The campaign to shut down YouTube-dl continues
eff.org
eff.org
https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues/29326#issuecom...
The legal defense of youtube-dl is premised on the idea that there's no circumvention occurring [0]. I 100% support youtube-dl and I want YouTube to stop interfering with it, but I also think we're being a little too cute when we pretend like ytdl isn't circumventing anything... it seems obvious to me that YouTube is trying to put up roadblocks and we're trying to get around them. I would feel better if we could find a way to defend ytdl without the pretense of acting like this cat-and-mouse game isn't going on.
[0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...
The article does indicate that the decision in hiQ v LinkedIn was vacated by SCOTUS following the 2021 Van Buren v United States [0], to be retried by the Ninth Circuit. However, I'm not seeing a way that the decision in Van Buren would change the outcome, as it concluded that the CFAA did not apply to cases where somebody is legally allowed to access a computer at all.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/03/supreme-court-hacking-cfaa...
> ... it's the webmaster's own responsibility to "just not serve" if they don't want it to be served, and their failure to implement their own desires as software doesn't suddenly give them carte blanche to claim whatever they want was breaking the law. ... The fact that Microsoft is too lazy to implement a solution that effectively implements their desired policy isn't material to what the actually implemented policy enables.
This implies that at some point someone would be able to say, we have tried to implement a policy, we have spent this many man hours of engineers, we have had 5 different solutions that were broken through, at some point these things must become hacking.
Can not reply with the entire situation but I would not be surprised if Google does not care enough to stop the project through other means but tries to reduce mindless zombie-bots from sucking up bandwidth all day long. If you have access to a fast connection you may notice even the web player is throttled sometimes.
Irrespective of that, the complaining party is the RIAA and not Google or YouTube in name.
> I 100% support youtube-dl and I want YouTube to stop interfering with it, but I also think we're being a little too cute when we pretend like ytdl isn't circumventing anything
I think the optics are a little different when it's a third party internet service as the medium, but 'we' are still arguing what constitutes fair-use of DRM protected physical media. :-(
This has been happening more and more recently - seriously slow playback when my Internet access is still ~1gbps on all other sites including fast.com/netflix, or Google Drive.
I'm not sure if that's still the case today, but in my case it used to be because of a dispute between Google and Free/Proxad (a French operator) which led to limited peering for years.
I'm pretty sure in your case it's also just anemic peering capacity between your ISP and Google, rather than Google as a whole lacking bandwidth. I haven't noticed anything at all here for example.
If you have content people value but they aren't willing to pay for it, find out why. Maybe it's because you're charging too much, running too many ads, making it hard to cancel, or they just don't actually value it all that much. In YouTube's case, I would say that for the vast majority of content and the vast majority of users on the site, the content is worth approximately $0.00 to them, and the content is not so crucial that a few unskippable ads in a row will have most users just saying "forget it" and finding something else to do.
Yes, pointing a camera at a monitor is more work and worse quality than getting the original video with best-quality-possible [compressed] audio, but no amount of laws can prevent people from doing that if they really value the content highly.
If you want to play such media, you have to license keys from Intel and show that your design is hostile to copying.
So yeah, it's possibile to do it, but nowadays isn't done because there are more pratical ways to record video
plus the analogue hole is disappearing rapidly (including the 3.5mm jack)
As long as you can aim a camera at a monitor or put a Bluetooth speaker next to a microphone the analogue loop hole will never disappear.
The idea that you would have lots of people getting up camera's and monitors to record a movie for distribution on the internet is laughable, and it would be a cam quality today so you would just end up with the early releases capture via someone setting in a theater which are generally poor quality
This was not the case with handy-cam theater rips. Those things were at best 480p and could never capture the picture projected on a screen even in the best conditions.
It wouldn't be easy, and would need some adjustments for colorspace etc but this is a method I have seen discussed online before.
