5 ms·
Youtube-dlc – Download videos from YouTube or other video platforms
- britmob 6y agoNice to see youtube-dlc being reinstated. BTW, this fork was indeed active for a few months before the whole RIAA situation.
- ajayyy 6y agoDue note, this is a new re-uploaded repository. The old one is still down.
- reanimus 6y agoWhat's preventing this one from being taken down too?
- hatsuseno 6y agoExposure? Widespread adoption? Luck? You know as well as I do I'd wager.
- redvenom 6y agoI think for one, it does not have references to specific videos in the documentation.
- setr 6y agoAIUI this was never the case; it was in a unit test.
- heyoni 6y agoI find this whole chain of comments in every single youtube-dl thread, lol.
- jchw 6y agoProbably my fault. For the first hour or so, this is what my top comment to the original HN post claimed. Fortunately I caught it before the edit window closed, but I imagine it was seen by a lot of people by that point. I suspect the RIAA intended on being misleading about exactly how prominently the references existed to push the argument that it was part of the “marketing.” They reference the README a couple paragraphs up, but then become very vague about the references to copyrighted material.
- ehsankia 6y agoDoes this distinction really matter? Everyone is so quick to mention this, but personally 1. I see unit tests as examples of how you can use the software and 2. It's still a link to copyrighted content is software that can be used to download said content. Doesn't matter if it's in documentation, unit test or even code comment.
- setr 6y agoIt does in the sense of intent -- if they built the tool for the express purpose of avoiding copyright restriction, they would do more than hide it in a random unit test or code comment. Putting it in the README itself would be a far stronger signal of intentional malfeasance. In the unit test... it's pretty clear the original developer's intent was simply to pick a video, and chose a trivially popular one (taylor swift), with likely no mind towards copyright (or its avoidance). That is, the tool happens to be capable of the job, because it simply has purpose to download videos, with no awareness of copyright law.
- ehsankia 6y agoUnit tests are explicit examples of how the program works. It's showing by example things the program can do. Hell, it's even testing them to make sure they still and always will work. You may as well name the unit test "testCanDownloadIllegalContent()"
- dannyw 6y agoThe maintainers behind this repo may also have more interest in filing a DMCA counter-notice.
- avhon1 6y agoThe maintainers of the previous repo didn't get a chance to file a counter-notice. That's why many people are upset at github about this, they took down the repo (and all of the forks, I think?) as soon as they received the letter from the RIAA.
- makeworld 6y agoYou can file a counter-notice after it gets taken down, and then the repo will be reinstated. That's my understanding of how it usually works.
- athms 6y agoI suspect the problem is the counter notice. You must agree to be held to US law and the maintainer resides in Germany. According to the DMCA, the entity that files a counter notice consents to jurisdiction of the US district court of their residence. If not a resident of the US, jurisdiction is the district where the service provider is located. Once a counter notice is filed, one cannot argue the law doesn't apply because of lack of jurisdiction.
- em-bee 6y agoso instead,they probably have to sue github in germany
- leonidasv 6y agoDoes this repo fixed the issue with the unit test downloading a copyright video?
- ikeboy 6y agoYes.
- archgoon 6y agoIf the test was downloading a video; it's not a unit test. I know that the definition gets stretched, but at the very least, a unit test should be deterministic. A test relying on a network communication with a third party system stretches the adjective 'unit' to beyond usefulness.
- Blahah 6y agoWhat would a unit test look like for a tool that downloads videos from third party sites?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- archgoon 6y agoOne option is to simply write end to end tests, and not bother with unit tests at all. This does mean that you don't know if tests are failing because of a new code change or if the world has changed from underneath you. If you want to write a unit test, then the test would mock the response from the server. You would have an expected sequence of expected requests and their responses. You would only be testing that you made the correct requests and, given the same response from the server, your code parsed it correctly and gave the expected outputs. If the server bans your IP, or changes their response codes, your unit tests will still pass, as they should. Notification that the world has changed around you is not the purpose of a unit test. It is to allow you to feel confident of claims "I refactored the code and behavior is unchanged." or "I changed the behavior and this is how it has changed" or "I know that my code handles all known error codes from the server." This is important when the world does change around you; as it lets you identify when that happens. I recognize that test terminology is vague, and people will use competing definitions (I have seen 'functional', 'integration', and 'end to end' all used to describe non-unit tests, and I've seen each used to mean the others). I recognize this may seem as an exercise in pedantry. However, there is a valuable distinction to be made between tests that can be run deterministically, and tests that rely on the behavior of third parties outside of your control. These tests types will differ in terms of speed of execution, infrastructure setup (many test environments may not have network access, or may need special credential access)[1], reliability, and also, importantly, the proper response to a failure. [1] Also, if you're doing mobile app development, you very much want to distinguish between tests that require a device and ones that don't. You will likely have multiple test classifications if you're doing mobile development.
