Here goes all the privacy-friendly ways to watch Youtube.
Well, I guess it's a good thing : now we'll have to campaign to let content creators know how terrible their choice of platform is.
Well, I guess it's a good thing : now we'll have to campaign to let content creators know how terrible their choice of platform is.
This battle has been going on since audio tape recorders and VCRs became a thing, and at some point various industries will have to accept copying as part of reality, and that it is incumbent on them to have a business model that aligns with reality. A farmer doesn't serve a legal notice to the sun because its setting every day hurts productivity.
The platform owners can and will tighten the noose gradually. End users and hackers have much less power than they like to imagine, especially the latter segment.
Today for $9/mo (or nearly free with Amazon) you can listen to almost any song....
The lowering of costs, and easy access is what is driving lower use of p2p not RIAA lawsuits and more restrictions
I kinda use a hybrid - I discover new music on free tier of subscription services, and once I identify songs that I love, I buy them from iTunes DRM-free. I'm just afraid that option won't remain there forever.
Depending on how extensions go, your children and grandchildren may have to re-pay to listen to your collection.
I have absolutely no need to own a piece of music.
I'd start here about Spotify not paying artists enough. But honestly, the music industry - as a whole - has been screwing over artists for decades, at least, so it is pretty much same thing in a different dress. If I'm going to support musicians more directly, I'll head over to Bandcamp while still giving the artist listens on spotify if they have music there.
That's a desired outcome.
I can easily get a 4k h265 video packed in mkv to play on my Linux laptop. I haven't tested lately but a while back Netflix would serve 720p max.
Spotify has been very cool, going as far as delivering a .deb package and Ubuntu repo for their client. However, Rogan podcast doesn't work on Linux because it includes video. Will it before they go exclusive? Maybe, maybe not. I can easily youtube-dl the latest podcast and watch it on Linux.
That's not correct, accessing their content at all still requires running malware like Widevine on your computer even on Linux.
Spotify, Netflix, etc., are possible today because the copyright owners created streaming licenses that recognize that ephemeral access to content is a different use case than downloading. (Streaming licenses are cheap compared to download licenses; my old employer streamed millions of hours of music from the Big 3 labels for a total annual cost of less than $2500.)
People stopped torrenting because Netflix and company made it extremely easy and more affordable to consume a wide range of media. Affordable enough that the hassle of torrenting was no longer worth it. If that changes, you'll see a resurgance.
Assuming there's something to go back to. General purpose computing has been limited by the rise of mobile. These devices are both limited by battery and CPU and more constrained in their abilities by tightly controlled operating systems.
And yet surprisingly many young people don't have anything better. Most still have laptops but it's also not a great hardware platform for torrenting.
Internet connections have been moving away from wires to more convenient but less spacious radio. And even wired connections are often degraded by carrier grade NATs.
Now, the very tools for gathering content are under assault. We need to act because a free and open Internet is not one of the laws of physics and corporations are capable opponents.
It's so, so easy to get access to a million pieces of media through the accounts your parents or siblings already have. Further those services provide specific family plans to make it even easier again.
As gaben said, "Piracy is almost always a service problem".
I think that'll be the return of either torrenting, or the casual pooling of subscription services between people.
If any big exclusive content music services pop up we'll be right back on the pirate bay for everything again
The pop music industry has seen at least three disruptions to its controlling gatekeepers since the 1950s (1956-60, ~2000 with Napster, and presently with Spotify and YouTube), but each time a dominant hegenomy re-emerges. I doubt this time will be different, though the brief renaissance will doubtless be appreciated. Charles Perrow wrote of this in the mid-1980s:
After the critical period from about 1956 to 1960, when tastes were unfrozen, competition was intense, and demand soared, consolidation appeared. The number of firms stabilized at about forty. New corporate entries appeared, such as MGM and Warner Brothers, sensing, one supposes, the opportunity that vastly expanding sales indicated. Some independents grew large. The eight-firm concentration ratio also stabilized (though not yet the four-firm ratio). The market became sluggish, however, as the early stars died, were forced into retirement because of legal problems, or in the notable case of Elvis Presley, were drafted by an impinging environment. Near the end of this period the majors decided that the new sounds were not a fad and began to buy up the contracts of established artists and successfully picked and promoted new ones, notably The Beach Boys and Bob Dylan. A new generation (e.g., The Beatles) appeared from 1964 to 1969, and sales again soared.
But now the concentration ratios soared also. From 1962 to 1973, the four-firm ratio went from 25 to 51 percent; the eight-firm ratio from 46 to 81 percent, almost back to the pre-1955 levels. The number of different firms having hits declined from forty-six to only sixteen. Six of the eight giants were diversified conglomerates, some of which led in the earlier period; one was a new independent, the other a product of of mergers.