The speaker part is much easier. At some point in almost all modern audio systems, there will be a PCM signal as part of the DAC step. Hook in here, pipe that signal to a computer's audio in / microphone port, and you've got a pretty clean audio stream.
if you want a real world example of this in practice: search for the EURIon constellation
it's not really something you can win as an individual on an infinite timescale
(unless you plan to keep your VHS around for the next few hundred years)
Well if you've bought any client-server app over the last 23 years its a bit too late for computing freedom. They are locking down IO with trusted computing, there's been a 23+ year initiative to move to encrypted computing to take input/output control away from the user, this required the co-operation of hardware manufacturers. Windows 10 and windows 11 are the beginning of you not being able to run or play files or exe's over the next 20 years as youtube, netflix, the game industry update their software to use TPM.
This was from 2001:
https://www.theregister.com/2001/12/13/the_microsoft_secure_...
Here is a paper explaining what the future of files/broadcasts will be like:
https://web2.qatar.cmu.edu/cs/15349/dl/DRM-TC.pdf
Basically they are building a parallel mainframe inside our PC's that only youtube, netflix, the game industry and other software companies will control. They are removing ownership of our devices and they needed microsofts help to do that.
We've seen mirosoft trial bricking cracked exe's via update. Many UWP games only work on certain versions of windows.
See here (ctrf-f then select the UWP link)
https://old.reddit.com/r/CrackWatch/comments/p9ak4n/crack_wa...
They are bringing console lockdown to the PC that is why windows 10 had forced updates. That is why windows 11 was also pushing forced internet connection hard for home users.
The only way would be to either 1) revolt against capitalism or 2) try to reform copyright law.
But as we all know the US is the most worshipful of capitalist ideology.
Software coming under copyright allows companies to remove out rights because we never got any property rights for software and games. That allows them to encrypt binaries and make computers that obey them and not us.
So you could call the FTC and launch an anti-trust complaint. https://www.ftc.gov/
Because DRM is vendor lockin when you get down to it.
At some point the only option will be to use something like an rPi with a Linux and only interact with the culture made from the next punk movement. Or, targeted violence somewhere. But where.
I think both 1 and 2 are ripe for action. The right person can explain that the assumptions we’ve been sold about capitalism no longer resemble truth and we need to change the rules so they do.
There's no other way then private power being co-owned with the rest of society, aka there are certain things private individuals and companies can't engage in. That is the only explanation because corporations have state like powers at scale which all effect us. So capitalist ideology is still the root cause, there is no other alternative. AKA bobby kotick can say to his employee's "make games with drm" and the employee's must obey or be fired, that is the fundamnetal problem with capitalism in a nutshell. If someone who owns a powerful business is a giant dick there's no way to push back unless you give up the idea of owernship being in the hands of one or a small group of owners that can simply compel our obedience to their rules.
Wrong. Company ownership is perfectly democratic.
> need to have some ownership share over the company because it effects us politically
This happens now with share ownership.
> AKA bobby kotick can say to his employee's "make games with drm" and the employee's must obey or be fired, that is the fundamnetal problem with capitalism in a nutshell.
Every single time communism has been tried, it inevitably ends up that ultimate power rests in the hands of a few. It turns out way, way worse than capitalism, and belief that scrapping capitalism in favour of socialism (which Lenin stated is the path to communism) or jumping straight to communism, is always - always! - from either young idealistic but naive people, or believed by older people who never grew out of their earlier naive disgruntlement.
Besides which, I still believe now in my early 50's that what we have now isn't capitalism at all; it's more akin to corporatism. It's certainly not lassez-faire capitalism.
No it doesn't, you can not own shares in a company and still have it affect you. You can also own shares and have no voting rights, either.
Share ownership is, as it stands, undemocratic in the sense that there is no democratic decision making by all of those who are affected by a company. And a model where wealth decides how many votes you get isn't very democratic, either.
The issue in many cases is _corruption_ which will exist whatever you do (there's always a snake in the garden) so the trick is to implement the right legislation to control it and ensure freedom...
...which admittedly is easier said than done!
