Post by kawsper »

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)

Yt-dl lets you download whole accounts or playlists.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#246

Post by boomboomsubban »

tssva wrote: post #186
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #165

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.

>Section 1201 requires that the piece of software is meant primarily for infringing purposes

It requires that the piece of software is meant primarily for circumventing technical measures in place to prevent infringement. Just infringing copyright isn't a violation of the section.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#247

Post by chordalkeyboard »

neuronflux wrote: post #87
paulryanrogers wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't law enforcement have a means to subpoena Google for such evidence?

Assuming the content is public, why would they need a subpoena?

you mean "because they could just use youtube-dl to download it?" I think that's why we are arguing that ytdl is a tool with legal and moral purposes and should remain accessible.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#248

Post by GoblinSlayer »

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.

When "guess, it will work somehow" is all you can say, it sounds like you agree that it's incoherent.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#249

Post by GoblinSlayer »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #183
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #165

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…

The tool itself is not inherently illegal. Intent and marketing is the only important factor. A tool designed to be used by police and marketed towards police is legal, as its intended purpose is not infringement. A tool advertised as "hey, kids, use this to infringe those copyrights" is totally different, even if it's literally the same tool.

From youtube-dl readme:

---

As a matter of policy (as well as legality), youtube-dl does not include support for services that specialize in infringing copyright. As a rule of thumb, if you cannot easily find a video that the service is quite obviously allowed to distribute (i.e. that has been uploaded by the creator, the creator's distributor, or is published under a free license), the service is probably unfit for inclusion to youtube-dl.

A note on the service that they don't host the infringing content, but just link to those who do, is evidence that the service should not be included into youtube-dl. The same goes for any DMCA note when the whole front page of the service is filled with videos they are not allowed to distribute. A "fair use" note is equally unconvincing if the service shows copyright-protected videos in full without authorization.

Support requests for services that do purchase the rights to distribute their content are perfectly fine though. If in doubt, you can simply include a source that mentions the legitimate purchase of content.

---

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#250

Post by movedx »

20after4 wrote: post #225
pabs3 wrote: post #158

Software Freedom Conservancy are asking Microsoft to resign from the RIAA over the youtube-dl takedown demand: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/oct/26/microsoft-github-...

That Microsoft is a member of the RIAA is a big problem. One more reason to abandon GitHub.

GitHub is "OK". It's only popular because it was first to market(?)

I find GitLab far superior in every regard: its UI, CI stack, Auto DevOps, K8s integrations, on-prem/self-hosting option, support options, pricing structure, customer service, communications and open nature, frequent updates with great release notes, and more.

Post reply on HN