That may have been true of "youtube-dl" but I think yt-dlp only evokes the site association that you're thinking of because you already knew about youtube-dl first
Admittedly, the fork would have been better with "really-dl" but here we are
Even when it can't, if you can find the .m3u8 or .mpd url from the browser's dev tool network tab, you can feed it into yt-dlp to download the video and transform it into .mp4.
An amazing tool adding a great deal of value to YouTube. If I could only donate to one project I would choose this. Shame on me I can't in fact even find how do I donate to this.
Not sure how this might (not) be presented in other contexts, but when I go to the main repository page on a desktop browser, there's a "Sponsor this project" box in the rightmost layout column that links to a Markdown file with Ko-Fi and/or GitHub Sponsor links for the individual maintainers [1].
The EFF covered this issue, it was an abuse of the DMCA.
> First, youtube-dl does not infringe or encourage the infringement of any copyrighted works, and its references to copyrighted songs in its unit tests are a fair use. Nevertheless, youtube-dl’s maintainers are replacing these references. Second, youtube-dl does not violate Section 1201 of the DMCA because it does not “circumvent” any technical protection measures on YouTube videos.
The bigger story behind this that by reinstating YouTube-dl Microsoft basically came out and said “sue us we dare you” over people peddling this legal theory and the copyright trolls blinked.
The original youtube-dl was taken down by GitHub because of the DMCA complaint, not because it violated the DMCA. It was subsequently restored by GitHub. This project is simply more actively maintained; it's existence has nothing to do with the DMCA scandal.
The complaint wasn't even a valid 512 takedown notice, but an (inaccurate) 1201 anti-circumvention complaint written so as to closely resemble a 512 notice.
(Where "512" and "1201" refer to the specific portions of US Code Title 17 copyright law regarding DMCA provisions for infringement safe-harbour protections to service providers and circumvention of copyright controls, respectively.)
I can't tell if you're being serious, but yes of course it matters. Youtube-dl got taken down, and all its forks got taken down, so is this project different or is it gone tomorrow because its existence got broadcast on hackernews?
Did it change something that made it not violate fall into the same "this violates DMCA" trap that youtube-dl fall into, so that it's not susceptible to the same takedown?
Because that's interesting and worth learning about.
See elsewhere in the thread for details, but youtube-dl was restored by Github and is generally not considered to be in violation of the DMCA. You can see it on Github here: https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl
A copyright holder abused the DMCA process to take it down the first time.
while setting aside the genuineness of the problem, it was a rather poor decision on the dev's part. there was no need to rub it in the faces. if they were so unawares of what they were doing, then it makes me wonder what other facets they were playing fast and loose with. when making a thing that you know is going to cause ripples, then it just seems much smarter to avoid handing someone else the rocks to cause the ripples.
Could you show me where it was in the documentation? My understanding was copyrighted videos were only referenced in the unit tests, and only then because they needed special handling, the code for which couldn't be tested against a "regular" video.
Amazing tool and thankful for the project, but it's really sad something that should just be a download button on every site, is instead a large project that has controversies, lawsuits and other issues.
Sure, if you throw out all concerns about copyright and all of that other mumbojumbo, sure, why not just let all of the users of a website download the content with no compensation for the creators at all?
I like to make fun of YT as much as anyone, but even this "everything, all the time should be mine" is a farcical concept to me.
Nice strawman. He didn’t even say any of that, simply that all websites should have options to download videos. No mentions of price, nothing that would harm copyright (which is an absolute joke).
Maybe, if you weren’t an RIAA shill, we could have a productive conversation.
Thanks for the name calling, but thinking i'm a RIAA shill is laughable and shows the level of (lack thereof) intellect people have on this issue.
Has the copyright system been corrupted by major corporate players? Of course it has. However, throwing it out to have no concept of copyright is an insult to those that do create content without being those corporate players. It takes time and effort and a not insignificant amount of money to bring content to the world. Removing any protections from those creators to be able to monetize their work product is just infantile tantrum throwing.