It's not because a lot of shares end up owned by one of the few large ETF/pension plan administrators: in 88% of the S&P 500 companies [1], Vanguard/BlackRock/State Street together own the majority of the shares, and at least the passive ETF-held parts usually do not participate in voting which means that tiny "activist" investors now have a lot more vote percentage than they should.
Not to mention corporates with different share classes where the ones with voting rights are to a large degree privately held and the ones traded publicly do not have vote rights, such as Tesla [2].
> Every single time communism has been tried, it inevitably ends up that ultimate power rests in the hands of a few.
So where's the difference to the current situation, where those with the "ultimate powers" in society are effectively under control of their party donors? At least in communism, everyone had a right to a home to live in and to a decent employment matching his skill (see e.g. Art 24 sec. 1 of the Constitution of the former GDR [3]).
[1]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-politic...
[2]: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-con...
[3]: https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=9c5c691c...
Also, non-public companies exist.
Heck - even functioning trade unions (not crippled as they are in the UK and US) provide a form of democratic check on individual companies.
The mistake is to paint this as a black or white choice, which tendency in the US is driven by hysteria media reporting of any policy which doesn't suit the needs of big business and rich elites.
When discussed without stupid names and branding, most people are open to discussing some of the ideas you are presenting. But the moment you call it socialism you are going to lose people, especially Americans. Because a lot of people have been murdered in the name of socialism.
When we look at Germany and their universal healthcare system, it was developed in the 1880's under Otto von Bismarck and their monarchy in a direct response to the fears of a Marx-inspired socialist uprising.
A lot of what developed in Europe was inspired by Marx and socialist organizing and developments on the continent.
I'd add that we also enshrined money as equivalent to speech, effectively allowing corporations and the rich to run much of our politics [2].
[1] https://ptolemy3.medium.com/but-corporations-are-private-com...
Since (2) precludes the need for (1) and, hence, shows (1) is irrelevant to the discussion, and to do (1) would be an immense act of self harm akin to sticking one's fingers in one's eyes, repeatedly, for all time, I'll take (2), thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#/...
Corporations got their way every time over the last 200 years. There has never been a time where copyright was pared back in the public interest.
If only the government prevented you and I from exchanging goods and services, all our problems would be solved, says the Communist.
My next PC I am making the switch.
Bonus: you add years to the useful life of the machine, because most Linuxes fly even when Windows chugs.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30585462
It is 15 minutes, if nothing goes wrong and you know what you are doing. If something goes wrong and you are not native with the terminal - good luck.
This sounds to me like it is all easy and if it takes longer than 15 minutes, it is my fault for not being focused.
Well, as a matter of fact, I did install linux on various devices, dozen of times. And with my own customized manjaro install usb stick even in less than 15 minutes, with all my needed software up and running.
But I would never, ever tell anyone that he can expect a flawless install in 15 minutes. This is not realistic. It may happen, if you are lucky - but there are too many buggy drivers and compatibility issues and even official mainstream distros getting shipped with major open bugs, that this advise is just receipt for disapointement.
The upgrader/installers are not perfect but it’s hardly so difficult that software developer would find it daunting.
Not all Steam games are available, but enough are to keep you busy.
I'm a developer. I am also exclusively a nix/BSD user for about the past decade; my machines, servers, my wife's laptop, my work laptop etc, all nix/bsd.
When I bought my personal XPS 13 I contacted DELL customer support to buy a "Developer" version, it took 3 weeks to ship because they had to build it, rather than provide an off-the-shelf box with Windows pre-installed, but I saved something like £43.
It's not about the money, but I would rather have it in my pocket than give it to Microsoft for some software I _really_ don't want (or need).
Side note, I'm planning on buying a Framework next.
Linux UX convention relies on the terminal as a matter of course. Almost everything not in the package manager requires use of the terminal. Even many of the package managed applications require tweaks and configuration via terminal. It's an open secret that package managers are largely inferior to the terminal anyway, in every distribution. The almost universal response to "I am having an issue with the package manager" is "use terminal." Bottom line: terminal is far less user friendly than an object oriented environment, and is often much slower. Until a flavour of Linux exists which never ever, for any reason ever, requires the use of the terminal, Linux will remain in the low single digits in terms of consumer market share. I don't think this will change, because if you ask the average Linux developer what they think of the terminal convention, they love it, and they think users just need to stop sucking so much.
