There are a lot of tools to download videos, some of them integrated in the web browser as add-ons. You could even download them directly using Developer Tools.
This a tantrum against a tool, like the ones against VHS, CD-ROMs, cassettes, DVDs or bitorrent.
That type of thing is not the majority use case for youtube-dl, but for any type of digital media there are plenty of individual, educational use cases that do not involve "pirate" activity (i.e. further distribution). Whether or not that's officially ok or not, I'd assert it is morally ok.
As an aside, if YouTube is the only or canonical source for some material, getting it from the distribution channel (YT) and getting any access to the media in question are now one and the same problem. But let's not get confused about the value YouTube is providing - they are just a distributor, not a creative originator.
so, like paywalled internet articles?
It's how they built the business.
I figured if I feed whatever I want to watch to yt-dlp and give it some time I will be able to watch videos without buffering and in much better quality too
Imagine not being able to show the Nuremberg Trial to pupils in class, because it would be copyrighted. It would give free hands to war criminals. Imagine not being allowed to show negative footage of Biden because it’s copyrighted and the White House doesn’t grant the right to anyone.
Downloading things from Youtube isn't the solution. Turning Youtube into a public utility is what's needed, in this case. Or even simpler: people need to start using archive.org instead of youtube.
the Nuremberg trials were an international affair, they made it public so no one country could do that. If it was a german or american exclusive trial it would have 100% been done off the record, and maybe be uncovered decades later like some declassified CIA document.
>Imagine not being allowed to show negative footage of Biden because it’s copyrighted and the White House doesn’t grant the right to anyone.
yes, that is the first amendment, the government cannot overstep a citizen's freedom of press. So that makes sense.
Just like how military soldiers don't get the same rights as private citizens, private companies don't need to care about freedom of press.