PeerTube is decentralized video sharing software that works with a federated protocol but not enough people choose to host their content on PeerTube. The problem isn't Google or the law on copyrighted content and who can make copies of it. The problem is people choose centralized content hosts like YouTube and all that it entails because it is more convenient than running and federating PeerTube nodes.
Does Peertube address all of the moderation / illegal content problems enumerated here, as they relate especially to video? https://telegra.ph/why-not-matrix-08-07
PeerTube is a useful form of decentralization. Each video is stored on its home site, but playout is distributed by making the browsers of people watching it share the streaming load. So if your video on your tiny PeerTube-connected site goes viral, your tiny site will not overload. All the viewers become redistribution nodes. At least in theory, this scales. The highest view count I can find on PeerTube is around 5K recent, not concurrent, views.
I put technical videos on Hardlimit on PeerTube, because Google's ads are annoying and I don't need "discovery" or "followers". The videos are linked from discussions and papers.
This works fine, but is not the usual use case, where people are seeking fame, fortune, or at least attention.
I remember an interesting project in 2009 from Opera called Opera Unite. Its goal was to turn the browser into a server so that you can share back out into the web. They had a few demos "apps" built in but sadly it never went anywhere. It's interesting to imagine how the structure of the web would have evolved if that idea took off. Here's their original post about it: https://dev.opera.com/blog/taking-the-web-into-our-own-hands...
By "download feature", do you mean download into private storage of the Youtube app of a smart phone (so that the video can be viewed when the phone is not connected) or do you mean download a video file that can be played in the player of the user's choice?
(I'm asking because I've never been a paying user of Youtube.)
This is fair, and yes it's 100% "download into an encrypted area on a closed platform device and self-destruct for no reason after 30 days," not "download it so that you have the video and can reliably play it offline or re-encode into a different format."
YouTube itself is the lamest entity to be wasting time fighting youtube-dl because I doubt most creators want that protection. I can see why say, NBC.com or whoever doesn't want to be sued by the content owners for letting people download a show. But YouTube? The site that shows videos to anyone without a subscription? Interesting choice of where to focus your attention, Google.
The bigger problem is the way they use that as an avenue to sell you more shit and "learn" more deeply about you. Hard pass. Let people watch what they want and stop trying to build a profile, maybe then they'll consider paying you. As it stands, there's just no prayer of doing that if you're linking your credit card to all that.
More like a "download into Google video locker that can only be played with the Youtube app, can't easily be format-shifted/clipped/transcoded/etc. and tracks you whenever you play it," right?
So much effort that downgrades the experience for paying users.
I imagine Tivo-style ad-skipping isn't a feature either.
Though I never have used Youtube premium, Louis Rossmann talks a lot about this. If I remember correctly it was something about not actually getting a file when downloading, instead having something you're forced to watch in the app and something not working right without internet access/location restrictions.
They already sent me the fucking content when I watch it. Having a download button that just saves it to my disk means they save money delivering it to me if I watch a second time.
Let us not forget that the viewers are the product. The “users” are somewhat comprised of the people buying premium and mostly comprised of the advertisers buying ads for eyeballs to see.
Google doesn’t make money from ads if you download a video outside of their player.
I pay for YouTube premium and can download a video to my phone in the app. It’s not perfect but it works.
I am glad for all the paying people who care less about their privacy to the extent they can justify that. You matter, seriously. I'm being 100% genuine. I don't think the world (economically) would continue to turn if everyone was like me unfortunately. It would be a tradgedy of the uncommons
Why do you think something "should" be a download button on every site? Who are you to tell someone who has created something that they must give it away? How much work do you do for free?
When exactly did we decide that digital video shouldn't be easily recordable like analog video?
In any case, a download button is basically like a DVR. It is also an obvious feature that
- is easy to add
- is logically part of any video hosting site
- is wanted by most users
DVRs may be legal according to the law, but youtube and other sites spend an extraordinary amount of effort to make it hard for users to record the videos they are watching. It's basically a technologically enforced ban on video recording for the 99% of users who can't easily use youtube-dl or other tools.
