6 ms·

YouTube videos don't have a right click option to download the video (a browser builtin) therefore there's a technical measure that controls the downloading of

by corobo 6y ago

YouTube videos don't have a right click option to download the video (a browser builtin) therefore there's a technical measure that controls the downloading of the video You don't have to be technically correct, you have to be legally correct. It's like technically correct only it's way more pedantic

wegs 6y ago
> You don't have to be technically correct, you have to be legally correct. It's like technically correct only it's way more pedantic That's not how the law works. Legally correct is much less pedantic than technically correct. The difference is that legally correct often takes millions of dollars to ascertain. I use youtube-dl all the time, and never illegally. Most of the content is CC-licensed educational content, and the major use is working in contexts without guaranteed bandwidth.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
e12e 6y ago
Youtube-dl works with many more services than YouTube, FYI.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mulmen 6y ago
  Youtube is literally in the name. This isn't a compelling argument.
  - e12e 6y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200930093107/https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/blob/master/docs/supportedsites.md https://web.archive.org/web/20200930093107/https://github.co...
    - mulmen 6y ago
      Yes, I know it supports other sites. That just isn't relevant.
      - e12e 6y ago
        I still don't see how the name is relevant to the general use (or not). You're saying youtube can invoke DMCA, but not vimeo?
        mulmen 6y ago
        Supporting other sites doesn’t change the fact that YouTube-dl is designed to do something with YouTube that YouTube itself doesn’t want you to do. The name is literally YouTube-dl not generic-video-stream-dl.
        e12e 6y ago
        Ah, ok. So they should change the name to make that more clear (I think that has been discussed). Because it really is "video-and-audio-dl".
smsm42 6y ago
Absence of button not a "technological measure". Otherwise any browser having "view source" is a copyright violation tool - no site has "view source" button, and site code is certainly copyrightable material, so any browser - and in fact any text-mode HTTP client - that allows to view source is a "circumvention" tool.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  >Absence of button not a "technological measure" No, but the various technological measures that Google uses to make it difficult to download a user copy of the video file, to the point where the compilation and use of an external tool is the easiest option, definitely are. Seriously, youtube makes it more of a pain in the ass to download a plain video file than basically any other site on the web. You can't just view-source and get it, and you can't even nab the file from the event timeline like you can most sites that obfuscate that. Like it or not, youtube-dl is popular in part because it does circumvent a lot of measures that youtube intentionally puts in place.
  - nogabebop23 6y ago
    This is correct; the most common commit to the youtube-dl repo is fixing the js decoding that YT changes regularly to prevent eaxctly this type of access. Obfuscation is clearly an accepted technological approach to security and control, if not always a good or effective one.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > but the various technological measures that Google uses to make it difficult to download a user copy Which measures are those? > to the point where the compilation and use of an external tool is the easiest option Browser is the easiest way to do HTTP too, but one probably shouldn't claim HTTP is a technical measure to prevent using the Web (though some may be tempted to say so after a long day of debugging... ;) > Like it or not, youtube-dl is popular in part because it does circumvent a lot of measures that youtube intentionally puts in place. The only times I've used it was to download some lectures which were freely available to watch them over a long flight and a trip in places where network sucks. Surely, there are a lot of people who probably use it to download some RIAA-tainted crap, but it's not the only use, and the tool still would be useful if all RIAA stuff vanished from existence.
romanoderoma 6y ago
The browser saves the video in the cache on your HD automatically
- nogabebop23 6y ago
  There are a lot of arguments against this counter example, including the fact that the browser does not facilitate you getting access in any other way than originally intended (legal) and it honors the caching policy defined for the resource (technical)
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    I would counter argue that if you are able to use youtube-dl you can explore the cache The opposite cannot be taken for granted But usually someone with very little technical knowledge can find files on their hard disks It requires more than that to be able to run youtube-dl from the shell The technical argument is even weaker, there are dozens of browser extensions that inject a "download video" button in video on demand websites Video downloader professional has over 230k users, it can't download YouTube videos anymore because Chrome blocked it, because Chrome and YouTube are Google's and they don't care if you download videos, they only care about their videos, that show their ads, that make their money youtube-dl serves a niche, a tiny one What RIAA is doing is scaring people off from even trying, because the truth is that the real money is on mobile where youtube-dl doesn't exists... BTW youtube-dl is a f*ng good piece of software, it should be praised not blocked Meanwhile people will keep using JDownloader
- corobo 6y ago
  Is this still true with DASH because last I heard (which was admittedly ages ago) they break the video up into small chunks now
salawat 6y ago
Browsers are not the only user agent out there, and that's not an active measure to prevent downloading, that's a decision not to implement a particular functionality. There are also reasons that aren't infringing to grab your own uploaded YouTube content. Maybe you switched to another computer and left your portable drive at home. You have the right to access copies for personal use. That they had the nerve to go for the tool is yet another extension of the war on first sale, and buyer freedom. Also, the people who made youtube-dl are not committing copyright infringement.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Legally correct isn't a more (or less) pedantic version of technically correct. Legally correct means primarily correct with respect to the colour[0] of a thing. Technical correctness disregards colour entirely. Absence of "Download" button on a site, or in a context menu, is not technically a technical measure, particularly when you can press F12 and poke around the Network tab to get to the same resource, all entirely a browser built-in process. But it legally is a technical measure, because the little obstacle carries a colour of "intended to prevent downloads". That's usually enough. -- [0] - See https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 for detailed explanation of what "colour" is. In a rough tl;dr, colour as a concept is a blend of provenance and intent. Bits don't really have colour, but the chain of events that made particular bits be what they are does have it. Law is in a large part an exercise of dealing with colour, but the concept lies entirely outside of computer science, so it fundamentally can't enter it, and is thus usually ignored by the tech crowd. Colour is not data, and not metadata: it's the causal context.
- eli 6y ago
  Agreed and here the law actually defines this term: > a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. In the ordinary course of using YouTube you cannot save copyrighted videos. This isn't so much the RIAA overreaching as it is them taking full advantage of a bad law. (Also, Google actually did go out of their way to make it hard to save the files. Go hit F12 yourself and try. There's a reason a whole project exists to make it easier.)
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > In the ordinary course of using YouTube you cannot save copyrighted videos. On the contrary. Any ordinary use of YouTube (that is, using it to watch videos) necessarily involves making a local copy of the video. That's what you watch.
  - salawat 6y ago
    It doesn't matter. The bits arrive anyway. You don't get to run roughshod over what other people do with the bits you send them. End of story. If you didn't want me to have it, you probably shouldn't have pointed me at it, told me where to find it, and said go right on ahead. Don't mind if I do. It's like someone getting angry at a kid or a tinker taking apart a gift. You gave it. It's mine. Thanks much, why are you so bent out of shape?