I use it for my parents, after they got fed up with Windows warnings and pop-ups for Windows 10 upgrade.
I am not sure they full understand they are using Linux, they just assume it is a 'free' windows version.
There are some more extra bells and whistles, as well as service support, in the pro version but I haven't used those in my family computers so I can't comment on that.
I don't want to be dismissive, Zorin is a massive effort but it is mostly a DE change, but it's a DE where they actually thought of the typical non-technical user and cater brilliantly to that.
I will be honest with you: I don't expect Zorin to have solved the CLI problem. For example, Radarr is an extremely popular tool for managing movies. It connects to usenet and torrent clients, as well as indexers and movie databases. It makes maintaining a home movie collection seamless.
Radarr is not in major package managers, and requires the CLI for install (https://wiki.servarr.com/radarr/installation#linux). In Windows, I double click an .exe. On Zorin (I assume) I will have to follow a reasonably complicated and time consuming installation process, full of opportunities to misconfigure the install.
This is just one example of many. Radarr isn't a super hardcore 1337 program. It's a very common application aimed at everyone who runs Plex. Until Zorin has a .exe equivalent for all applications like this, it's just not going to be a competitor to Windows, for users who need more than just a web browser, and those who are not IT administrators.
Makes it easy to try before you commit to dual booting.
On its own that may not seem like much, but the screws are being turned (albeit slowly). We'll reach a point where the only way to access any proprietary content on the web will also require running proprietary operating systems on DRM enabled hardware using secure boot. Banking sites won't work, video playback won't work, even access to textual content will eventually be restricted. This is because the browser vendors, the OS vendors, and the content distribution platforms are all colluding to create this future.
Linux on the desktop doesn't have enough users to push back in a meaningful way against this trend at this point (and I say that as a Linux user). 10 years ago, maybe, but now it's simply too late. Sure you'll still be able to run open source software on your Linux PC, and write your own code and run it, but you'll be prevented from accessing huge chunks of the Internet.
I prefer my media from an ethical source, which means mkv on a usb stick. Even if I paid for the streaming service already.
The problem is not cryptography, the problem is copyright.
Nouveau could in theory upload the signed firmware blob from a legitimate driver to the GPU and build an interface to communicate with it. The problem is, the legitimate driver package prohibits any kind of modification outside the intended purpose, which means it's questionable if building and redistributing a tool to extract the firmware blob out of a driver package is legal, and it's certainly not legal to redistribute that extracted blob.
Here in Europe, at least the building and distribution of the tool as well as the act of the user to download the legitimate driver package, extract and use the blob should be legal, but that doesn't help if the developers of the project are outside of the EU :(
1. Only applicable to an "approved use" of the hardware.
Try buying any of those in Brazil or non US/UK/EU countries and you’re going to have tons of fun with import taxes and shipping.
Suddenly, a cheap device costs more than a flagship iPhone or android with none of their benefits except the intangible freedom.
One of the best purchases I ever made was a le eco le pro 3 phone once the company went bankrupt for half the retail price 5 years ago. Bought it because it already had LineageOS support. Today it runs Lineage OS 18.1 (android 11) like a champ, it can be make to run bank apps (passing safetynet) if I want to. Still lineage OS is not a silver bullet you either need to get lucky and pick a phone with a big enough following that volunteer devs will support or scout XDA threads in order to identify those phones before purchasing.
Videos are easy to though.
It's as much about downloading pirated copies of Finding Nemo as all encompassing network surveillance is about finding pedophiles.
Filecoin might be a good usecase here.
If you by that argument. Then bypassing the protection might be illegal, but would not be a copyright issue, and Google would be the only one with standing to sue.