Using a DVR/VCR recorded the broadcast as is. You're download idea bypasses all of the ads. Unless, without stating so, you'd accept a download file with the ads embedded.
While YT might originally have started with the Yous of the world creating content, it has greatly evolved from that where very professional types are releasing to it. Of course YT loves that as it means much more interest from users to their site. However, you know that concessions had to be made to convince music labels to release their content on the platform. We all know what those mean.
> Using a DVR/VCR recorded the broadcast as is. You're download idea bypasses all of the ads. Unless, without stating so, you'd accept a download file with the ads embedded.
"Note: The SkipMode feature is available only on certain recorded shows; we hope to make it available for the most popular shows on the most popular channels watched by TiVo subscribers"
curious if they were working with broadcasters to embed cuetones that the unit would scan to locate which is why it took a bit of time "after recording" for the skip icon to work. if that's the case, then it's obvious why it didn't catch on. (i say didn't because i have no idea if Tivo is still a thing or how old the page linked is.)
> When exactly did we decide that digital video shouldn't be easily recordable like analog video?
> In any case, a download button is basically like a DVR.
> DVRs may be legal according to the law …
The recordability of analog video (in the sense of whether it's OK to do so, not whether it is physically possible—although there was that useless tab on videocassettes), and the acceptability of using a DVR, have not always been settled subjects. To the extent that such things can be quantified, I'd suspect that the amount of conflict over them was roughly comparable if you account for (1) the increased number of people in a position to have an informed opinion and (2) the increased visibility of conflict.
> The recordability of analog video (in the sense of whether it's OK to do so, not whether it is physically possible—although there was that useless tab on videocassettes), and the acceptability of using a DVR, have not always been settled subjects
Analog seems pretty well settled in the US for the past ~40 years.
But my point is actually a bit different. Weren't VCRs a good thing? Isn't it a bad thing that it is so much harder now to record internet TV than it was to record broadcast and cable TV in the 1980s-2000s?
> Analog seems pretty well settled in the US for the past ~40 years.
Yes, but not always. There was a time when it was a new thing, and, when so, it was much argued.
> But my point is actually a bit different. Weren't VCRs a good thing? Isn't it a bad thing that it is so much harder now to record internet TV than it was to record broadcast and cable TV in the 1980s-2000s?
Yes, they were! Yes, it is! But my point wasn't to disagree with you on either of these points, just to observe that it's not that the content owners who went along with previous innovations are suddenly balking at this. Rather, my invocation of even long settled questions like analog recording was meant to point to the fact that content owners have always argued against use of their material that they didn't like, which was any use of their material that they didn't completely control and directly profit from.
> content owners have always argued against use of their material that they didn't like, which was any use of their material that they didn't completely control and directly profit from.
I am reminded of the backlash against player pianos, and of Sousa's "The Menace of Mechanical Music" (and his accompanying copyright advocacy), etc. I think he probably did accurately predict a drop in amateur music performance (and sheet music sales), though the cat had been out of the bag since the advent of orchestrions, street organs (and organ grinders), and other technology dating back to the 18th century and probably earlier.
They've already given it away for free by uploading it to YouTube. That I choose to consume the content outside of the free web player is not their business at that point.
Most frequently I do this because I am analyzing the audio, and it's hard to reliably seek in the web player; my offline tools are much better at this task.
Many people who upload videos to Youtube are getting paid based on the number of people who view the video. They also may choose platforms like Youtube in order to maintain some control over the distribution of their videos.
Sure they are. They were delivered to my browser, for free, without any exchange of currency on my part. The page offered to deliver the ads alongside the content. Whether I chose to consume the ad is, again, my business, not the site's.
Maybe I loaded the link to the ad but never downloaded it; the site didn't require this. Maybe I downloaded the ad but my user agent chose not to display it. Maybe it did get displayed, and my eyes chose not to look at it. It's the same thing either way: I, the user, did not consume that content. All of this content is offered for free on request. There is no moral obligation to consume one piece of content just because it is delivered alongside another.
