How journalists use youtube-dl • Hacker News Board

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#71

Post by amatecha » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

d1sxeyes wrote: post #61

bleepblorp wrote: post #25

[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.

I mean, to be fair, they probably have one of the most colossal legal teams of any tech company, no?

Regardless, I think they takedown without giving the "DMCA" complaint much scrutiny because the risk of penalty for NOT taking action is greater than just taking down the repo(s) risk-free.

Github's ToS: which says "we have the right (though not the obligation) to refuse or remove any User-Generated Content that, in our sole discretion, violates any GitHub terms or policies." ( https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-... )

I have to say it IS strange they took down content based on a letter that doesn't prove or even really suggest copyright infringement has taken place (only that it COULD, as a result of using the software), and their own ToS says "There may be legal consequences for sending a false or frivolous takedown notice." ( https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-... )

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#72

Post by azinman2 » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

Sounds like YouTube should have a download button for journalists then.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#73

Post by hiisukun » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

I have friends in law enforcement who use youtube-dl to save copies of videos involving crimes or criminal allegations, from quite a few different social media and video sites.

Speaking with them, it seems the associated metadata (json/xml?) and output log contain valuable information to go along with the video from an evidentiary perspective. Also the fact that youtube-dl has many test cases in the code goes towards demonstrating its reliability as an instrument for collecting evidence.

Certainly seems a better approach than installing a 'DownloadVideosEzy' extension for chrome or similar.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#74

Post by contravariant » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

LockAndLol wrote: post #47

ugjka wrote: post #20

There's a fork of youtube-dl seems to be pretty active: https://github.com/blackjack4494/yt-dlc

Still on github though. It's only a question of time till it's found. They'd do themselves a favor by moving off of there.

Given that they've yet to clean up the copy people spliced into github/dmca [1], I reckon it might take a while, if not another DMCA.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882921

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#75

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

AndrewBissell wrote: post #26

A large number of alternative news outlets have been catching YouTube bans under the cover of the QAnon crackdown. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the main archiving tool one could use to migrate off of YouTube is being squelched at the same time.

[deleted]

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#76

Post by nitrogen » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

rektide wrote: post #52

bleepblorp wrote: post #25

[Post deleted after 60 minutes. It has had adequate exposure.]

Under section 1201 anti-circumvention rules, unless Youtube-DL enters the US legal system & counter-notifies, Github/Microsoft face CRIMINAL liability charges with steep JAIL TIME and a half-million dollar fine. I want to chew Microsoft out for this one, but the US-based copyright mafia have built themselves an unbelievably vicious draconian set of laws that prevent any sort of challenge, including those coming from…

I feel like this line from your link to Bunnie Huang's blog is apropos to many of the conflicts of our time:

> Like the parable of the frog in the well, their creativity has been confined to a small patch, not realizing how big and blue the sky could be if they could step outside that well.

That was posted in 2016; does anyone know what happened with that lawsuit?

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#77

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#78

Post by dEnigma » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #3

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…

It is really distressing to see how many of the videos in my, admittedly quite large, favourites list are gone by now. Even ones that I only added in the past few weeks. Either simply "Deleted", "Private" or "Removed/Blocked by the copyright holder". In most cases I have trouble even finding out what the title of the video even was.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#79

Post by dylan604 » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

bleepblorp wrote: post #67

d1sxeyes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's not Github/Microsoft's responsibility to make legal determinations about whether a particular DMCA takedown notice is valid. 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.'

Is it? OR is it the prudent thing to do to temporarily make it unavailable. Then take a second to look at things, then bring it back again if that the action deemed appropriate? If doing nothing leaves the vulnerable while doing something that gets reversed gives them ammo to go after the accuser, then it seems the lesser of 2 evils to me

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#80

Post by rektide » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

sesuximo wrote: post #11

Imo... people should be able to download stuff for free if they’re able to see it for free. The “you can see it but you must watch an ad” model is weird and leads to unenforceable/wacky situations like this (I’m not really a stakeholder tho so who cares what I think)

Worth reminding people that Big Content Holding industry came all too close to getting VHS tapes outlawed.

> In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Sony could continue to sell its Betamax videocassette recorder, overruling the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judgement that held Sony liable for consumers’ copyright infringement.

https://consumerist.com/2014/01/17/on-this-day-in-1984-the-s...

Same s*, different decade.