My Android One phone has camera app which has "stream to YouTube" functionality that stopped working in late 2020
> If you are supposed to be able to access YouTube from Firefox or Chrome, then you are also supposed to be able to access it via youtube-dl
Were this an axiom, services like Netflix simply could not exist. We're defeated whether we admit it or not – browser DRM is not being yanked from browsers anytime soon. That's not even talking about its forebears, like Silverlight, Flash, Applets, etc.
That doesn't mean that ridiculous positions such as trying to legally forbid access to a website other than through a handful of sanctioned browsers is going to fly.
If we step away from analogies for a bit, are you actually arguing that we shouldn't have the ability to modify the markup and the code before we display it on our computers?
If you insist on making a cute physical analogy, a more apt one would be of a tyrant buying out all the stores and allowing free entry on the condition that people's eyelids are forcibly taped open before they enter. After some reasonable people start removing the tape from their eyelids, the tyrant throws a tantrum and attempts to legislate away removing eyelid tape.
No it doesn't.
The buffet lets me eat as much as I want while I'm in their restaurant following their house rules. The garbage bag lets me take food out of the restaurant and consume a much larger amount of food however/whenever/wherever I choose – something the restaurant has forbid me to do according to their rules.
This feels very much like what Youtube DL allows me to do.
Except they're not their rules. My computer, my rules.
I really wish you'd chosen to respond to my technical question instead, though.
I’m not arguing you shouldn’t have that ability.
Morally, I feel I’m bound to play by the rules of the service if I want to use that service. If they’re showing ads I find distasteful, then I don’t use that service. I don’t find some technical workaround that allows me to do something that I believe is fundamentally immoral.
The same as I wouldn’t take a garbage bag to a buffet, I won’t block ads on YouTube (or anywhere for that matter). In fact, I love that YouTube lets me pay $10 a month to not view ads. Are they still tracking me? Probably. Do I care? Not at all.
If you have different morals, awesome!
I do feel the same general impetus not to be an ass to people. Not bringing a trash bag to steal all food from a buffet for myself is a part of my rule set too.
However, I feel strongly that websites are not very much alike to a physical place in which I have to observe the rules of the host. In fact, I cannot bring myself to view the website's code as rules.
To consider a web where I am merely a passive consumer of content served to me by an active publisher goes counter to the very nature of the open web with which I have grown up. The opposite view makes much more sense to me: I am an active participant and the website is the passive information vessel.
A malicious website enforcing its will on me feels like a decidedly perverted concept. My best attempt to explain why would be to liken it to an evil magic book which, upon being brought into my home, attempts controlling and limiting my behaviour. It is the book that is the guest inside my house and not the other way around!
I also do care about tracking quite a lot. I do not want to be tracked. To track me against my will feels like an act of aggression, or at least rude and distasteful, quite similar in tone to the actions of the rude garbage-carrying patron in your example.
It's such a shame what has happened to podcasts
Use an alternative ad-free client if you don't wanna pay for a not working download feature.
Games are easy to pay for, fast to download and I know at least steam and Epic have a very reasonable refund policy (if you have less than 2 hours of playtime they will refund you without issue). I’ve used this a couple times for games that either had many technical issues on launch or I didn’t like the mechanics of the game.
The only game store that is absolutely terrible in all of this is EA/Origin who have a very buggy and slow client. I just avoid their games as a result.
Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity?
If we ever get there, I suspect it'll be through a combo between a decentralized registry core and federated and commercial gateway system (similar to VPN or usenet providers). The biggest challenges are related to identity, moderation and abuse, while appealing to a mainstream audience.
"It's not the format, it's the business model."
Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube. It pays for distribution (even for demonetized content), site development, building recommendation systems, content moderation, accessibility though subtitles, etc. That doesn't mean they don't make money on it, that their decisions are always just, or what they promote is good for society, just that they add a lot of value beyond someone hosting a webm file on s3.
So? They're a business, what do you expect?
The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.
YouTube got to be YouTube because Google sank enormous amounts of money into it for no return for a decade. Indeed, YouTube probably still hasn't broken even if including those costs.
