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

Post by netsharc » Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 3:10 AM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #325

crazygringo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on a lot of factors. But even if it works in a virtual machine, your CPU is going to be pegged at 100% the whole time to handle the re-encoding. Unless you use a hardware h.264 encoder, but then the quality is pretty terrible since it's explicitly optimized for speed over quality and isn't tunable the way software encoders are. It's always doable, it's just an option of last resort. You always just want to…

I think the real key is to only compress enough initially so that you don't blow out your storage in terms of size and throughput... Once you have the stream captured at a higher quality, you can always recompress more optimally. A relatively low compression with hardware h.264 will still take up a lot less space and throughput than mpeg-2 or raw.

Post by oblio » Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 9:17 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #523

devsda wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be recalling it wrong,but I remember reading that there was some old hardware that refused to record protected TV/Movies probably a VCR or a DVR. Camera manufacturers can easily refuse to record a stream of they detect it is protected, may be via watermarks or other sidechannel.

HDCP is how modern digital displays (and digital display recorders) do it. You might be thinking of Macrovision, which was integrated in a lot of DVD players and would embed pulses into the vertical blanking interval of the analogy video output. These pulses could be detected by compliant DVD recorders and used to refuse recording. The pulses would also cause playback defects in some older VCRs and TVs. I remember co…

Post by chii » Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 9:50 AM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #624

Before you blame Google, think that the main users of yt-dlp could be: 1) multi-billion AI companies which download large amount of videos without permission and without paying 2) Youtube competitors/replacements in countries where Youtube is blocked, which copy the videos without permission and payment I wish though that Youtube would adjust their policy to block this type of users and let ordinary people download v…

Post by codedokode » Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 10:30 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #625

codedokode wrote: post #624

Before you blame Google, think that the main users of yt-dlp could be: 1) multi-billion AI companies which download large amount of videos without permission and without paying 2) Youtube competitors/replacements in countries where Youtube is blocked, which copy the videos without permission and payment I wish though that Youtube would adjust their policy to block this type of users and let ordinary people download v…

> this type of user They are undifferentiable from ordinary users. And what about users who do adblocking? They are also "not paying" in the same sense - how come they're not included in your list?

Post by Arainach » Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 12:37 PM UTC

tgv wrote: post #308

Arainach wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a profit doesn't mean that their costs aren't so high that adblocking isn't compatible. Walmart has profits of $157B in 2024, but their business model isn't compatible with people just walking in and grabbing stuff without paying - and doesn't make it ethical to do so even if "they'll be just fine even if I do that"

I don't see how ad-blocking is unethical. There are companies that make money by placing ("out of home") ads in the public space. Not looking at those would then also be unethical? Priests sermoning on "thou shalt not hide thy eyes from the fancy displays in the bus stop"? An ad-police, the Conscious Ethical Viewing Effort Force Edict? That's some low-key dystopian thought.