by corobo 6y ago

wegs 6y ago

> You don't have to be technically correct, you have to be legally correct. It's like technically correct only it's way more pedantic That's not how the law works. Legally correct is much less pedantic than technically correct. The difference is that legally correct often takes millions of dollars to ascertain. I use youtube-dl all the time, and never illegally. Most of the content is CC-licensed educational content, and the major use is working in contexts without guaranteed bandwidth.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

e12e 6y ago

Youtube-dl works with many more services than YouTube, FYI.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mulmen 6y ago
Youtube is literally in the name. This isn't a compelling argument.
- e12e 6y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20200930093107/https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/blob/master/docs/supportedsites.md https://web.archive.org/web/20200930093107/https://github.co...
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Yes, I know it supports other sites. That just isn't relevant.
    - e12e 6y ago
      I still don't see how the name is relevant to the general use (or not). You're saying youtube can invoke DMCA, but not vimeo?
      - mulmen 6y ago
        Supporting other sites doesn’t change the fact that YouTube-dl is designed to do something with YouTube that YouTube itself doesn’t want you to do. The name is literally YouTube-dl not generic-video-stream-dl.
        e12e 6y ago
        Ah, ok. So they should change the name to make that more clear (I think that has been discussed). Because it really is "video-and-audio-dl".

smsm42 6y ago

Absence of button not a "technological measure". Otherwise any browser having "view source" is a copyright violation tool - no site has "view source" button, and site code is certainly copyrightable material, so any browser - and in fact any text-mode HTTP client - that allows to view source is a "circumvention" tool.

