7 ms·

I suspect this is why: > Ever wished you could save a video from the Internet? Search no more, Downie is what you're looking for. Easily download videos from t

by lqet 6y ago

I suspect this is why: > Ever wished you could save a video from the Internet? Search no more, Downie is what you're looking for. Easily download videos from thousands of different sites.

jtbayly 6y ago
Is there something wrong with downloading videos to my computer?
- JOnAgain 6y ago
  Unfortunately
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- CodeWriter23 6y ago
  > Is there something wrong with downloading videos to my computer? Nope. Creating a tool perceived by those with enough lawyers to be a “copy protection circumvention device” however does run afoul of the DMCA.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    And platforms doing standing back flips to appease stupid legislation. Reminds me of YouTube blocking Blender videos... had other reasons though, don't remember exactly, but it had to do with them not monetizing their videos and really, really bad support.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560 Basically they needed to enable monetization since [I assume] Google was taking a non-negligible loss by hosting all of their content for free.
    - caymanjim 6y ago
      If you think the legislation is stupid, blame the legislators. Companies have to abide by laws, even stupid ones.
      - rbecker 6y ago
        They have to abide by them, not enforce them (unless a court order makes them). There's no law against distributing operating systems that allow running of programs that break the law.
  - vbezhenar 6y ago
    Why does Apple care? It's none of their business.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      Because Apple is the one that will be party to a lawsuit if it ever came to pass. One of the negatives of being gatekeeper is you're no longer protected by "safe harbor" provisions. And I have to imagine Apple has enough money to be worth suing, even if it's frivolous nonsense.
    - jhasse 6y ago
      iTunes and Apple TV+?
  - the_af 6y ago
    So a re-hash of the old "audio tapes will kill the music industry" or "video tapes will kill cinema"?
    - OskarS 6y ago
      Nobody here thinks that the law is a good idea or will do anything to protect any content industries. The fact is that despite being enormously stupid, it is still the law.
      - the_af 6y ago
        Yes, I know I'm preaching the choir here. My point is that with each advance in technology, established industry "actors" panic because they foresee their business will go bankrupt. Sometimes this panic is justified, but often it's not, or it's blown out of proportion. It's not necessarily the law, either. Panicky industry heavyweights may lobby to make it a law, or try to confuse a given tech with copyright infringement, but "downloading videos" is not against the law.
        CodeWriter23 6y ago
        Yep, the whole time they were focused on cassette tapes and Napster, the music industry completely missed the iPod/iTunes threat.
- jabroni_salad 6y ago
  Personally I would say no but it does kind of depend. Tools like this do allow you to save copies of videos that weren't meant to be savable. The dev's website includes a screenshot of it downloading a bunch of Disney material. That is not a wasp nest I want to shake.
  - hunter2_ 6y ago
    Broadcast and cable TV wasn't meant to be savable, and then VCRs came out and courts decided that saving (time shifting) is absolutely fine. It doesn't in and of itself facilitate sharing. If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps. But TV content stakeholders don't have much pull with convincing VCR manufacturers/distributors to stop supplying VCRs. Apple does clearly have the ability to affect the signing of software.
    - ballenf 6y ago
      > If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps. I'd counter that if the audio and video get to your eyes and ears, then the content provider has already provided you a decrypted copy of the media and/or the instructions for how to decrypt. If you had an arms' length valid agreement with the company where you agree not to retain the media, then that's different issue.
    - justinclift 6y ago
      > If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps. Don't some jurisdictions have provisions that allow for technical workarounds in order to make backups?
      - duskwuff 6y ago
        Backups of your own physical media. Downloading videos on YouTube doesn't qualify.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > Tools like this do allow you to save copies of videos that weren't meant to be savable It's actually computers that allow you to do this. I think this is why there's a war (of sorts) against general purpose computers: they enable you, the user, to do all sorts of things publishers didn't envision or want.
