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

How journalists use youtube-dl

freedom.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 348 posts

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#81

Post by nitrogen »

LocalH wrote: post #34
pwinnski wrote: post #24

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.

Not like they didn’t try to make it illegal originally. “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.“ - Jack Valenti, former MPAA president, in 1982, explaining to Congress why the VCR should be illegal

I think that quote really shows where the organization's priorities are with respect to individual rights.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#82

Post by the8472 »

nullc wrote: post #28
bleepblorp wrote: post #25

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

I don't follow the argument that the procedural invalidity makes Github more culpable. In a normal, procedurally valid, DMCA the only harm to the host for not following the procedure is that they lose the safe harbor. In this case because it isn't a question of infringement there isn't a safe harbor at all. In either case a company can choose to take something down because it wants to reduce its exposure to litigatio…

> is that they lose the safe harbor.

For that particular instance or permanently?

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#83

Post by comeonseriously »

roywiggins wrote: post #41
comeonseriously wrote: post #17

How is using youtube-dl different to using a "VCR" and recording OTA television?

RIAA alleges that it bypasses a form of DRM. Youtube tries to obfuscate the full URL of videos, so youtube-dl does a little dance to work out where to download it from. If this is a form of DRM, then the DMCA plausibly applies.

So, the argument is whether or not obfuscation is DRM? If that's true anyone can claim that some weird URL scheme is DRM. That's a dangerous slope to tread.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#84

Post by wizzwizz4 »

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…

I wasn't, and it's not. I genuinely think you're in the minority here (which is unusual, on the 'net, where piracy's concerned).

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#85

Post by paulryanrogers »

hiisukun wrote: post #73

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…

Doesn't law enforcement have a means to subpoena Google for such evidence?

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#86

Post by kgog »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #85
hiisukun wrote: post #73

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…

Doesn't law enforcement have a means to subpoena Google for such evidence?

Which way do you think takes less time and effort?

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#87

Post by neuronflux »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #85
hiisukun wrote: post #73

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…

Doesn't law enforcement have a means to subpoena Google for such evidence?

Assuming the content is public, why would they need a subpoena?

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#88

Post by swebs »

arendtio wrote: post #6

Another valid use-case is to use the hardware acceleration with your native video player. AFAIK, mpv uses youtube-dl under the hood to play youtube videos. For a long time the video acceleration in browsers wasn't very good for Linux users, so we used players like mpv instead to watch high resolution content.

It still isn't. The Youtube player is garbage and full of tearing.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#89

Post by reggieband »

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…

To add to this (which I 100% agree with) is the chorus of voices suggesting that their usage was OK because they weren't downloading RIAA content.

Just because someone isn't an RIAA member doesn't mean they don't have copyright over the content they upload to YouTube. There are some YouTube creators that would be totally fine with you downloading their content but you can't assume every creator is the same. Just because a user filmed, edited and uploaded some video from their own house doesn't mean they have any less rights than music or video from major labels or Hollywood studios.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#90

Post by neodymiumphish »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #85
hiisukun wrote: post #73

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…

Doesn't law enforcement have a means to subpoena Google for such evidence?

The process for a subpoena takes forever and isn't guaranteed.

If I have a subject who has relevant video on a service like YouTube, and I decide to go the subpoena route, here's the process:

- Find the exact video, document the URL, Content creator's account name, and video upload date.

- Submit a preservation letter to Google to ensure the video will still be accessible when the subpoena is auctioned.

- go to my prosecutor/legal team to determine what jurisdiction the subpoena has to go through. It could be the county I'm in, the county the subject lives in, the county the video was uploaded in (unlikely), or the county where Google hosts the video.

- draft the subpoena and get it reviewed by whichever judge/magistrate applies.

- wait who knows how long for the subpoena response, hopefully it comes back with the real video and important content.

- face defense arguments in court that my subpoena was improperly obtained/submitted

Post reply on HN