I had never heard of youtube-dl prior to this whole saga. But I used it for the first time yesterday and it works great.
So maybe I should thank the RIAA for clueing me in!
So maybe I should thank the RIAA for clueing me in!
For the Streisand effect to be an example of itself, there would have to be an attempt to ban or suppress the usage or knowledge of the idea of the effect. I don't think that's happened, so I don't see how it's self-referential.
the Streisand Effect is fake news.
"It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph of her residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew further attention to it in 2003."
My point is that more people know about Barbra Streisand and the Streisand Effect because of Streisand's attempts to suppress information.
Here’s a “pop up” version of the music video with more details about the song: https://youtu.be/i_QOeWflG9g
I remember first hearing this song playing on someones phone back when the best mobile game was that nokia red ball thing.
In my opinion, in ten or twenty years this will shift even further and young people will know the Streisand name only because of the "effect".
But I reckon I could still sing along with You Don't Bring Be Flowers Anymore and Woman In Love and get most of the lyrics right.
She's more my parent's era than mine, but like The Beatles and Cat Stevens, I grew up listening to my parents music...
People want to get tickets because ticket are hard to get
Shit, now I feel old.
That was 1998. Streisand was 2003.
Like for example, if something came out that some persons might use to try an embarrass me, I let it stay out for a while and don't really address it. Two to three people tweet it and it doesn't go further, hundreds of people weren't compelled to save it "for the lulz". Then a few weeks or months later I get the service to take it down, the person that posted barely notices or understands that their voice is not strong enough and the bar to change that is much higher and they've moved on to some other issue de jour.
Yes, there is a possibility that it circulates pretty far initially, or that the thing being shared gets ingrained into the consciousness as truth, but in those circumstances providing a reaction involving the law or lawyers would still amplify it.
people try ad hominem attacks but nobody cares, or think that I’m vulnerable because I’ve had public facing roles and try to act on that but it’s just them wasting energy
its basically something like "what you can't have an opinion online! I can damage you therefore I'll try to damage you!" and then realize they have no reach and the world doesn't work the way they think it does
https://www.adatitleiii.com/2017/03/uc-berkley-to-remove-mor...
You won't miss anything then...
youtube-dl.exe "https://vidsite.com/foo?bar"
youtube-dl -x --audio-format mp3 <mediaurl> youtube-dl() {
if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
if [ "${WAYLAND_DISPLAY}" != "" ]; then
env youtube-dl -f best "$(wl-paste --type text/plain)"
else
env youtube-dl -f best "$(xsel -b)"
fi
else
env youtube-dl "$@"
fi
}
Source here if anyone's interested: https://github.com/liskin/dotfiles/blob/home/bin/youtube-dl-...
Since lossy to lossy transcodes always cause some degradation due to the way perceptual codecs discard data, it's always best to use them as-is without converting.
AAC is widely compatible these days and is the broadcast industry (ITU / EBU) standard for distribution of end-user audio, the default recording format for most consumer and pro-sumer equipment, and also what Youtube's upload giudelines suggest. Therefore it's better just to get the `-f140 -x` for maximum compatibility, unless you know you can play the Opus audio and have reason to believe the upload was higher quality.
Youtube DL was taken down because it was DMCA'd, to which we all (mostly?) agree was an abuse of DMCA, but nevertheless the premise seems to be that it was effectively a form of piracy - no? Isn't Piracy (and supporting Piracy/etc) "illegal"? Or is there a better word to use here?
Just because the RIAA cries foul doesn't mean there is actually anything wrong here. Piracy is illegal, but youtube-dl is not a piracy tool, just like VHS recorders were not piracy tools. Making personal copies of videos is absolutely legal, and seems to be the prominent way to use youtube-dl (Why else would you use it? The content is already available for free on youtube itself!).
So what you should call youtube-dl is "Something the RIAA doesn't like", basically.
My comment of illegal isn't a court of law, my intent was clearly discussing the idea that if the RIAA is accusing youtube-dl of piracy (effectively), and then they themselves increase popularity of youtube-dl, they would effectively be promoting piracy, aka something illegal.
Ya'll are getting hung up on the details. It was a joke.
The right words here are not "piracy" or "illegal," but it is not clear what statement you are trying to make. I can't recommend any better words without additional context.
Who is even using this for some kind of meaningful copyright infringement?
Downloading a copy for personal use isn't even copyright infringement - for copyright infringement to happen, you'd have to then share that copy you made. For instance, you are allowed to do VHS copies of TV shows, and that was confirmed by Supreme Court[0].
This whole thing doesn't make sense to me either.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
Stop repeating this RIAA nonsense.
Is the idea that the author didn't have the rights to publish the video in the first place, due to things like unlicensed background music?
Thus far, Youtube is under the safe harbor principle of the DMCA, and as long as they honor those takedown notices, the end user is not likely to be held accountable. The software they use is even less likely to be.
I’m not saying it’s right, but that’s how they’ve been trying to frame the discussion for a long time now.
It's good to see others recognise it for what it is. It needs to be strongly pushed back.
(Sure, many parts of the internet are still open, but youtube isn't one of them.)
How exactly the video file gets downloaded into the viewing device is an implementation detail. Whether it's a MythTV plugin, that free Android app, Firefox, or this Python tool isn't important. If one of them is declared illegal in some jurisdiction, they all are.
Courts aren't always concerned with technical differences, more often intent.
They are all interchangeable. Should one implementation be found problematic, in theory it can be swapped with another.
It's not comparable to DRM, where a particular software can be licensed for a particular digital protection mechanism. In this case either they all are, or none are.
While there is no technical difference, there is quite a difference of intent between watching a streaming video and downloading it to circumvent copy-protection.
Note that it wouldn't matter if youtube-dl contained no deobfuscating code at all, but merely downloaded and evaluated the JavaScript Google's web client uses to deobfuscate. The result is the same: youtube-dl circumvents copyright access controls and is therefore illegal.
The Streisand Effect applies when your attempts to block something simply increases the harm you were trying to prevent. Importantly, their is no remedy for the kind of harm at issue in the Streisand Effect.
But the RIAA does have a remedy: they can sue for a lot of money. And ultimately, as the harm they are trying to prevent is financial, the Stroganoff Effect does not apply
2) They can print out copies of Reddit, HN, other websites to show people bragging about using Youtube-DL to download music videos to "stick it to the RIAA." They only need to establish a specific number for purposes of statutory damages, if the case goes to trial. Otherwise, the specifics don't matter; only that many people are using the tool to infringe on RIAA-members' works.
I'm not sure such brags prove anything, I certainly don't always tell the truth on the internet.
Thank you RIAA!!