"Profit is inherently evil" is a difficult point of view to have on this venture captial forum.
Rent seeking is a form of making profit. So of course they are making a profit. The question is whether they are making a profit in order to fund their operations as was suggested by the person I was replying to, or if they are "rent seeking".
According to wikipedia "Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth."
That is why I said they "at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising". The claim I am making is a direct reply to the person who said they are not rent seeking, they are merely seeking profit to fund their operations. I am making the claim that they have moved beyond that to seeking profit without creating additional value in their service.
Now one can argue whether or not I am correct, but what was never under question was whether or not they are making a profit. The only thing being questioned was the purpose and result of that profit seeking.
I do pay money for Nebula, because they seem like their hearts are in the right place. I pay about $60, 70 a month to various podcast and video creators directly.
I don't use adblock, vanced, and sponsorblock because I'm cheap. It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an unobtrusive platform.
I whitelist Alec at Technology Connections, Steve Mould, a couple of others, from the ad blocks, because they aren't on Nebula yet. They should be.
If the cost of a product exceeds its value to you, you just don’t buy it. It doesn’t mean you should get it for free.
If you really didn't like that, you'd stop watching YouTube.
Ideally, by decoupling these things from one another. There's no reason they'd have to be part of a single platform - for instance, a client (app or web) could fetch public 'likes' and/or comments referencing (or "annotating", per the relevant Web standards) a PeerTube video from Mastodon. This is already superior to what YT does.
if what you beleive in is prison to keep everyone safe, it may be exactly what's coming very fast at us if you haven't noticed.
How is it decided who removes it - who moderates the service?
Technically, how is it removed?
When you'll understand that YouTube's monetization is the reason why it's so popular (because, as opposed to other services, it's self-sustaining and, most important, profitable FOR CREATORS publishing there), you'll be closer to your answer.
Competition died mostly because:
- They have shit user experience that's outright broken (I'm looking at you Nebula and your portrait locked tablet apps and broken TV apps).
- They don't earn enough to cover bandwidth and transcoding costs (bandwidth is VERY VERY expensive even in western world when you stream video at scale).
- They don't have a simple answer for creators uploading videos on how to earn money from their creations. YouTube makes it a click (and a die roll for random demonetizations). Others don't and add friction to users as well.
The reality is YouTube bleeds money like crazy. Pretty much only huge enterprises like Google can afford to run a service like YouTube.
You can try. Many have tried before and YouTube continues to be king for a reason.
Good luck!
Even if they win, what would it remove? A website, which essentially just hosts some links to github. Within German jurisdiction only. So it would probably be up and running from a different provider within a day or two. And the repository itself would remain completely untouched anyway.
My guess is the point is to make it difficult to get videos from their platform without seeing the ads.
To be honest though, I don't think they need to win, just get clarity. YouTube have almost certainly committed to the labels that they do apply DRM to YouTube videos containing their content, and are telling them that the rolling cypher is it. If the labels take it to court and the court rules in Europe that the rolling cypher is not sufficient to be considered DRM contractually then Google are in breach of their contract, and will have to apply Widevine to YouTube videos containing any music.
also to note that it is companies that act illegally in preventing fair use of copyrighted content. it's a battle where both sides pretty much decided to ignore the law. since registered companies are meant to respect the law to continue to operate, and pirates, well they are pirates and prosecuted for it, if caught, I opt for the court to instead compel YouTube, and its media partners to provide DRM free content so that everyone else, consumers, can enjoy the rights granted by law to make fair copies of content. that would resolve the matter once and for good.
No, they're not. Law on copyright does vary from country to country significantly, and you're citing "fair use" (a US legal concept that doesn't exist in Europe) about a European case, but generally speaking copyright exemptions are exemptions that are defences to stop other people suing you. They are not "rights", and there is no requirement for any other party to technically or practically enable them. I can keep my copyrighted work in a room you're not allowed to take a camera in, and that's perfectly legitimate. Likewise, companies can apply any digital locks they like.
