Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

Post by embedding-shape » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

mnmalst wrote: post #388

embedding-shape wrote: post #95

Seems its already in Arch's repositories, and seems to work, just add another flag to the invocation: yt-dlp --cookies-from-browser firefox --remote-components ejs:github -f "bestvideo[ext=mp4]+bestaudio[ext=m4a]/best[ext=mp4]/best" 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXX' It is downloading a solver at runtime, took maybe half a second in total, downloads are starting way faster than before it seems to me. [youtube] [js…

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yt-dlp-ejs looks like what you need?

    WARNING: [youtube] [jsc] Remote components challenge solver script (deno) and NPM package (deno) were skipped. These may be required to solve JS challenges. You can enable these downloads with  --remote-components ejs:github  (recommended) or  --remote-components ejs:npm , respectively. For more information and alternatives, refer to  https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/wiki/EJS

Post by baobabKoodaa » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 6:17 PM UTC

arbll wrote: post #102

djoldman wrote: post #18

From https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/wiki/EJS it looks like deno is recommended for these reasons: > Notes > * Code is run with restricted permissions (e.g, no file system or network access) > * Supports downloading EJS script dependencies from npm (--remote-components ejs:npm).

It's fine for this project since google is probably not in the business of triggering exploits in yt-dlp users but please do not use deno sandboxing as a your main security measure to execute untrusted code . Runtime-level sandboxing is always very weak. Relying on OS-level sandboxing or VMs (firecracker & co) is the right way for this.

Post by lurk2 » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 6:18 PM UTC

rob wrote: post #198

bdz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually do! I have a perpetual VLC playlist which plays those videos randomly if I need some background noise.

How many of the 20,000+ videos you've saved locally do you actually care about if they get "removed" from YouTube?

Post by bitpush » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 6:21 PM UTC

engeljohnb wrote: post #410

bitpush wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right analogy would be a newspaper delivering you the paper in ~milliseconds when you ask for it, whereever in the world, for free, and then you proceed to rip off the ads and read it. The reason newspaper do the delivery was the promise that you'll see the ads, and they get to make money from that ads. If they notice that you do all of the work of providing you the newspaper almost instantly and you dont see the…

Firstly, ad watch time is not currency. Second once the paper's in my hands, I get to do what I want with it, and the expectations of the paper company has no bearing on it. If they don't want to give me the paper for free, they should stop, but they haven't yet. Their expectation to make a certain amount of revenue from ads doesn't obligate the consumer. If their business model isn't making them the profit they need…

Post by badlibrarian » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 6:26 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #409

darkwater wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a bit like complaining no cars have trouble because your Fiat doesn't have a problem. No. Because even if it might be complicated, any website developer can test their website against a wide array of browsers, in a more or less automated way.

So you're expecting Google engineers and managers to prioritize adding broad cross-browser support, which adds more work for them, when the same company is also developing a competing browser? No, Firefox always been a second-rate guest at Google properties, and I'm not expecting it to change soon either. Why would they make it better when status quo means more Chrome users (in their mind)?