- tclancy 6y ago
  No, it's more that it's easy to guess the likely cause here: * a lawyer sends a DMCA request to Youtube * a Youtube bot looks at the offending request and finds a user agent * Kicks off automated warning to Apple bot * Apple bot shuts down developer account All that's really needed here is a bot to post these things to Twitter and HackerNews and then an API for the service bots to read the complaints and undo the action with a phony apology post
  - ballenf 6y ago
    The requests the app makes would not be coming from "Apple". The rest of the scenario is plausible, but it wouldn't be bots it would be humans connecting the dots and sending a manual claim to Apple.
- yakz 6y ago
  It's against the YouTube terms of service. One characterization of this software is that it is designed to violate the YouTube terms of service. "The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to: access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;" - https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    This doesn't really explain anything. Why is Apple enforcing YouTube's terms of service on a third-party application? Especially via a mechanism ostensibly designed to stop malware. Is the Transmission torrent client next because it could be used to download copyrighted content?
    - donarb 6y ago
      It's right here in the App Store guidelines: 5.2.3 Audio/Video Downloading: Apps should not facilitate illegal file sharing or include the ability to save, convert, or download media from third-party sources (e.g. Apple Music, YouTube, SoundCloud, Vimeo, etc.) without explicit authorization from those sources. Streaming of audio/video content may also violate Terms of Use, so be sure to check before your app accesses those services. Documentation must be provided upon request. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#intellectual-property https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#int... As to the why, because Apple could be sued by third parties for allowing this behavior for apps that Apple has vetted.
      - AlexandrB 6y ago
        The app in question, Downie, isn't in the App Store. Why would it be subject to the App Store ToS?
- robterrell 6y ago
  Apple might think so! I had a popular YouTube downloader app for Mac OS and I spent a lot of time on a port for iOS, but it was rejected from the app store back in 2010. The app reviewer did call me on the phone to tell me -- in fact, she called twice, once to tell me that my app was going into an extended review, and then a few weeks later she called to tell me that my app had been rejected. When I asked what the reason was, she told me to check the review guidelines ("check them again now" she said) and lo and behold, they had added a new guideline about downloading media without explicit IP rights. Moving the goalposts, one app at a time!
  - manojlds 6y ago
    Well if they called in 2010 they lost definitely can't do it now with the volume of apps.
luxuryballs 6y ago
"downie"? could it just be the name? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Downie https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Downie though if it was that you'd think they would just pull the app and ask him to rename it...
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Looking at his website I don't think it is even in the store. What he names it is really none of Apple's business unless it infringed on one of their trademarks.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    I don’t disagree but we both know that’s not how Apple operates the app store. I can think of a ton of words I would absolutely expect Apple to deny as an app name.
  - toyg 6y ago
    > What he names it is really none of Apple's business In any AppStore app, everything is literally Apple's business, considering they get a cut of any money that changes hands and can reject your app for "looking at them wrong". That's why the whole model is (rightly) controversial.
    - epistasis 6y ago
      I think anything that Apple does will be controversial, as there's the anti-fans and fans that are at political war. But the true controversy is not a curated store, the controversy is that the curated store is the only way for people to load native code onto the device without compiling it themselves on a separate laptop.
    - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      As I said it isn't in the app store.
rasz 6y ago
Is it by any chance a straight port of youtube-dl? This and >The developer's website (software.charliemonroe.net) is blocked by my ISP (Vodafone UK)'s adult content filter. This is strange as it does not appear to contain any adult content. would explain a lot. In order to download from a pr0n website you need to hardcode that websites domain name inside the program = pr0n filters pick it up = Apple bans it.

