Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#511

Post by amatecha »

oefrha wrote: post #202
jaspergilley wrote: post #33

You can download the most recent version of the YouTube-DL code from Wayback Machine here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201018144703/https://github.co... Fuck the RIAA

You can only download a snapshot from that page. Here's a tarball with the entire git repo in case anyone's interested: https://transfer.sh/Hj9dD/youtube-dl-git.tar.gz (52MiB) Here's Debian's mirror btw, somewhat out of date and using the one-commit-per-upstream-release development model (in the upstream branch), so lacking a lot of history: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/youtube-dl

The gzipped tarball, was that as of latest commit? just curious if we can consider it the definitive final copy

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#513

Post by saagarjha »

rhino369 wrote: post #424
Nextgrid wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't it be trivially reinstated then by removing any references to copyrighted content? youtube-dl has plenty of legitimate uses beyond just copyright infringement.

They can't fully un-ring that bell. The RIAA will always be able to argue infringement was the purpose since they used copyrighted examples.

Plus they've advertised themselves as having that capability. I suspect that even after the removal the RIAA will argue that the fact that the ability to download copyrighted material, which is something that the project itself said it could do in the past and has not been modified, makes it continue to be illegal.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#514

Post by ravenstine »

This is lousy! I depend on youtube-dl to archive videos for later use. Nothing MAFIAA would be interested in; just stuff from topical channels that I want to have around for personal use in case they get deleted.

I really hope this doesn't stand, because what it's basically saying is that you can't even tell someone how to download something that might be copyrighted. Not only that, but this was brought forth by a murky technicality.

Pray to god this never happens to NewPipe.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#515

Post by bergstromm466 »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #70
molmalo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking the same thing: The next step following this line of thinking would be trying to ban all torrent clients, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted material. This is crazy.

Why stop with torrent clients? They should ban all browsers, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted materials!

Why stop with browsers? They should ban all computers, because they CAN be used to download and play copyrighted materials!

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#517

Post by __s »

rmrfstar wrote: post #509
dvt wrote: post #458

Oh the irony of cloning a banned repo from a Chinese git mirror... c:\Users\david\dev\git λ git clone https://gitee.com/mirrors/youtube-downloader.git Cloning into 'youtube-downloader'... remote: Enumerating objects: 98560, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (98560/98560), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (30542/30542), done. remote: Total 98560 (delta 73037), reused 90045 (delta 66441), pack-reused 0 Receiv…

Were the developers in the habit of signing commits, or do we just have to assume that the gitee mirror is 100% legit?

Cross check commit hashes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24873953

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#518

Post by LeoPanthera »

aquova wrote: post #139

While its good to get a backup of the source code, youtube-dl is one of those projects that quickly becomes useless as Google mixes stuff around within YouTube, which they like to do. Without an active developer base, the project will quickly become less and less effective, which is one of the big concerns IMO about this lawsuit.

Despite the project name, "youtube-dl" is a nearly universal video downloader. It contains hundreds of special cases for specific websites, which will gradually break without maintenance. It would be a huge loss.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#519

Post by grishka »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #286

Lesson learned: always use Creative Commons licensed data to demo your multimedia tools. Else people get the wrong idea. Some examples for youtube-dl might be: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqz-KE-bpKQ Big buck bunny * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsGyueVLvQ Sintel * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhWc3b3KhnY Spring In fact, youtube actually allows you to filter by CC, so there's never a reason not to!

In the case of youtube-dl, they couldn't do that. At least VEVO videos have an additional layer of "protection" — the direct links to video files require a signature of some sort IIRC. Downloading a non-DRM-ed video is as easy as making a request to https://www.youtube.com/get_video_info?video_id=aqz-KE-bpKQ and then following a link to the format you need, but with those music videos, that won't work. So the test cases were a necessity.

Re: YouTube-dl has received a DMCA takedown from RIAA

#520

Post by weyland »

weyland wrote: post #499

So, are they going to also issue a takedown for YouTube Premium next? Premium allows you to watch/listen without ads and also allows you to download videos for offline use. If I pay for YouTube Premium, there should be no problem with me using youtube-dl to timeshift the content I've already paid for. It's no different than using a DVR to record a show off a cable channel I pay to subscribe to.

Really, the RIAA should be going after YouTube for better remuneration, rather than going after youtube-dl. Unless I'm missing something, they get paid no matter whether the view comes from a browser user-agent or youtube-dl user-agent. How is this any different than recording a song off the radio, which is, AFAIK, legal under fair use?
Post reply on HN