Imagine a grocery store leaves pumpkins outside the front during Halloween season for customers to bring inside and buy.
You're doing the digital equivalent of saying "the pumpkins are right there for me to take, they were delivered outside for me to pick up and place in my car, for free. With no exchange of currency. I can just walk by the store and grab one and walk away".
In other words, you're ignoring both the legal contract (the terms of service) and the social contract (if everyone just grabs a pumpkin and walks away its obviously not going to be profitable and the company will stop offering it, we can only have the social 'nice thing' if everyone plays nice).
Just because its physically possible to do a thing doesn't mean the company consents to you doing it, or you deserve to do it.
You can easily litter. There's nothing stopping you. The ground is right there. You shouldn't though and you're rightfully called an asshole if you do.
If you applied your mentality everywhere, you would say "if you don't want me to litter in this National Forest, there ought not to be any businesses that sell disposable products within a 500 mile radius. It's not my fault you set this up for me to do so."
This is a dangerous argument. Shall we make it illegal to switch radio stations when they stop playing music and start running commercials? After all, the advertiser paid good money for those commercials to play. Shouldn't everyone be required to listen to them?
When reading a magazine, do I need to start from the first page and spend a minimum number of seconds staring at the multiple full-page ads before flipping to an article I might actually be interested in?
Do we need to make VHS tapes and DVRs illegal, if they allow the user to record only the parts of the program they're interested in, while skipping over the commercial breaks?
The pumpkins argument is a strawman: with physical goods, theft and loss of value has occurred. The legal owner of the unpaid pumpkins (the store) is now unable to sell them to a paying customer. When I choose to watch one video, but not another, I have not somehow taken value away from anyone. The original copy of the data is still on the server, ready to be delivered to the next viewer.
The littering argument is a strawman: when I choose to watch one video, but not another, I have not committed an act of vandalism. No person other than me can even be aware that this has transpired, unless I tell someone else about it. What I choose to focus my attention on affects me, and me alone. Littering affects others, making it a poor comparison.
I am reminded of Blu-ray discs with "unskippable" ads before the beginning of the program.
Of course the endgame - which we already see - is embedded video ads and product placement. "Hey youtube I'm going to provide the 10 second answer you were searching for, but first let me tell you how to lose money fast with crapcoin..." I was going to say that music doesn't have that yet but I'm not sure that is the case.
How is downloading a video "giving it away"? You're already consuming the content.
I guess the one angle I can see is that by watching the local copy, you aren't seeing any ads that might be on the page/video. But the website could embed ads into the downloaded video.
Really, how is this any different than recording TV on a VCR (or DVR)?
> Really, how is this any different than recording TV on a VCR (or DVR)?
Each time a viewer watches a video a monetised channel makes a little more money. This money either comes from ads or Youtube Premium fees (Premium viewers are worth significantly more than free viewers).
Programs like yl-dlp bypass this - non-premium users can download ad-free videos contributing a single view to a video and consume that content any number of times. Youtube no longer makes advertising revenue per view, and content creators no long get their cut.
None of this is the case in TV, where ad revenue must be based on metrics other than straight-up view count, which cannot be counted meaningfully.
> But the website could embed ads into the downloaded video.
Many video creators do embed their own ads, but revenue from these ads are often based on view counts maintained by Youtube as well.
> Programs like yl-dlp bypass this - non-premium users can download ad-free videos contributing a single view to a video and consume that content any number of times. Youtube no longer makes advertising revenue per view, and content creators no long get their cut.
Why should they get a cut every time I view a video? If I watch a video saved to disk I use 0% of YouTube's infrastructure and cost the creator 0% in extra expenses.
Do I owe them a cut if I remember part of a video? Do I owe them a double amount of ad watching if I watch the video with someone else? Do they owe me a cut if they repeated a detail from a Wikipedia article I edited or web page I wrote? What about their college history professor that taught them a historical fact, do they need to go back and pay them when they reference it in their video?