LordDragonfang 6y ago
>Absence of button not a "technological measure" No, but the various technological measures that Google uses to make it difficult to download a user copy of the video file, to the point where the compilation and use of an external tool is the easiest option, definitely are. Seriously, youtube makes it more of a pain in the ass to download a plain video file than basically any other site on the web. You can't just view-source and get it, and you can't even nab the file from the event timeline like you can most sites that obfuscate that. Like it or not, youtube-dl is popular in part because it does circumvent a lot of measures that youtube intentionally puts in place.
- nogabebop23 6y ago
  This is correct; the most common commit to the youtube-dl repo is fixing the js decoding that YT changes regularly to prevent eaxctly this type of access. Obfuscation is clearly an accepted technological approach to security and control, if not always a good or effective one.
- smsm42 6y ago
  > but the various technological measures that Google uses to make it difficult to download a user copy Which measures are those? > to the point where the compilation and use of an external tool is the easiest option Browser is the easiest way to do HTTP too, but one probably shouldn't claim HTTP is a technical measure to prevent using the Web (though some may be tempted to say so after a long day of debugging... ;) > Like it or not, youtube-dl is popular in part because it does circumvent a lot of measures that youtube intentionally puts in place. The only times I've used it was to download some lectures which were freely available to watch them over a long flight and a trip in places where network sucks. Surely, there are a lot of people who probably use it to download some RIAA-tainted crap, but it's not the only use, and the tool still would be useful if all RIAA stuff vanished from existence.

romanoderoma 6y ago

The browser saves the video in the cache on your HD automatically

nogabebop23 6y ago
There are a lot of arguments against this counter example, including the fact that the browser does not facilitate you getting access in any other way than originally intended (legal) and it honors the caching policy defined for the resource (technical)
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  I would counter argue that if you are able to use youtube-dl you can explore the cache The opposite cannot be taken for granted But usually someone with very little technical knowledge can find files on their hard disks It requires more than that to be able to run youtube-dl from the shell The technical argument is even weaker, there are dozens of browser extensions that inject a "download video" button in video on demand websites Video downloader professional has over 230k users, it can't download YouTube videos anymore because Chrome blocked it, because Chrome and YouTube are Google's and they don't care if you download videos, they only care about their videos, that show their ads, that make their money youtube-dl serves a niche, a tiny one What RIAA is doing is scaring people off from even trying, because the truth is that the real money is on mobile where youtube-dl doesn't exists... BTW youtube-dl is a f*ng good piece of software, it should be praised not blocked Meanwhile people will keep using JDownloader
corobo 6y ago
Is this still true with DASH because last I heard (which was admittedly ages ago) they break the video up into small chunks now

salawat 6y ago

Browsers are not the only user agent out there, and that's not an active measure to prevent downloading, that's a decision not to implement a particular functionality. There are also reasons that aren't infringing to grab your own uploaded YouTube content. Maybe you switched to another computer and left your portable drive at home. You have the right to access copies for personal use. That they had the nerve to go for the tool is yet another extension of the war on first sale, and buyer freedom. Also, the people who made youtube-dl are not committing copyright infringement.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Legally correct isn't a more (or less) pedantic version of technically correct. Legally correct means primarily correct with respect to the colour[0] of a thing. Technical correctness disregards colour entirely. Absence of "Download" button on a site, or in a context menu, is not technically a technical measure, particularly when you can press F12 and poke around the Network tab to get to the same resource, all entirely a browser built-in process. But it legally is a technical measure, because the little obstacle carries a colour of "intended to prevent downloads". That's usually enough. -- [0] - See https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 for detailed explanation of what "colour" is. In a rough tl;dr, colour as a concept is a blend of provenance and intent. Bits don't really have colour, but the chain of events that made particular bits be what they are does have it. Law is in a large part an exercise of dealing with colour, but the concept lies entirely outside of computer science, so it fundamentally can't enter it, and is thus usually ignored by the tech crowd. Colour is not data, and not metadata: it's the causal context.

eli 6y ago
Agreed and here the law actually defines this term: > a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. In the ordinary course of using YouTube you cannot save copyrighted videos. This isn't so much the RIAA overreaching as it is them taking full advantage of a bad law. (Also, Google actually did go out of their way to make it hard to save the files. Go hit F12 yourself and try. There's a reason a whole project exists to make it easier.)
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > In the ordinary course of using YouTube you cannot save copyrighted videos. On the contrary. Any ordinary use of YouTube (that is, using it to watch videos) necessarily involves making a local copy of the video. That's what you watch.
- salawat 6y ago
  It doesn't matter. The bits arrive anyway. You don't get to run roughshod over what other people do with the bits you send them. End of story. If you didn't want me to have it, you probably shouldn't have pointed me at it, told me where to find it, and said go right on ahead. Don't mind if I do. It's like someone getting angry at a kid or a tinker taking apart a gift. You gave it. It's mine. Thanks much, why are you so bent out of shape?