4 ms·

I mean, sure, but the argument is that it circumvents the protection measures. If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just

by ttt0 6y ago

I mean, sure, but the argument is that it circumvents the protection measures. If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just don't understand in what world using it is considered to be a circumvention of protection measures. I have no idea how American courts usually work, but what a given program actually does seems pretty relevant to me, if you allege something like that. But I guess that's just my opinion and the American law really is that fucked. Thanks for your answer.

gamblor956 6y ago
If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just don't understand in what world using it is considered to be a circumvention of protection measures. No, they don't willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts the content. Youtube simply does that for expediency. The end result if youtube-dl wins on these technical access grounds is that Youtube will be forcedby the RIAA and other content licensors to stop caching content in accessible form. Youtube-dl will win the battle and lose the war.
- ttt0 6y ago
  The point is that they provide the tool for clients to decrypt the URL. And youtube-dl is a YouTube client, just like Chrome or Firefox is. If you have a key to a locked house, unlocking the door doesn't mean that you "circumvented the door" and went in through a window. I really don't know how else to put it. I might be missing something, but I'm not sure what's the caching thing is about. YouTube tells you under what URL you can access the specific video or audio file, you download it and that's it. Whether the downloaded data is saved to a file or temporarily stored in RAM or whatever is up to the client. And the way everything is structured right now, I really can't see any other way they could do it without creating some kind of proprietary YouTube client.
  - VVertigo 6y ago
    > I really can't see any other way they could do it without creating some kind of proprietary YouTube client. The next step is probably go with Widevine: but YouTube probably doesn’t want to go there unless it has to.

by ttt0 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just don't understand in what world using it is considered to be a circumvention of protection measures. No, they don't willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts the content. Youtube simply does that for expediency. The end result if youtube-dl wins on these technical access grounds is that Youtube will be forcedby the RIAA and other content licensors to stop caching content in accessible form. Youtube-dl will win the battle and lose the war.

ttt0 6y ago
The point is that they provide the tool for clients to decrypt the URL. And youtube-dl is a YouTube client, just like Chrome or Firefox is. If you have a key to a locked house, unlocking the door doesn't mean that you "circumvented the door" and went in through a window. I really don't know how else to put it. I might be missing something, but I'm not sure what's the caching thing is about. YouTube tells you under what URL you can access the specific video or audio file, you download it and that's it. Whether the downloaded data is saved to a file or temporarily stored in RAM or whatever is up to the client. And the way everything is structured right now, I really can't see any other way they could do it without creating some kind of proprietary YouTube client.
- VVertigo 6y ago
  > I really can't see any other way they could do it without creating some kind of proprietary YouTube client. The next step is probably go with Widevine: but YouTube probably doesn’t want to go there unless it has to.