How did they do it? The major companies asserted “increasing central control over the creative process”[352] through deliberate creation and extensive promotion of new groups, long-range contracts for groups, and reduced autonomy for producers. In addition, legal and illegal promotion costs (drug payola to disc jockeys, for example) rose in the competitive race and now exceeded the resources of small independents. Finally, the majors “have also moved to regain a controlling position in record distribution by buying chains of retail stores.”[353] The diversity is still greater than it had been in the past, and may remain high, but it is ominous that the majors have all the segments covered. As an executive said, “Columbia Records will have a major entry into whatever new area is broached by the vagaries of public tastes.” But for a concentrated industry, the “vagaries of public tastes” are not economical; it is preferable to stabilize and consolidate them. This would be possible through further control over the creative process and marketing.
Charles Perrow, Complex organizations : a critical essay, 1972, 1985. pp. 186--187.
The dynamics, actors, and economics remind me strongly of the software / high-tech industry, though with much weaker coupling and different lock-in mechanics.
I do the same thing before a flight or train ride (Canada has $5-$10/gb wireless pricing) so I can catch up with my favourite subs on-the-move.
And I guess once you stop paying, it’s all gone?
Periodically the downloaded videos become unavailable offline if you don't have an internet connection to refresh them. Maybe once a month or something. Which means you can't hold on to a video through their service indefinitely.
Yeah, seeing that recently was a good reminder that my phone is not under my control.
Only this time, unlike with Betamax[1], they are winning. Backed by anti-circumvention laws like the DMCA section 1201, which makes any lock, no matter how poorly built, a criminal violation to break or even to build or discuss ways of breaking.
[1] https://consumerist.com/2014/01/17/on-this-day-in-1984-the-s...
As does telling your browser to display the desktop site instead.
I figure 5% of consumers « served » by both cable and xDSL can’t get good service, and then they have virtually every rural customer that’s anything more than a low-data user. And I’d expect them to capture that one day with a « light » plan. It’s a massive market.
Yes, that's the price they charge. What are the costs of providing the service?
Well, if you are counting overage charges I guess.
My (national) provider has an all-in, bring-your-own-device plan with 9GB of data (recently with a 2GB bonus, for a total of 11GB) for under $60/month. I'm sure the competitors are similar. So, while not perfect, it's not as onerous as you describe.
Regarding overage charges, I would be genuinely shocked if anybody, including a minor provider, has overage under $10/GB, seeing as by your own admission, even your standard rate exceeds $5/GB. Rogers overages are $70/GB, Bell is $110-120/GB, Telus is a whopping $130/GB. If overage charges are under the normal rate, then that's not an overage, that's pay-as-you-go.
Are you talking about data only, or full phone service? Perhaps our calculations look different.
These plans includes: unlimited voice calling, texting, long distance, voicemail, call display, 5 hours of unlimited data per month (great for using a hotspot) and that amount of data.
The basic phone plan is about $30, so you're actually paying about $3 per GB. Overage is an admittedly ridiculous $15/GB.
This is Fido, owned by Rogers, obviously a major carrier. The standard plans aren't quite as good ($75 for 10GB), but there's always some kind of promotion going on. It's not wonderful when you see what some other countries are paying, but we're in a far better place than even a few years ago.
Yeah, in France a basic SIM phone plan with 50mb data is something thrown in for free as a part of their internet/cable/DVRs which is $30/mo (incl tax) for the first year and then $65, but it’s so competitive that you just need to call in or switch.
Text/calls are increasingly over data. You’re getting terrible value for $30 for what is 100mb.
I know providers like to think that SMS or voice calls are a big extra, but 95%+ of mine these days are over data.
[0] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/wiki/Invidious-Instances
Support a user/artist on patreon, get access to their vids also hosted on patreon.
I have a Twitch account just to have a paid subscription for the Critical Role channel, despite the fact that I never open Twitch and download their videos from Youtube using youtube-dl. It kind of feels ridiculous (especially knowing Twitch will put me in metrics of "their users").
And like all self-fulfilling prophecies, those claims are now largely true.
cat > youtube-dl-webui.Dockerfile <<EOF
FROM d0u9/youtube-dl-webui
RUN pip3 install --upgrade youtube_dl
EOF
cat > conf.json <<EOCONF
{ "general": {"download_dir": "/tmp/ytdui/download","db_path": "/tmp/ytdui/webui.db","log_size": 10},
"server": {"host": "0.0.0.0","port": 5000} }
EOCONF
docker build \
-f youtube-dl-webui.Dockerfile \
-t youtube-dl-webui:latest \
.
mkdir ytdui && chmod 777 ytdui
docker run \
--rm -it \
--name youtube_dl_webui \
-p 5000:5000 \
-e FLASK_DEBUG=1 \
-e CONF_FILE=/conf.json \
-v `pwd`/conf.json:/conf.json \
-v `pwd`/ytdui:/tmp/ytdui \
youtube-dl-webui:latest
firefox http://localhost:5000/