3 ms·
Not sure about "legal battles", but I don't think it will be quite as it was. It was always wise to keep existence of youtube-dl sort of public secret, since ou
by krick 6y ago
Not sure about "legal battles", but I don't think it will be quite as it was. It was always wise to keep existence of youtube-dl sort of public secret, since our, ehm, data sources were never keen of it in the first place. Even promoting it on a large platforms like HN or reddit was pretty sketchy. But now basically everyone knows about it, user base is going to grow even more, which will be even more of a problem for sites like youtube. And, consequentially, there will be more pushback.
And, yeah, by the way: let's not forget that it's youtube and the likes of it who are actually the enemy of youtube-dl. All these RIAA notices and stuff are just tools.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoYoutube-dl enables things that should just be allowed across the internet. The "hope it doesn't get noticed" strategy is optically terrible and generally set up to fail. Even if you are against these downloads, there are laws that let you prohibit such downloads by using DRM. Ignoring those laws or trying to claim that publicly available links count as DRM means these programs should be allowed.
- daniellarusso 6y agoThe concept of streaming always seemed a bit dumb to me, in terms of environmental costs and just plain efficiency. The constraint on the majority of cases is bandwidth, not storage. For mobile, that is not necessarily true, I concede. From a purely technical perspective, streaming makes little sense. This is really a manifestation of legal constructs.