61–70 of 348 posts
[Post deleted after 60 minutes. It has had adequate exposure.]
I completely agree, on the other hand, that a takedown notice issued knowingly without proper grounds should be penalised severely.
Where will new development take place? What's the russian / chinese equivalent of github?
My two big uses cases for youtube-dl: 1) Downloading videos to use later in editing for analysis pieces / editorial videos. 2) Download videos that may disappear in a "No longer available" blackhole. The 2nd is incredibly useful and telling when you go back, look up videos by their ID, and see what has been deleted. I'd also recommend changing the OUTPUT format to include the channel name or Twitter account, so you c…
Watching a youtube video on a slow (1k) DSL has become entirely impossible because a few years back youtube (seemingly) stopped buffering the entire video, so you can't start the video, pause, go do something else and watch it once it's loaded. Not only that, but it really does not handle either temporary disconnections or high latency spikes well.
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 and user of youtube-dl and think this action from the RIAA is ridiculous (though not surprising — I’m a little surprised it took this long) and that the law over this stuff is absolutely bonkers — but the commentary and false pretenses about not just how we use the tool but the purpose for why the tool was built is incredibly disingenuous.
It was built and designed to download content that the creators or sites that host the content either didn’t want people to download or outright didn’t allow. The program has support for username/passwords for TV Everywhere SSO’s for premium services. There are ways to tunnel in via a proxy to avoid region block downloads. Again, I’m a huge fan, and I’m someone who absolutely used these features, but let’s not pretend the purpose wasn’t exactly what it is.
That doesn’t make the RIAA’s actions any better or anything — but I really dislike pretending like we weren’t all using the program for the exact purposes the complaint laid out, or that they use case wasn’t the primary reason this tool existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The “you can see it but you must watch and ad” model... ... funds OTA television. Also funds YT. With OTA, it is okay to record OTA broadcasts using a VCR, so I'm not sure why youtube-dl would be different.
The different, Google would argue, is that YouTube-dl doesn't download the ads, while a VCR captures ads and content alike. But really, if the VCR were invented today, it would be made illegal.
Where will new development take place? What's the russian / chinese equivalent of github?
Either way you can host git yourself (or just use git format-patch) there's not a single thing github really does for you other than integrate a bunch of self-hostable tools behind a flashy (and increasingly less usable) web GUI.
[Post deleted after 60 minutes. It has had adequate exposure.]
It's not Github/Microsoft's responsibility to make legal determinations about whether a particular DMCA takedown notice is valid. I completely agree, on the other hand, that a takedown notice issued knowingly without proper grounds should be penalised severely.
Except, by choosing to honor it, they decided that it is legally valid.
The appropriate response to a copyright claim against material that the claimant clearly does not own is 'unless you can prove that you own this material, come back with a court order.'
I used ffmpeg and audacity with youtube-dl to download and do file and spectrograph analysis on a faked political video. That analysis showing how the audio was spliced together may have killed the story before it got legs. In an era of fakes and deepfakes, we need tools like youtube-dl more than ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The different, Google would argue, is that YouTube-dl doesn't download the ads, while a VCR captures ads and content alike. But really, if the VCR were invented today, it would be made illegal.
Remember TiVo? Recorded TV and cut out the ads.
Dish’s Hopper actually DID do ad-free recordings and it was sued too (but there was eventually a settlement), not just for skipping the ads but for distributing the same copy of a recording to multiple users over a server. Cablevision, likewise, was sued (but settled) over the fact that it had a cloud DVR network that allowed the same copy of a recording to be available to multiple people, rather than storing X-Copies of the recording on their servers.