youtube-dl no more?

[handy]

When you watch something on youtube it is downloaded onto your machine (though not in a format that you can replay).

I download with youtube-dl so I can view the video. The videos that I watch aren't copyrighted, or from any of the private channels that you have to sign up for.

I download these vids as I can't watch them any other way due to my use of a combination of privacy tools that g**gle (among others) don't like.

I expect that g**gle would be quite happy with the current legal situation of youtube-dl as g**gle don't give anything away that doesn't bring profit to them in some form or another.

[Sparky]

Yes!!!!!!

[Buck Fankers]

I don't understand why people think it's okay to record copyrighted material from YouTube. It's stealing unless you're choosing Public Domain, Copyleft or Creative Commons material. You are stealing from songwriters and artists (among others) who are paid by each view/stream. How would you feel if part or all of your income was stolen?

I can care less for copyright music. You are assuming a lot. On YT you can find political commentaries, market/economy commentaries etc... from bloggers who want to be heard and who are way more valuable and insightful, than say MSM. I don't have time sitting by computer watching/listening this material. But when I'm doing certain chores or hike, run, on a bicycle, drive in the car... that's perfect time for me. So, I almost daily DL and convert material I'm interested into MP3, upload on my music player and then listen to it, when doing previous mentioned tasks. Thanks to programs like yt-download or Clipgrab I can do this.

[metreo]

Further to the above. Isn't it literally the case where site like YouTube, and every other, don't have the right to force your browser and by extension your operating system and computer hardware, to do anything or prevent you from interacting with the site on your browser, operating system and computer hardware in any way you please?

[AVLinux]

Slightly OT but related..

I see both sides of the issue..

I have copyrighted original music on Youtube and all other major streaming platforms and any cover material I've produced I have bought the licenses to distribute it legally, Even as a (tiny insignificant) artist I try to not be a hypocrite to other artists..

On the other hand Concert Footage stuff is disappearing from Youtube at an alarming rate never to be seen again, for that reason i have used youtube-dl to preserve some of this stuff before it is gone forever. As an example i'm a huge fan of bluesman Freddie King who died in 1976, some of the YT content of his has been pulled and the DVD's that the content came from have more than quadrupled in price on Amazon since DVD's are now so archaic. As a fan this is very troubling. Anyone who follows Rick Beato or Lee Sklar will also see that even somebody using 20 seconds of copyrighted music in an educational video to promote and evangelize the work of the original artist is in jeopardy of getting their video pulled.. Lee Sklar is playing along to James Taylor songs he was the session bassist on for the original recordings to show aspiring bassists how it was done and his stuff is routinely pulled.

Money is money and rights are rights but the loss of educational value is an intangible cost as well.. Discuss...:-)

[Sparky]

Discuss what? The freedom and glory of the free?

[JayM]

If the US had sane copyright laws much of this content would be in the public domain by now. OT example: Project Gutenberg has diaries written by American Civil War, Boer War and WWi soldiers and officers but none from WWII because they're still under copyright. This is madness. Freddie King's material should be available now that it's 44 years since he died but we have another 55 years to wait (lifetime plus 99 years.) Not only will much of his material be lost by then but most of us won't be around to hear it either. And the sad fact is most artists don't even own the copyrights to their own music, the big labels do. That's why Prince changed his name to that symbol (his label claimed legal ownership of the name Prince even though that was his real given name so they said they also owned music produced with that name) and why John Fogarty (CCR's front man) stopped recording for so many years until his contract with his label expired. (Then he released a big hit about baseball!)

[paul1149]

I don't understand why people think it's okay to record copyrighted material from YouTube. It's stealing unless you're choosing Public Domain, Copyleft or Creative Commons material. You are stealing from songwriters and artists (among others) who are paid by each view/stream. How would you feel if part or all of your income was stolen?

I think that technically you are right, but that there are a lot of mitigating circumstances. Much of what I view is not copyrighted, and quite a bit of it has already been unjustly demonetized by google. Some things I've downloaded I have hard copy of, bought and paid for, but I prefer the convenience of digital. I have made direct donations to some creators, knowing that I am not supporting them through ad revenue. And some others, yes, I have downloaded and used without remuneration. I don't think this is a monolithic situation. And the part of the funds that would go to google I do not worry about; they are already too big and too abusive of the power they have. I am trying to use youtube alternatives more, and that goes for other google products as well.

[metreo]

It's not hard at all to find alternatives for Google's services.

[metreo]

It's important to remember that there is no restriction on how your computer interacts with a website. This is the same rules which allow ad blockers. If one wants to use a tool that targets *only* the multimedia content from a website and discards the rest (as the mpv player does with media streaming using youtube-dl as a backend) that is perfectly within ones rights.