3 ms·

Encryption isn't broken by Invidious, nor by youtube-dl or anything else. Youtube sends a bunch of Javascript, Invidious interprets it and runs the code. Unless

Encryption isn't broken by Invidious, nor by youtube-dl or anything else. Youtube sends a bunch of Javascript, Invidious interprets it and runs the code. Unless Google wants to prove that running secret_youtube_sauce.js can only be ran by specific user-agents on their own website otherwise it's DMCA infringement, they can try. If they win, you've got a bigger problem anyways, since they would win the right to only allow Chrome to access Google properties.

vineyardmike 3y ago
The OP used a misleading term. It’s not “breaking” encryption that’s illegal, nor is it occurring. What is illegal is circumventing any measures at DRM that involve encryption. > Unless Google wants to prove that running secret_youtube_sauce.js can only be ran by specific user-agents on their own website otherwise it's DMCA infringement, they can try This is exactly the implication here. It’s not copyright infringement, it’s DRM bypassing which is a separate law. The implication is that google wouldn’t have sent you the content (encrypted or not) if the user agent (or whatever) was different. Therefore, you’re deceiving them and illegally bypassing DRM. > If they win, you've got a bigger problem anyways, since they would win the right to only allow Chrome to access Google properties. IIRC YouTube used to not work right on Firefox, intentionally. Also lots of Google properties are behind a Chrome-wall (eg their LLM generative search results) IANAL, but that’s the gist of what’s happening here.