261–270 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming the content is public, why would they need a subpoena?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DHCP protections... I'm guessing you meant HDCP? I'm pretty sure that encrypted media sites already use HDCP because my projector glitches for a few seconds sometimes when I first navigate to Prime Video, and whenever I have a secondary analog VGA monitor connected Prime Video will only play in standard definition.
That was what I was thinking, edited, thanks... Half surprised they haven't done this to some youtube videos/channels already then.
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…
Imagine if source code was posted on some type of blockchain like ETH2.. Or a decentralized file sharing service, like IPFS. I wonder if websites or self hosted interpreters using some kind of services like those would make serving a take down request nearly impossible.
Well for now we can pay m$ to host code in ways people rely on for the long term. Until, they don't and the codes all taken down in something analogous to modern book burning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's any more complicated than that it's because they can't roll ads on videos that are downloaded. That's certainly something they can do; they just don't do it. Compare movies on VHS tapes, which all roll ads before actually playing the movie.
But you cannot bill per view or click.
Otherwise, this is the same problem print newspapers have; how many readers per copy, seeing what adverts, how many times? This can be modelled or assessed (e.g., by reader response codes / instrumented URLs) fairly readily.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well obviously it doesn’t apply to you then. I feel like this is really easy to understand.
The word "any" has a specific meaning. Most people in the world aren't American and most countries at least from my experience allow private copying.
Most countries in the west allow it in the American sense. Only a very limited few countries allow it in the sense of Spain and Switzerland.
I left a comment about my own non-infringing use cases of the tool earlier — and I think it’s important that the non-infringing use cases get mentioned. Having said that, can we please stop pretending like any of us weren’t using this to infringe copyright? Most of us weren’t distributing anything, but I think most of us were aware this was at the very least a grey area, if not outright infringement. I’m a huge fan a…
Speak for yourself. I used it to pull down youtube videos to watch on a 14 hour plane ride over the pacific.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously CC stream is not readily searchable if you record it with a video camera.
Well, sure, but google/YouTube search does find in it. The GP was talking about their work collecting evidence - they can find it just as well, and record a copy for posterity just as well. I am not saying it’s as convenient (more options >> less options except for analysis-paralysis). But I don’t understand how it tips the scale to making any archiving or evidence gathering unusable or uneconomical. (I am not saying…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Eek, the thought of that makes me cringe. I guess it would be passable in some circumstances, but I can imagine a bunch of reasons why it would be miserable or useless: * the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio. You're very likely clipping (losing) data. This is assuming you're doing screen-capture. If you're literally video taping a monitor you…
> the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio.
Are you trying to preserve quality or prove something? My response was in context for "gathering evidence" but not police work, and not archival quality. Would such a copy cause your problem to prove libel, copyright infringement, illegitimate disclosure, etc?
> performance; must be done in real-time, cannot queue up multiple sources
Can most definitely queue up multiple sources. Just make a youtube playlist and record it. Yes, it takes "real time latency", you'll take 10 hours to download 10 hours of video in general -- that's not an issue for evidence or gathering in a non law-enforcement context.
> metadata, organizing, indexing; likely hand-typed separately, prone to error, prone to not knowing if you've done that video already.
Again - consider the context of my answer, NOT archival quality anything. The "cc" stream GP mentioned, which can be searchable etc - has also seen many revisions for many files when the Google STT algorithms are revised, and with corrections.
> Chain of custody; grabbing the original video allows you to prove two identical copies match (using file hashes or other comparisons) screen recording makes that difficult to impossible to confirm--maybe with fancy AI you'd have to run by the courts?
You have no chain of custody. You can prove two downloads are the same, but YouTube does not guarantee they keep the file the same (indeed, they've modified files several times, changing formats and even remastering old '80s videos). If a file is later pulled (which is what GP was talking about), what are you going to compare it to?
Chain of custody is law enforcement business. They'll get the files from YouTube directly, with affidavits and statements about it and any modifications, if they need it in court. You are going to civil court, and youtube-dl is not making your evidence more valid than a screen recording.
Another valid use-case is to use the hardware acceleration with your native video player. AFAIK, mpv uses youtube-dl under the hood to play youtube videos. For a long time the video acceleration in browsers wasn't very good for Linux users, so we used players like mpv instead to watch high resolution content.