- nitinreddy88 6y agoI am sorry to say this, but Hacker News became another reddit?! For past 1 week, I see similar topic being discussed every day on front page. I agree with the community empathy, but its becoming something else now.
- echelon 6y agoThis isn't about empathy. These are our fundamental rights of free speech and distribution of free software. These are the rights that Richard Stallman warned us would be taken from us. And look what's happened - nearly every video distribution channel is now locked, DRMed, and inaccessible. We now license everything we consume, and it can easily be taken away from us. (Google Play Music, the Stadia precursors, other media.) We're not the majority on the Internet anymore, but we hold the power to change things. Please care more. They'll be coming for something you love next.
- sudosysgen 6y agoIt's not just the internet. Financialization and ultracommodification of everything is leading us into a future where we will essentially stop owning anything - as Klaus Schwab said: you will own nothing, and you will be happy (heh!). Copyright is an example and experiment. Something that could before never be considered a commodity, information, became a pure commodity. This process of ultracommodification, in order to be functional, had the side effect of leading to the skewing of ownership into a renting relationship. The trajectory we are on is one where everything is becoming more and more rented and financialized. Because this is necessary in order to allow for more growth.
- ehvatum 6y agoSome might wonder why ultracommodification and financialization include food, air, and the human body. The concept strikes many as an affront. As long as humans have existed, so have food, air, and human bodies. Were Adam and Eve broken up into tranches and traded by high-speed algorithms across the globe? Why, then, am I? The dinosaurs that became our fossil fuels might well ask the same. To gain insight, we must consider the essentials. Necessarily, your exhalations contain carbon dioxide. However, requiring upon food acquisition payment for potential CO2 release equivalent to food carbon content is not viable. You may well intend to bury the food, or perhaps yourself immediately after consuming the food. Nor is metering CO2 exhalations. Of course, a financially distressed individual could simply be interred the instant they become insolvent, but this forgets the utility of withdrawing fats from your body by mechanical processes and rendering them into tallow and diesel - which would be effectively subsidized by exhalation metering. Furthermore, instantaneously committing to earth or industrial feedstock any body at time of insolvency presents impracticalities if that body is far from a hole in the ground or industrial consumer of body carbon. Therefore, the human body itself, in addition to the food it consumes and gasses it exhales, is also a de-facto commodity in exactly the same way as a modern-day fuel-destined dinosaur or Adam or Eve, who are after all, you and me. To provide freedom from immediate bodily carbon sequestration, while guarding against even a single atom of carbon from escaping the system, all the wondrous vagaries of our existences are therefore encoded into derivatives sold on the free market. You are free because of it. You may even bet on the possibility that you will hold your breath forever while continuing to live, or alternatively that you are already dead and haven’t yet learned of it. Progress stops for nobody’s body, but you may live out your existence with all the stock market acumen of a velociraptor, if you like.
- lavoiems 6y agoThis repos removed the famous tests some days ago under a commit message "COMPLAINFREE". These tests can be found by looking at the git history: https://github.com/blackjack4494/yt-dlc/commit/dd2d55f10dac8b6cb5e8ab4b2cccb302655b40ea https://github.com/blackjack4494/yt-dlc/commit/dd2d55f10dac8... Would it be safer to thoroughly delete these tests from the git history?
- Thorentis 6y agoWell the tests can also be found under the DMCA repo history too, so I guess we need to take that repo down.
- soulofmischief 6y agoIf someone closes the PR and fully deletes the tree from GitHub then the repo should be fine.
- Rochus 6y agoNo. Tests are an internal technical detail and not part of the product offering to users. Apart from that, a download from youtube in itself does not violate copyright laws.
- quyleanh 6y agoI recently submitted this repo 4 days ago, and it was flagged :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24878283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24878283 Now this submit is on the top of HN, and I still don't know why.
- ebg13 6y agoOk, but so what? Do you care about sharing with people (accomplished) or about getting karma points?
- danielheath 6y agoI mean, it's kind of naff, but the karma points are there because people like getting them.
- stunt 6y agoThe karma points are there to prevent spammers. It's effective enough.
- chowned 6y agoIt makes people wonder how fair the process is.
- mrspeaker 6y agoDoes anyone know why the README for this warns "DO NOT UPDATE using -U ! instead download binaries again or when installed with pip use a described above when installing." Why is that? Why leave the -U option there?
- avhon1 6y agoyt-dl binaries from the previous repo will update from that same repo, which basically 451s now. Presumably, the update mechanism in this repo has been pointed to itself rather than upstream, and once you get binaries from it, you can resume updating them with -U.
- merricksb 6y agoDiscussed here 46 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450560 (199 points/104 comments)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]