For any bit of created media there are hundreds of uncredited and uncompensated second order contributions. The idea that someone making a YouTube video should get compensated every time I watch it is absolutely absurd. They're certainly not tracking down every second order contribution to the video and compensating them in turn.
Well, why shouldn't they get a cut? If I pirate a video game or music CD it also costs the artists $0 when I use it. But if I wasn't getting value out of it I wouldn't have bothered to pirate it. Why should you get that value for nothing?
You're approaching the concept from the position that there's some moral imperative that a media creator needs to be paid in perpetuity for every experiential instance of their work.
If you buy a CD you pay for it one time. The artist doesn't get a nickel every time you play a track. You could put it on repeat for 50 years and they'll never get more than your up front payment. The only entity being paid is your power company for running that CD player for 50 years. If you powered the CD player with a solar panel and battery would you feel the utility company needs to be paid for your use of electricity despite not using any of their infrastructure?
You don't send a plumber a check every time you flush your toilet. If I watch a YouTube video once it's simply ludicrous to suggest I need to pay for a second viewing if I'm not using anyone's infrastructure but my own.
If you pay for Youtube Premium you can download any video to your device for offline viewing. I'm not sure if this is configurable by the video uploader. The video can still only be viewed from within the Youtube app so it's not like a general-purpose mp4. I suspect this is in part so that Youtube can continue to monitor how many times you watched a video so they can correctly compensate the uploader (and, obviously, to maintain control over their library).
How does YouTube operate the service with this feature? If enough people use it to download all the videos they want and then play them back without ads, then they're just hosting and delivering video for free. It's no secret that YouTube is already subsidized by ad-supported views and premium subscribers.
And YouTube Premium already offers a Download button. It downloads it in the exact same format as they send it to your device in - m3u8 parts.
They don't have to give it away, but if they publish it so that someone can view it, then others who can view it should also make their own copy to do what they want with, e.g. adjust volume, make a recorded copy to work without internet connection, convert file formats, downgrade resolution (if you want to save disk space), time shifting, deleting ads, etc. It isn't the problem that the site doesn't have a download; it is that the computer should have a record button but doesn't.
yt-dlp has been awesome, but one thing I [admittedly havent tried to solve and] don't like about it is that it seems to default to unusual container types when downloading.
When using yt-dlp, I get a .webm file, and when asking for audio only using `-x`, I get an .opus file. Is there any reason for this?
That is because by default yt-dlp tries to download the best / better format available and (I take it the context of your downloads are YT) these are the best ones available.
You can customize which format to download by doing first:
yt-dlp -F <url>
Check what numbers are there, and then download the formats you want.
You can customize both the video format & rate, and same for sound, by using
yt-dlp #+# <url>
Where the first hash is the id of the video stream, and the 2nd hash is the id of the audio id.
Take into account that you'd probably need also ffmpeg available on the command line for this; that if you "mix" containers (Say, a webm video and an m4u audio stream) you-ll end up with an .mkv container; and finally, that all of the downloaded streams are themselves containers (.m4u, mp4 & webm).
A .webm file is an .mkv file. You can rename to .mkv without any ramifications.
My guess would be that yt-dlp is giving you whatever file format it finds, with no editorializing. The default is just to go with "best quality" available. So "Is there a reason for this?" is likely a better question for whoever maintains the site(s) you're downloading from.
i'll accept that. so the grandstanding is with Googs/YT in only providing the higher quality in those formats. there's no compelling reason other than pushing the other formats and trying to throw shade on the others. they are already using h.264, so just up the quality and not force a totally different codec.
This submission got catapulted off the front page within about 2 hours and no longer appears in the top 150 submission despite being fresh and having more points than 18 of the 30 items on the front page. Interesting.
I found it much easier to contribute too yt-dlp than to youtube-dl.
youtube-dl repository is badly managed, the fork could have been easily avoided by sharing responsibilities and decisions.
Cookies, maybe? Which would be indistinguishable from a normal usage considering its making the same API calls. Better safe than sorry for important accounts, but if they could catch you en masse for YT-DLP use they would have already.
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/tree/master/yt_dlp/extracto...