YOUTUBE-DL: "repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown."

[filler56789]

The copyright-wh0reness has gone on long enough.

"This repository is currently disabled due to a DMCA takedown notice. We have disabled public access to the repository. The notice has been publicly posted."

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md

[Forteen88]

Darn. Typical, Internet gets just worse all the time.
UPDATE: I'm saying this, assuming/thinking that only VERY FEW people really downloads videos from Youtube, and that even a smaller amount spreads such videos.
And I don't care for Youtube Inc, since they are Leftist political activists that bans Conservative people for very silly reasons (like if someone criticizes open borders in the Western world, and "Youtube banning speech critical of illegal immigration")!

[videoh]

Content creators own their materials. You have no right to it unless they grant it to you. Grow up!

[Zetti]

youtube-dlc is a fork of youtube-dl

New github page: https://github.com/blackjack4494/yt-dlc

The old github page was taken down due to a DMCA takedown notice.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/ir8ic6/youtubedlc_an_active_fork_of_youtubedl/

[FranceBB]

I don't know about you, but I've been using JDownloader (and later JDownloader2) from the times of MegaVideo/MegaUpload.
It works on a huge variety of hosts, including YouTube.
It's cross platform and works just fine on Windows and Linux (never tested on Mac OSX but it's supposed to work): https://jdownloader.org/jdownloader2
The only drawback is that it's written in Java, so... you know... you get the added overhead of the Java Virtual Machine running on top of your OS and using an insane amount of RAM (250-ish MB in idle), but apart from that, it works just fine. ;)

Content creators own their materials. You have no right to it unless they grant it to you.
Well, remember on December, last year, when I was extremely excited about the release of my very first movie?
Imagine the expression I had, after spending hours and hours on making sure that all the version were looking as good as possible, when I saw a crappy, badly encoded, version on more than a streaming website ripped online... :'(


That said, those softwares are there for a reason and can potentially be used for good rather than for bad.
For instance, downloading music videos from official VEVO channels and re-distributing them is BAD and WRONG.
Using those to download videos from social networks like for shootings or long queues and so on, provided that you made the owner aware, is good and it's done more times than you think on news channels.
For instance, whenever there's a flood or an hurricane etc, the vast majority of those contents is downloaded from either YouTube or Facebook or Twitter etc.
Of course, there are always those sent via email to the various news channels (including our), but it will never be the same compared to the ones available on the web...
In the end, it should really come down to the individuals to do the right thing...

[filler56789]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

According to the user sophisticles@videohelp-dot-com:
The courts in the U.S. have ruled that source code is protected free speech:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1342657?seq=1

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech

Keep on eye on this one folks, I expect the EFF to jump on this soon.

In the mean time, as a practical matter, the DMCA is American law, that has not bearing on what is done in any other country,
look at the Pirate Bay, they tried every single way they could to take it down and not only is it still alive and well
but there are so many torrent sites it's impossible to keep track of them all.

This is an example of the RIAA going after low hanging fruit, they go after some guy on GitHub because they figure he doesn't have the ability to fight back,
but they don't go after Google because Google will wrestle them to the ground and beat them over the head with the DMCA.

[Asmodian]

youtube-dl source code doesn't violate copyright, people violate copyright.

[Richard1485]

Stopping apes from copying is bad.

[Ghitulescu]

Content creators own their materials. You have no right to it unless they grant it to you. Grow up!

We, THE PEOPLE, grant this privilege to them.
In a society, everyone contributes to the COMMON welfare.
As a recognition of their part in this, we grant them the right to benefit INDIVIDUALLY.

Living in a society means everyone observe/abides the laws. If the laws are disregarded then it may be that the laws are bad. And in this case, they are - the reason why the content creators have been so generously rewarded (life + 20 yrs) was to prevent them (and the offsprings) to die in poverty as many of the acclaimed writers of the XIXth century (and early) had. No modern writer died in poverty, moreover, they get their money much much much in advance :) :). The publishers (studios) also had a 50yrs long copyright. Movies usually multiply the investment up to 50x in the first week of public display. No need for +95 yrs either.

Why artists also defend the system, and vigurously? The same way as the first liberated <use the politically corect term here> that wanted back on the plantations for they could not cope with the liberty thus obtained - not because they were unable to do, but because it involved a lot of work on a path that brough its fruits only much later. Breaking free meant for artists that they had to pack their guitar and travel around like gipsies or the middle age menestrels.

[LigH]

The takedown has been circumvented (https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/416da574ec0df3388f652e44f7fe71b1e3a4701f) by post-committing...

[wonkey_monkey]

What does "post-committing" mean in this context?

[filler56789]

The takedown has been circumvented (https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/416da574ec0df3388f652e44f7fe71b1e3a4701f) by post-committing...

Thanks for the link *THUMBS UP*

>> Q.: Is the term of protection of copyright too long?
>> A.: Yes, indeed and certainly.

source: https://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-term-of-protection-of-copyright-too.html

ALSO:

"Eternal copyrights" are the same as: I work during one day, and as a due reward I receive a nice monthly income during the next ten years. :cool: :rolleyes:
No, more like the rest of your life. Then whomever you will your copyrights to after you die. Ad infinitum.

source: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/343764-Help-Please-Help-Zero-Fee-No-Rights-Royalties-Footage-Needed%21#post2143072

[LigH]

@wonkey_monkey: I meant it as a short form of telling that a content restoring commit (but possibly without publishing as current state) was done after the repository was cropped down to the DMCA notice only. I must confess I did not completely understand how Fefe explained that in his blog in German (https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a166d093)... he is professional security auditor; I am not even an experienced user.

[filler56789]

«so the CEO of GitHub popped in #youtube-dl a few hours ago, looks like they are trying to get youtube-dl back, i hope this works out.»

source: https://twitter.com/t3rr4dice/status/1320660235363749888

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElPtSgzXIAMZmW1?format=jpg&name=large

[Zetti]

youtube-dl v2020.11.01.1 is released

https://gitlab.com/dstftw/youtube-dl/

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedl/comments/jm0pin/looks_like_there_is_a_new_release/

[SeeMoreDigital]

Are there any '.exe' compiles?

[Zetti]

Yes

Here: https://gitlab.com/dstftw/youtube-dl/-/releases and here: https://youtube-dl.org/

[SeeMoreDigital]

Many thanks :)

[filler56789]

UPDATE:

"Standing up for developers: youtube-dl is back."

https://github.blog/2020-11-16-standing-up-for-developers-youtube-dl-is-back/

[LigH]

Culprit was, of course, the German "media lobby court" (Landgericht Hamburg) claiming international jurisdiction.

[nevcairiel]

Culprit was, of course, the German "media lobby court" (Landgericht Hamburg) claiming international jurisdiction.

They never did such a thing. The RIAA just cited that judgement for whatever reason, probably because it was the only one they could find anywhere, showing how flimsy their case really was.

The DMCA is just a silly thing, when you receive one that looks at least somewhat legit you practically have no choice but to take something down, and await further clarifications. As it turns out, it was challenged, and the project returned.