Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

    (windowsread.me)
    439 points Leftium | 11 comments | 19 Sep 25 12:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    molticrystal ◴[19 Sep 25 20:49 UTC] No.45306399[source]▶
    The claim that Google secretly wants YouTube downloaders to work doesn't hold up. Their focus is on delivering videos across a vast range of devices without breaking playback(and even that is blurring[0]), not enabling downloads.

    If you dive into the yt-dlp source code, you see the insane complexity of calculations needed to download a video. There is code to handle nsig checks, internal YouTube API quirks, and constant obfuscation that makes it a nightmare(and the maintainers heroes) to keep up. Google frequently rejects download attempts, blocks certain devices or access methods, and breaks techniques that yt-dlp relies on.

    Half the battle is working around attempts by Google to make ads unblockable, and the other half is working around their attempts to shut down downloaders. The idea of a "gray market ecosystem" they tacitly approve ignores how aggressively they tweak their systems to make downloading as unreliable as possible. If Google wanted downloaders to thrive, they wouldn't make developers jump through these hoops. Just look at the yt-dlp issue tracker overflowing with reports of broken functionality. There are no secret nods, handshakes, or other winks, as Google begins to care less and less about compatibility, the doors will close. For example, there is already a secret header used for authenticating that you are using the Google version of Chrome browser [1] [2] that will probably be expanded.

    [0] Ask HN: Does anyone else notice YouTube causing 100% CPU usage and stattering? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45301499

    [1] Chrome's hidden X-Browser-Validation header reverse engineered https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44527739

    [2] https://github.com/dsekz/chrome-x-browser-validation-header

    replies(14): >>45306431 #>>45307288 #>>45308312 #>>45308891 #>>45309570 #>>45309738 #>>45310615 #>>45310619 #>>45310847 #>>45311126 #>>45311155 #>>45311160 #>>45311645 #>>45313122 #
    1. ameliaquining ◴[19 Sep 25 20:53 UTC] No.45306431[source]▶
    The argument the article is making is that if they really wanted YouTube downloaders to stop working, they'd switch to Encrypted Media Extensions. Do you think that's not plausible?
    replies(3): >>45306579 #>>45307797 #>>45308738 #
    2. molticrystal ◴[19 Sep 25 21:04 UTC] No.45306579[source]▶
    Many smart devices that have youtube functionality(tvs, refrigerators, consoles, cable boxes, etc), have limited or no ability to support that functionality in hardware, or even if they do, it might not be exposed.

    Once those devices get phased out, it is very likely they will move to Encrypted Media Extensions or something similar, I believe I saw an issue ticket on yt-dlp's repo indicating they are already experimenting with such, as certain formats are DRM protected. Lookup all the stuff going on with SABR which if I remember right is either related to DRM or what they may use to support DRM.

    replies(2): >>45307666 #>>45308148 #
    3. hayksaakian ◴[19 Sep 25 22:47 UTC] No.45307666[source]▶
    for example I think feature length films that YouTube sells (or rents) already use this encryption.
    replies(1): >>45308209 #
    4. justsomehnguy ◴[19 Sep 25 23:01 UTC] No.45307797[source]▶
    > if they really wanted YouTube downloaders to stop working

    Wrong question leads to the wrong answer.

    The right one is "how much of the ad revenue would be lost if". For now it's cheaper to spend bazillions on a whack-a-mole.

    5. ls612 ◴[19 Sep 25 23:44 UTC] No.45308148[source]▶
    Here has to be at least some benefit Google thinks it gets from youtube downloaders, because for instance there have been various lawsuits going after companies that provide a website to do youtube downloading by the RIAA and co, but Google has studiously avoided endorsing their legal arguments.
    6. dzhiurgis ◴[19 Sep 25 23:51 UTC] No.45308209{3}[source]▶
    That’s why authors should pony up and pay for the encryption feature and rest should be free to download. YouTube could embed ads this way too.
    replies(1): >>45308852 #
    7. kragen ◴[20 Sep 25 01:02 UTC] No.45308738[source]▶
    Using DRM would make it illegal for YouTubers to use Creative-Commons-licensed content in their videos, such as Kevin MacLeod's music or many images from Wikipedia.
    replies(1): >>45310581 #
    8. peteforde ◴[20 Sep 25 01:15 UTC] No.45308852{4}[source]▶
    That's a wildly imaginative fever dream you're having. There is no timeline in which content creators would pay YouTube to encrypt their video content.
    replies(1): >>45312054 #
    9. LegionMammal978 ◴[20 Sep 25 05:13 UTC] No.45310581[source]▶
    When you upload a video to YouTube, you agree that you own the copyright or are otherwise able to grant YouTube a license to do whatever they want with it [0]:

    > If you choose to upload Content, you must not submit to the Service any Content that does not comply with this Agreement (including the YouTube Community Guidelines) or the law. For example, the Content you submit must not include third-party intellectual property (such as copyrighted material) unless you have permission from that party or are otherwise legally entitled to do so. [...]

    > By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and Affiliates') business, including for the purpose of promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service.

    If you include others' work with anything stronger than CC0, that's not a license you can grant. So you'll always be in trouble in principle, regardless of whether or how YouTube decides to exercise that license. In practice, I wouldn't be surprised if the copyright owner could get away with a takedown if they wanted to.

    [0] https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#27dc3bf5d9

    replies(1): >>45312466 #
    10. Almondsetat ◴[20 Sep 25 10:27 UTC] No.45312054{5}[source]▶
    Here's a thought: what if paying a fixed amount to encrypt your video would grant you a much higher commission for the ads shown?
    11. kragen ◴[20 Sep 25 11:42 UTC] No.45312466{3}[source]▶
    Yes, this absolutely does not shield YouTube from liability from third parties, since the copyright holder of third-party content included in the video is not a party to the agreement. That's why they have a copyright notice and takedown procedure in the first place, and also the reason for numerous lawsuits against YouTube in the past, some of which they have lost.

    To date, many Creative Commons licenses do in fact amount to "permission from that party", but if they start using DRM, those licenses would cease to grant YouTube permission.