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

331–340 of 348 posts

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#331

Post by ttt0 »

vinay427 wrote: post #266
sudosysgen wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

It's not a "limited few". I think most of the Eastern Europe allows downloading copyrighted content for personal use.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#332

Post by driverdan »

jiggawatts wrote: post #174
tracker1 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had similar issues on a recent camping trip since the switch from google play music to youtube music... when I lose connectivity, there's no buffer, and seems to be no songs kept to be able to play anything , and it was a really crappy experience. May have to go back to spotify or offline mp3 files, I don't miss having to manage my own playlists tbh.

Google's engineering is not about providing a good user experience, but about using metrics to squeeze out the last 1% of inefficiency. This inevitably makes the system fragile and leaves some people out in the cold, but you're the product, not the customer. Some people would argue that optimising YouTube for the bottom 1% of Internet connections makes no financial sense, but I have gigabit fibre and YouTube stutters…

> but I have gigabit fibre and YouTube stutters

This is a peering issue and your ISP's fault, not YouTube's. They can't fix bad peering from their end, your ISP has to do it.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#333

Post by raihansaputra »

arendtio wrote: post #278
raihansaputra wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OK so I'm not sure what's happening with the scrolling. But it's definitely smoother on Firefox than on Chrome. I'm sure it's not my hardware/OS combination (1060 + PopOS w/ Nvidia blobs).

On the profiles part: I am aware of the --ProfileManager option. But the icon is new to me. Should be worth trying. Thanks. Work uses G Suite so I don't know how Meet + some other tools react with Firefox.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#334

Post by raihansaputra »

a_erholt wrote: post #306
raihansaputra wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From what I've heard, this is used as a replacement for profile modes on Firefox. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

Ah yes that's it. I've read about it sometime ago and thought it was built it. Might try it out. Thanks!

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#335

Post by ttt0 »

lxe wrote: post #181

I keep thinking about this takedown... the issue at hand is the inclusion of youtube links in the readme, which encourages downloads of copyrighted works from youtube. From the complaint: > The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by o…

> the issue at hand is the inclusion of youtube links in the readme, which encourages downloads of copyrighted works from youtube.

The README file doesn't encourage any downloads of any copyrighted works. All examples included in the README point to their own example video. The only thing that comes close to this is that they say that they will not support any services that are violating copyrights. The copyrighted content is used in test cases, that are not meant for users to see.

> (i) Does YouTube have "technological protection measures" that prevent downloading? In the case of the AACS controversy, this was a bit more clear-cut: there was a secret key that was cracked, but what exactly is being "circumvented" in this case?

What's being "circumvented" is the encrypted URL to the content. But it's not really circumvented, YouTube decrypts it with javascript. All youtube-dl does is that it interprets the javascript that's on their website, just like a web browser does.

> (ii) Nowhere does youtube-dl advertise that it's to be used to "reproduce and distribute" without authorization.

Correct. Not sure what "reproduce" means in legal speak, but youtube-dl doesn't even have any functionality to distribute anything.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#336

Post by Talanes »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #64

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…

If I'm seeking out to infringe upon a copyrighted video, Youtube-DL isn't even in the top 5 of things I would think to try.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#337

Post by sudosysgen »

vinay427 wrote: post #266
sudosysgen wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

Hmm, where do you get that from? All of Eastern Europe pretty much, Scandinavia, France, Canada, Spain and Switzerland, at the very least, allow you to copy copyrighted content you legally have access to legally.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#338

Post by tracker1 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #174
tracker1 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had similar issues on a recent camping trip since the switch from google play music to youtube music... when I lose connectivity, there's no buffer, and seems to be no songs kept to be able to play anything , and it was a really crappy experience. May have to go back to spotify or offline mp3 files, I don't miss having to manage my own playlists tbh.

Google's engineering is not about providing a good user experience, but about using metrics to squeeze out the last 1% of inefficiency. This inevitably makes the system fragile and leaves some people out in the cold, but you're the product, not the customer. Some people would argue that optimising YouTube for the bottom 1% of Internet connections makes no financial sense, but I have gigabit fibre and YouTube stutters…

I understand their optimizations, that said, many people listen to music while driving and will have spotty connections, even commuting to/from the burbs. So it's a negative experience that probably outweighs the bandwidth issues. Even a couple songs in buffer at 64kbps encode in the background is better than letting it freeze multiple times a minute for 10+ seconds at a time.

They're too aggressive on their optimizations for mobile networks/devices.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#340

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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.

> 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.

Except that it isn't, as already discussed, because the code doesn't change based on the design intent. The technical operation of the tool is identical whether it's used for interoperability or fair use or to rip songs for The Pirate Bay. The technical operation of the tool is identical whether it's produced by a university researcher or the developer of a media player app or a literal sea-faring pirate with a parrot and a peg leg who is the founder of a political movement to abolish copyright and promote civil disobedience.

But prohibiting a specific person (who may have had a particular intent) from distributing it is incoherent (or at least futile) if it means you can just get some other person with some other intent to distribute the exact same thing. And it's also incoherent to say that the other person can't distribute it even if they genuinely do have a different intent, if the intent is supposed to be what matters.

None of which depends on what you judge a give person's intent to be after the fact, because it's a defect in the legislation, not the judgment in any particular case.

Post reply on HN