3 ms·
> Just look at the continuing existence of "youtube-dl" for example. That only exists because Google can't be bothered to break it. There isn't currently any s
by Reelin 6y ago
> Just look at the continuing existence of "youtube-dl" for example.
That only exists because Google can't be bothered to break it. There isn't currently any serious attempt at an arms race taking place there as far as I can tell. It's agent doesn't look anything like a regular browser and the way it hits their backend is nowhere near the way the official js player does, yet it continues to work for me.
If an arms race ever did take place my money is (sadly) 100% on Google. Just look at the level of automated obfuscation Snapchat employs. You could reasonably expect the equivalent of a WASM based video player compiled with a custom equivalent to OLLVM, communicating with a procedurally generated API, and updated versions of API and player automatically rolled out hourly with a small overlap (equivalent to certificate renewal).
(Something vaguely resembling the above is already employed for the reCAPTCHA check boxes IIUC.)
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoThat would block youtube-dl, but the user could still customise their browser to record the video stream to disk. This would mean it would take as long to record as to play the video, but it would work. As Mindwipe says, if Google really meant business they'd use WideVine for all content rather than just for pay-to-access content.