7 ms·
As I read that post, the circumvention applies only to a throttling control, not an overall access control. Since it should have been just as easy (if no easier
by gizmo686 5y ago
As I read that post, the circumvention applies only to a throttling control, not an overall access control. Since it should have been just as easy (if no easier) to simply block unofficial clients instead of throttling them, it seems like a clear argument that Google does not intend to block 3rd party Downloader, but merely give preferential treatment to first party ones.
If you by that argument. Then bypassing the protection might be illegal, but would not be a copyright issue, and Google would be the only one with standing to sue.
- Nextgrid 5y agoMaybe it's a compromise because they still have their own legacy versions of the client that can't support the new scheme and yet need to remain at least semi-functional?
- foo_barrio 5y agoThe throttling is so severe it is effectively blocking. The throttling goes down to 50KiB/s on my PC trying to download a basic youtube video. That around 0.4mbps which puts you barely around the bandwidth needed to stream a very low quality 360p/480p video. For reference, this video is about 2 minutes long and that's how long it took me to download it via the last version of youtube-dl: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVRInek075g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVRInek075g