I actually use JDownloader instead to download YouTube videos and playlists.
And I use youtube-dl to download content from other sites, like nrk.no, svt.se and bbc.co.uk.
How journalists use youtube-dl
271–280 of 348 posts
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#272I 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…
Proxy support is a standard feature of all browsers. It's a necessity because in some network configurations you don't have direct access to internet, but only through a proxy.
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#273Banning 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.
Isn't there already DRM that works by encrypting the video stream and only decrypting / decoding the video stream on the TV? Or at least, in some sort of closed-off execution context?
I'm thinking of Widevine level 1 DRM, for example. If I remember correctly, it mandates that all of the decryption has to happen in a "Trusted Execution Environment", which seems to mean a hardware enclave. I think this effectively locks the user out of the whole decryption phase, which means that you don't get to record your screen.
I might be wrong about this, though. Might have to do a little research.
(Funnily enough, just looking for information right now turns up this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21307308 HN post, which does contain some interesting information)
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#274Exactly the kind of report which should be part of youtube-dl's front material!
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#275Earlier 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)
I'm afraid to ask how you take screenshots.
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Eek, you are responding to my comment as if it was a freestanding response about archival copy and law enforcement work, when it was specifically in response to someone saying he was using it for neither. It's not surprising it makes you cringe, but please consider in context. > the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio. Are you trying to preserve…
Is it possible to replace youtube-dl with a video camera in front of the screen? Sure.
Did I expect anyone, ever, to propose that? Let's just say, 2020 is full of surprises. I want off this wild ride.
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But then most of the defenses of the RIAA's actions here don't make any sense. When the purpose of youtube-dl is to enable the likes of mpv interoperating with YouTube then having RIAA music in the unit tests would be apropos of nothing because it would be completely valid to want to test the interoperability with RIAA music from YouTube. Moreover, that would save the law from being a dead letter in the sense that th…
> most of the defenses of the RIAA's actions here don't make any sense.
HN is not a court of law, most people here are not lawyers, let alone well-paid and competent lawyers like the ones the RIAA can afford.
> wouldn't anybody making the tool then just not do that?
Sure - which is why you're not seeing many ads for tools to steal cars or pick locks. But it's not only about the way the material is promoted, it's also about how it's obtained, whether the seller could reasonably know what it would be used for, and a bunch of other stuff.
You can't look at this from a binary perspective; despite depictions in popular media, the law is typically not about "aha" moments, but rather about putting a number of coherent pieces together to paint a certain picture.
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually Chrome on Linux doesn't use hardware acceleration for video playback and never did, while the most recent Firefox almost does, if one turns a couple of experimental knobs.
Off topic but I just tried to move from MacOS to Pop!_OS and this is the main reason that I can't migrate now. No GPU Accel on Chrome means scrolling is horrid on QHD/higher resolution (besides YouTube being pretty much useless). Firefox is fine but there's no user profile modes to separate between my various profiles. With so much work being done on browsers, it feels weird that Linux is so behind on this. And Chrom…
Well, I am not sure I understand what you mean. There are two distinct GPU Acceleration technologies at work here:
- for videos
- for website rendering
AFAIK the video acceleration part is the big problem as the issue was ignored for many years by the browser vendors. For rendering websites most browser should do just fine, some hardware-browser combinations might be exceptions though.
I also wonder what you mean by Firefox has no user profiles, because Firefox has a profile concept too. Be default it doesn't ask you, but when you start it with `firefox --ProfileManager` you will see what I mean. I don't like messing with the Profile Manager every time, so I just have different Icons for starting different Profiles (e.g. Music --> Spotify, Movies --> Amazon & Netflix, etc.).
Currently there are just two websites for which I have to use Chromium:
1. Geforce Now, officially Linux is not supported, but with Chromium it does work when you change your user-agent
2. Binance, for whatever reason their login capture doesn't work with Firefox
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but a tool is not illegal just because it can sometimes be used illegally. If some are OK with it and some are not, then it suggests it has legitimate purpose (though you need to go a lot deeper). Note, I'm not arguing copying small-label stuff is OK, I'm rather more OK with copying RIAA stuff. AFAICT, if a DRM prohibits fair use, breaking it is legal. In some jurisdictions. Or at least it should be. That should…
To be clear, I'm not arguing that it is illegal or that it should be -- clearly that it shouldn't! I'm simply saying that the program was designed to download content that the site and/or creators didn't want to be downloaded and that the vast, vast, vast majority of people using said program were using it to circumvent those restrictions. Again, if anyone is guilty of anything, it's the users (like me) who use the p…
There are creators, who are ok with downloads.
Re: How journalists use youtube-dl
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Eek, you are responding to my comment as if it was a freestanding response about archival copy and law enforcement work, when it was specifically in response to someone saying he was using it for neither. It's not surprising it makes you cringe, but please consider in context. > the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio. Are you trying to preserve…
Can you automate a video camera placed in front of a screen to automatically trawl several sites for new videos simultaneously?
Oh, wait, now we need 1 camera per computer, per screen, and of course, we would need licenses for that, as none of these videos are provided free of charge on a public medium accessible anywhere* in the World.
Perhaps a license per unit of electricity consumed also?
Perhaps we shall just cripple the justice system by replacing automated tools with mundane positions (video camera screen watch person, as of course, now a person would be required to watch that the camera is recording at the right time).
I applaud your efforts to increase the number of jobs in circulation, but I feel this may be the wrong approach.
I can tell you, there is very low likelihood of someone from $3RD_WORLD_COUNTRY_X's government going all the way to $CONTENT _PROVIDER_X to get a video they could have fetched using youtube-dl, fairly painlessly, and without waiting weeks for $CONTENT_PROVIDER_X to decide if they have the desire to share that content, or whether it would somehow besmirch their non-sleepy narrative.