←back to thread

319 points modmodmod | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.863s | source
Show context
tracerbulletx ◴[] No.43374959[source]
I kind of wish people would stop making yt-dlp more accessible and increasing Google's desire to shut it down.
replies(14): >>43375203 #>>43375226 #>>43375269 #>>43375318 #>>43375398 #>>43375403 #>>43375436 #>>43376048 #>>43376051 #>>43376303 #>>43376514 #>>43376607 #>>43376772 #>>43377251 #
Gigachad ◴[] No.43375318[source]
Agreed. Youtube downloaders are essential for backup purposes and for getting clips to put in your own videos as fair use. But people turning them in to fully user facing ad free frontends are driving the crackdown on the tools so we will end up with no way at all to download videos..

Would be nice if Youtube just let premium users download the actual video files. What I find interesting is how so many of the Chinese social media platforms just let you download videos while western tech companies pretty much universally block it.

replies(3): >>43375904 #>>43375934 #>>43376159 #
999900000999 ◴[] No.43376159[source]
> how so many of the Chinese social media platforms just let you download videos

The rate things are going I’ll just have to use those sites instead.

YouTube is a weird position. A lot of content is public domain and should be freely downloaded. Other content isn’t.

A good middle ground would be for YouTube to just give uploaders an option to enable downloads.

I do agree that people need to STOP trying to make yt-dl easy to use to the point it actually competes with YouTube. YouTube Red when you factor in music is a very good deal. I’ve been subscribed for years.

Like it or not but YouTube is almost entirely funded by ads. You don’t have a right to use the service without paying.

replies(6): >>43376203 #>>43376591 #>>43378144 #>>43378618 #>>43379007 #>>43382217 #
WD-42 ◴[] No.43376591[source]
Us not having the right seems a little extreme. What if I close my eyes and block my ears during evey ad? Do I not have the right to use YouTube then?
replies(2): >>43377588 #>>43377870 #
mrmattyboy ◴[] No.43377588[source]
I would say yes and no (leaning on the no)...

I think saying you don't have a right is fine... they are providing a service and dictating it's usage and you are using it.

So on the "closing your eyes". On one side, yes, allowing your browser to play the video and YT then being able to treat as a advert view means that youtube gets paid and the creator gets paid.

However... I would personally view this as can a person do this and how it works as a generalisation and I would say "no", because if everyone did this (why does just one person have the right to close their eyes), then (at least I'd imagine) the companies paying for advertising would see a drop in click-throughs and (I don't know what you call it.. but let's just say) more money. They'd then stop paying for adverts. Then no companies would want to pay for adverts and YT is no longer profitable (to YT or the creators).

replies(2): >>43379276 #>>43401194 #
1. margana ◴[] No.43379276[source]
Even entertaining the idea is extremely disturbing and dystopian. Having control over what we watch and what we listen to should be basic human rights. And those are inalienable, meaning we can't sign away those rights, not in a contract, not in any terms of service.

People who accept that as something a company should be allowed to do are a massive problem. Because of you, they might actually do it. It will start by making sure you cannot mute the sound in any way, designing hardware in a way to enforce that - devices will start overriding the use of external speakers and play ads from internal ones to make absolutely sure you haven't muted it. Next they will force always-on cameras on us which will make sure our eyes are open and looking at the ad. Next we will have brain implants to make sure you're actually paying attention and not thinking about something else.

I find it extremely disturbing that you don't feel disgusted about even thinking of "yes".

replies(1): >>43380337 #
2. yyhhsj0521 ◴[] No.43380337[source]
This is like saying you have the rights to mute your work meetings. Sure you do, but you just won't be employed anymore. I don't see that as a problem, because being employed and watching YouTube are not essential services nor human rights.
replies(1): >>43436493 #
3. tmcdos ◴[] No.43436493[source]
Then the correct solution would be to allow everyone just pay $1 per month for watching Youtube without any ads. Youtube will be funded and users will see no ads. But I suspect that even in that case Youtube will still want to show ads - even though the users would be paying for NOT seeing ads ...
replies(1): >>43510240 #
4. yyhhsj0521 ◴[] No.43510240{3}[source]
Why is this correct? Youtube is a private company. It's very much allowed to charge $200 per month while playing tons of ads for you. Youtube sets the price and its policy, not the users.