by lqet 6y ago

I suspect this is why: > Ever wished you could save a video from the Internet? Search no more, Downie is what you're looking for. Easily download videos from thousands of different sites.

jtbayly 6y ago

Is there something wrong with downloading videos to my computer?

JOnAgain 6y ago
Unfortunately
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
CodeWriter23 6y ago
> Is there something wrong with downloading videos to my computer? Nope. Creating a tool perceived by those with enough lawyers to be a “copy protection circumvention device” however does run afoul of the DMCA.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  And platforms doing standing back flips to appease stupid legislation. Reminds me of YouTube blocking Blender videos... had other reasons though, don't remember exactly, but it had to do with them not monetizing their videos and really, really bad support.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560 Basically they needed to enable monetization since [I assume] Google was taking a non-negligible loss by hosting all of their content for free.
  - caymanjim 6y ago
    If you think the legislation is stupid, blame the legislators. Companies have to abide by laws, even stupid ones.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      They have to abide by them, not enforce them (unless a court order makes them). There's no law against distributing operating systems that allow running of programs that break the law.
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  Why does Apple care? It's none of their business.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    Because Apple is the one that will be party to a lawsuit if it ever came to pass. One of the negatives of being gatekeeper is you're no longer protected by "safe harbor" provisions. And I have to imagine Apple has enough money to be worth suing, even if it's frivolous nonsense.
  - jhasse 6y ago
    iTunes and Apple TV+?
- the_af 6y ago
  So a re-hash of the old "audio tapes will kill the music industry" or "video tapes will kill cinema"?
  - OskarS 6y ago
    Nobody here thinks that the law is a good idea or will do anything to protect any content industries. The fact is that despite being enormously stupid, it is still the law.
    - the_af 6y ago
      Yes, I know I'm preaching the choir here. My point is that with each advance in technology, established industry "actors" panic because they foresee their business will go bankrupt. Sometimes this panic is justified, but often it's not, or it's blown out of proportion. It's not necessarily the law, either. Panicky industry heavyweights may lobby to make it a law, or try to confuse a given tech with copyright infringement, but "downloading videos" is not against the law.
      - CodeWriter23 6y ago
        Yep, the whole time they were focused on cassette tapes and Napster, the music industry completely missed the iPod/iTunes threat.
jabroni_salad 6y ago
Personally I would say no but it does kind of depend. Tools like this do allow you to save copies of videos that weren't meant to be savable. The dev's website includes a screenshot of it downloading a bunch of Disney material. That is not a wasp nest I want to shake.
- hunter2_ 6y ago
  Broadcast and cable TV wasn't meant to be savable, and then VCRs came out and courts decided that saving (time shifting) is absolutely fine. It doesn't in and of itself facilitate sharing. If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps. But TV content stakeholders don't have much pull with convincing VCR manufacturers/distributors to stop supplying VCRs. Apple does clearly have the ability to affect the signing of software.
  - ballenf 6y ago
    > If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps. I'd counter that if the audio and video get to your eyes and ears, then the content provider has already provided you a decrypted copy of the media and/or the instructions for how to decrypt. If you had an arms' length valid agreement with the company where you agree not to retain the media, then that's different issue.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    > If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps. Don't some jurisdictions have provisions that allow for technical workarounds in order to make backups?
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      Backups of your own physical media. Downloading videos on YouTube doesn't qualify.
- the_af 6y ago
  > Tools like this do allow you to save copies of videos that weren't meant to be savable It's actually computers that allow you to do this. I think this is why there's a war (of sorts) against general purpose computers: they enable you, the user, to do all sorts of things publishers didn't envision or want.
tclancy 6y ago
No, it's more that it's easy to guess the likely cause here: * a lawyer sends a DMCA request to Youtube * a Youtube bot looks at the offending request and finds a user agent * Kicks off automated warning to Apple bot * Apple bot shuts down developer account All that's really needed here is a bot to post these things to Twitter and HackerNews and then an API for the service bots to read the complaints and undo the action with a phony apology post
- ballenf 6y ago
  The requests the app makes would not be coming from "Apple". The rest of the scenario is plausible, but it wouldn't be bots it would be humans connecting the dots and sending a manual claim to Apple.
yakz 6y ago
It's against the YouTube terms of service. One characterization of this software is that it is designed to violate the YouTube terms of service. "The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to: access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;" - https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  This doesn't really explain anything. Why is Apple enforcing YouTube's terms of service on a third-party application? Especially via a mechanism ostensibly designed to stop malware. Is the Transmission torrent client next because it could be used to download copyrighted content?
  - donarb 6y ago
    It's right here in the App Store guidelines: 5.2.3 Audio/Video Downloading: Apps should not facilitate illegal file sharing or include the ability to save, convert, or download media from third-party sources (e.g. Apple Music, YouTube, SoundCloud, Vimeo, etc.) without explicit authorization from those sources. Streaming of audio/video content may also violate Terms of Use, so be sure to check before your app accesses those services. Documentation must be provided upon request. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#intellectual-property https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#int... As to the why, because Apple could be sued by third parties for allowing this behavior for apps that Apple has vetted.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      The app in question, Downie, isn't in the App Store. Why would it be subject to the App Store ToS?
robterrell 6y ago
Apple might think so! I had a popular YouTube downloader app for Mac OS and I spent a lot of time on a port for iOS, but it was rejected from the app store back in 2010. The app reviewer did call me on the phone to tell me -- in fact, she called twice, once to tell me that my app was going into an extended review, and then a few weeks later she called to tell me that my app had been rejected. When I asked what the reason was, she told me to check the review guidelines ("check them again now" she said) and lo and behold, they had added a new guideline about downloading media without explicit IP rights. Moving the goalposts, one app at a time!
- manojlds 6y ago
  Well if they called in 2010 they lost definitely can't do it now with the volume of apps.

luxuryballs 6y ago

"downie"? could it just be the name? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Downie https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Downie though if it was that you'd think they would just pull the app and ask him to rename it...

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Looking at his website I don't think it is even in the store. What he names it is really none of Apple's business unless it infringed on one of their trademarks.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I don’t disagree but we both know that’s not how Apple operates the app store. I can think of a ton of words I would absolutely expect Apple to deny as an app name.
- toyg 6y ago
  > What he names it is really none of Apple's business In any AppStore app, everything is literally Apple's business, considering they get a cut of any money that changes hands and can reject your app for "looking at them wrong". That's why the whole model is (rightly) controversial.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    I think anything that Apple does will be controversial, as there's the anti-fans and fans that are at political war. But the true controversy is not a curated store, the controversy is that the curated store is the only way for people to load native code onto the device without compiling it themselves on a separate laptop.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    As I said it isn't in the app store.

rasz 6y ago

Is it by any chance a straight port of youtube-dl? This and >The developer's website (software.charliemonroe.net) is blocked by my ISP (Vodafone UK)'s adult content filter. This is strange as it does not appear to contain any adult content. would explain a lot. In order to download from a pr0n website you need to hardcode that websites domain name inside the program = pr0n filters pick it up = Apple bans it.