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

91–100 of 348 posts

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#91

Post by prox »

incompatible wrote: post #45

YouTube even offers a Creative Commons feature, such as on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUY01kW8p2o : if you scroll to the end of the description it reads: License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). I've never understood why they don't offer a download option for such videos: the likes of youtube-dl is the only way to get a copy, and it's perfectly legal. Likewise for public domain videos.

Google has zero interest in free downloads. They are in bed with the music industry which makes them some ad dollars and their client thinking is sub-zero. Thats because the public is not the client, the advertisers are. If I worked at Google I would be scratching myself behind the ears and take a long big look at what the company has become.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#92

Post by megous »

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…

In my country it's not illegal to download copyrighted movies/music. It's just illegal to share them.

So how was I infringing copyright by downloading something from a public website where copyright holder left the content publicly accessible to anyone?

I'll give you that it may or may not be against ToS of the distribution service, but that's all. But it's not a distribution service causing the ruckus around youtube-dl, but the copyright holder, so that's kinda beside the point.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#93

Post by subroutine »

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…

Based on your response, and the parent comment, it seems like content hosts have a responsibility: to determine if a DMCA takedown request is valid. If a host doesn't see this as a responsibility, and simply complies with every DMCA (whether valid, invalid, or even fraudulent), I'd agree with op... the host is culpable whenever they comply with an invalid or fraudulent DMCA request. Maybe not culpable in a legal sense, but certainly they are to blame (otherwise who?) for complying with invalid DMCA.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#94

Post by dredmorbius »

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…

Law enforcement already has an anti-circ exemption under 17 USC 1201(e), though a finding against youtube-dl would limit it's (or similar tools') availability and/or functionality.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#96

Post by echelon »

neuronflux wrote: post #87
paulryanrogers wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Is availability on a locked, walled garden "public"?

I think we can tell what the RIAA thinks about that.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#97

Post by nitrogen »

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…

1) Downloading videos to use later in editing for analysis pieces / editorial videos.

I wonder if certain famous YouTubers used youtube-dl for this purpose. How else would you download, edit, and analyze a video's editing or special effects?

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#99

Post by atdt »

I run a simple service that syncs a private YouTube playlist and publishes it as an audio-only podcast feed. When I come across talks that I find interesting, I save them to the playlist, so I can listen to them while walking, exercising, etc., because I find it much easier to absorb new information if I can move around. This has been a huge boon to me personally, and I'm very worried about losing it.

Re: How journalists use youtube-dl

#100

Post by dredmorbius »

the8472 wrote: post #82
nullc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For the specific averred infringement.
Post reply on HN