Live data from Hacker News

Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

github.com

271–280 of 635 posts

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#271
post #9

I’m a paying YouTube premium subscriber. Last weekend, I wanted to download something so I can watch it on my way in the train. The app got stuck at “waiting for download..” on my iPad. Same on iPhone. Restart did not work. I gave up after an hour (30 mins hands on trying stuff, 30 mins waiting for it to fix itself). Downloaded the video using yt-dlp, transferred it to my USB c flash drive, and watched it from that.…

YouTube’s “Download” is not really a download, it’s actually “cache offline” within YouTube app.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google started using IP range blocks recently. If they decide that your IP stinks, they'll block YouTube viewing and demand that you log in. It's inconsistent as fuck, and even TOR exit nodes still work without a log in sometimes.

I can confirm this. I guess they didn't like me using Invidious.

That's bad enough for normal VPN users who use VPN for privacy reasons. But a lot of countries have heavily censored web, and not using a VPN is simply not an option there.

Good on Google for kicking people while they're down.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#273
post #254

Days of just getting data off the web are coming to an end as everything requires a full browser running thousands of lines of obfuscated js code now. So instead of a website giving me that 1kb json that could be cached now I start a full browser stack and transmit 10 megabytes through 100 requests, messing up your analytics and security profile and everyone's a loser. Yay.

This 1kb os json still sounds like a modern thing, where you need to download many MB of JavaScript code to execute and display the 1kb json data. What you want is to just download the 10-20kb html file, maybe a corresponding css file, and any images referenced by the html. Then if you want the video you just get the video file direct. Simple and effective, unless you have something to sell.

The main reason for doing video through JS in the first place, other than obfuscation, is variable bitrate support. Oddly enough some TVs will support variable bitrate HLS directly, and I believe Apple devices, but not regular browsers. See https://github.com/video-dev/hls.js/

> unless you have something to sell

Video hosting and its moderation is not cheap, sadly. Which is why we don't see many competitors.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#274

At some point we’re going to need a better place to put videos than YouTube. The lack of any democratization of bulk storage is beginning to be a real problem on the internet. Yes, we have archive.org. We need more than that, though. I’m sure there’s some distributed solution like IPFS but I haven’t seen any serious attempt to make this accessible to every day people.

The problem with bulk storage is that it will be abused at large scale.

CSAM peddlers, intellectual property violators, unconsensual sexual material ("revenge porn"), malware authors looking for places to exfiltrate stolen data, propagandists and terrorists, the list of abusers is as long as it is dire.

And for some of these abuser classes, the risk for any storage service is high. Various jurisdictions require extremely fast and thorough responses for a service provider to not be held liable, sometimes with turnaround times of 24 hours or less (EU anti terrorism legislation), sometimes with extremely steep fines including prison time for responsible persons. Hell, TOR exit node providers have had their homes raided and themselves held in police arrest or, worse, facing criminal prosecution and prison time particularly for CSAM charges - and these are transit providers, not persistent storage.

And all of that's before looking on the infrastructure provider side. Some will just cut you off when you're facing a DDoS attack, some will bring in extortionate fees (looking at you, AWS/GCE/Azure) for traffic that may leave you in personal bankruptcy. And if you are willing to take that risk, you'll still run the challenge of paying for the hardware itself - storage isn't cheap, 20TB of storage will be around 200€ and you want some redundancy and backups, so the actual cost will rather be 60-100€/TB plus the ongoing cost of electricity and connectivity.

That's why you're not seeing much in terms of democratization.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#275
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also pay for YouTube Premium, but I still use ReVanced on my smartphone just to disable auto-translation. It’s absolute madness that users can’t configure this in the official app.

It’ll be fixed when some product manager can offer it as a promotion project

and removed when that person who is promoted doesn't work on it again

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#276

At some point we’re going to need a better place to put videos than YouTube. The lack of any democratization of bulk storage is beginning to be a real problem on the internet. Yes, we have archive.org. We need more than that, though. I’m sure there’s some distributed solution like IPFS but I haven’t seen any serious attempt to make this accessible to every day people.

The problem with bulk storage is that it will be abused at large scale. CSAM peddlers, intellectual property violators, unconsensual sexual material ("revenge porn"), malware authors looking for places to exfiltrate stolen data, propagandists and terrorists, the list of abusers is as long as it is dire. And for some of these abuser classes, the risk for any storage service is high. Various jurisdictions require extre…

Maybe that’s true, but YouTube is just absolutely miserable to use in every way. There’s got to be better options.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever wondered why the likes of Google and Cloudflare want to restrict the web to a few signed, integrity-checked browser implementations? Now you know.

Everything trends towards centralization on a long enough period. I laugh at people who think ActivityPub or Mastodon or BlueSky will save us. We already had that, it was called e-mail, look what happened once everyone started using it. If we couldn't stop the centralization effects that occurred on e-mail, any attempt to stop centralization in general is honestly a utopian fool's errand. Regulation is easier.

I am a big supporter of AT Protocol, and I contribute some money to a fund to build on it. Why laugh at running experiments? Nothing will "save us," it is a constant effort as long as humans desire to use these systems to connect. Email exists today, and is very usable still as a platform that cannot be captured. The consolidation occurred because people do not want to run their own servers, so we should build for that! Bluesky and AT Protocol are experiments in building something different, with different use cases and capabilities, that also cannot be captured. Just like email. You can run your own PDS. You can run your own stack from PDS to users "end to end" if you so choose. You can pay to do both of these tasks. No one can buy this or take it away from you, if it is built on protocols instead of a platform someone can own and control.

Regulation would be great. The EU does it well. It is lacking in the US, and will be for some time. And so we have to downgrade to technical mitigations against centralization until regulation can meet the burden.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem is, you cannot be sure what Google does if they catch you violating their ToS. They have killed off entire google accounts for YT copyright strikes with no recourse.

That's why I'm not using Google accounts for anything important, I left gmail in 2014 and I really advise everybody to do the same. You never know when the hammer can drop.

This. I simply don't understand why some people rely on Google given the risk level, impact and their no-recourse-except-maybe-public-shaming policy.

Re: Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads

#280
post #273
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 1kb os json still sounds like a modern thing, where you need to download many MB of JavaScript code to execute and display the 1kb json data. What you want is to just download the 10-20kb html file, maybe a corresponding css file, and any images referenced by the html. Then if you want the video you just get the video file direct. Simple and effective, unless you have something to sell.

The main reason for doing video through JS in the first place, other than obfuscation, is variable bitrate support. Oddly enough some TVs will support variable bitrate HLS directly, and I believe Apple devices, but not regular browsers. See https://github.com/video-dev/hls.js/ > unless you have something to sell Video hosting and its moderation is not cheap, sadly. Which is why we don't see many competitors.

And by "not many" you really mean zero competitors.

(before you ask: Vimeo is getting sold to an enshitification company)

Post reply on HN