(Note in some cases there are small, specific allowances on circumvention provisions for exercising of copyright exemptions such as the US Library of Congress list, but they are generally very small, very specific, and again do not require the copyright holder to enable it, just reduce their legal back up.)
No court would ever rule the way you want it to, because fundamentally you misunderstand the basic legal concepts.
It is also important to mention that the YouTube website itself (I don't mean the videos - only the HTML&JS part) is among the slowest websites on the internet, painfully slow to use on Raspberry Pi and old computers.
There's the "-x" option flag (combine with "-f bestaudio") which will only download the audio. No need for manually extracting.
This is reverse engineering of obfuscated javascript for the sake of interoperability with software which are not google(blink|geeko)/apple(webkit) browsers.
The real problem is the other way around: streaming services not providing support for noscript/basic (x)html browsers (with the <video> HTML element) should not be legal in the first place.
The only real technical issue is with seeking of streamed big videos: only HLS has a standard way to do that as far as I know (I may be wrong). Don't know for mpeg DASH. Because, a noscript/basic (x)html browser would pass the URI of a streamed big video to a media player and must know how to seek into it.
In that I mean what feature was missing or broken for you?
As software gets more stable, updates should be less frequent.
I'm not a fan of feature creep in the name of progress.
I am a fan of options though, so if there was an necessity for a fork I support it.
But a project like youtube-dl needs frequent updates, because otherwise it'll stop working after an update from Google.
I'm not the parent, but the "a few months ago" timeline makes me think they switched to yt-dlp in December 2021 when youtube-dl did not work for a few days after it broke due to a change from Google. There were PRs quickly made to fix the issue (some of which actually predated the breakage if I remember correctly) but no one was around to merge them for a few days. This is also the time the project's maintainer officially became inactive[1].
1: https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/commit/21b759057502c6...
Right, but as a frequent user of youtube-dl it has been working for me, I was curious what wasn't working.
Your explanation of the few day PR merge delay explains the fork though, thank you.
>In that I mean what feature was missing or broken for you?
youtube-dl got throttled, it took ages to download videos from Youtube.
I believe the way yt-dlp works is that somebody manually ported the JS blob code to Python, which gets things working but leaves a lot of scope for arms-race escalation in future.
so strange to try to reach a goal of less copyright infringement by going after access to this codebase
The duplicitous attitude of music executives is that they even pay radios to play some songs in loops to turn public attention to them, but then cry wolf when people need tools to see/listen to them as they want. There are so many great artists that we don't know about because they are struggling to be "discovered" beyond the music industry streamroller...
edit: typos
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-04-13-214...
Also probably going on elsewhere where it is still legal. Looks like shilling NFTs has a precedent after all!
> an independent club owner in San Francisco tried to run a promotional video given to him for a band he’d booked, only to find Instagram’s filer blocked it. He was able to reinstate the video, 17 months after the band had come and gone.
Was "I bet that was jwz".
Indeed, a brief web search turned up this (via a recent-ish Cory Doctorow post on Medium):
https://web.archive.org/web/20220121083848/https://www.jwz.o...
> Hackers News: A DDos by finance obsessed man-children and brogrammers.
Accurate description of a significant portion of this site's userbase.
> If you click through to JWZ from HN, you will see an NSFW picture with the following text underneath:
Maybe something to do with reading comprehension.
Basically he only wants people who agree with him to read and respond to his content.
That said, I know nothing about this person.
EDIT: I don't even agree with his political viewpoints; in fact I'm close to polar opposite. But I get it.
I can assure you the number of people you should ignore is way higher than that.
I suspect it wasn't that though. When someone clicks on an HN link to an article, and chooses to leave a comment on the article rather than discuss it on HN (or as well as) they're probably not posting a nuanced and we'll reasoned point. They're likely just firing some sort of flamebait rubbish rather than participating in a discussion. If that happened every time your site was linked from HN you'd get tired of it very quickly and start to think HN is full of man-children and brogrammers.
The signal to noise ratio of the world is awful.
That's why in real life we have a carefully curated set of friends (even people who contradict us!).