I’m confused by their obsession with youtube-dl. I don’t really know anyone that pirates music, seems like streaming has really solved that with ad-supported listening. The common cases for using youtube-dl, as I understand, is for archival (mostly non-music), watching videos content out of the browser (also mostly non-music), and derivative works purposes.
It's about control. As a user agent, youtube-dl acts in our behalf in order to do what we want and protect our interests. That's why they hate it. It's the antithesis of everything they want: something that acts on their behalf, does what they want and protects their interests.
If something gives us any power at all, they'll sue it into oblivion.
They do things like this and then turn around and say "X will destroy the recording industry" and are surprised when voters start wondering why it's taking so long and asking if there are any legislative changes or tax incentives that could be used to assist X in its meritorious endeavor.
Don‘t forget that many countries don‘t have spotify or any other streaming service.
These are countries with much lower GDPs, where buying a song for .99 is not an option.
Music is culture and important. Yes, it is important to be paid for your music, but it is more important for music to be heard. Piracy should live. Fuck the labels, fuck the whole music industry creating plastic „art“ that has no meaning whatsoever.
Let‘s make art, not money.
> I don’t really know anyone that pirates music, seems like streaming has really solved that with ad-supported listening.
Someone's told them that "X million songs per year" are downloaded via youtube-dl. They get $Y in royalties per thousand views, and they have some number Z which is the average number of times an individual will listen to a song. There's been a boardroom meeting where these numbers have been presented as "X million songs per year are being pirated, costing us X * $Y * Z / 1000 per year, THIS must STOP!"
Streaming has largely defeated torrents, but anti-piracy people in the record companies want to preserve their jobs. So they've invented a bogeyman of massive stream-ripping going on amongst young people.
I'm running what basically a prepaid SIM, meaning I don't use mobile data. Thus I do use yt-dlp/youtube-dl to download music so that I can listen to it offline. I'm actually quite proud by the system I've set up.
I've got a playlist called music into which I add music. ^^
On my mobile phone I've got Termux with an add-on that allows you to add widgets that run custom code.
I've written a simple script ( yt-dlp -P ~/storage/shared/Music -i -o "%(title)s.%(ext)s" --no-restrict-filenames --download-archive ~/music_archive.txt -x --audio-quality 0 <link to the playlist> ). Which is ran whenever I press on the widget. I could use crontab, but since I don't add music that often, I prefer to do it manually. ( The -o is for file name, normally the file would have the same name as the source, but for unknown reason so of my files' names for restricted to ~40 chars, doing it the way you see above solves the issue).
Before this system I used to have a similar script on my PC and crontab running it. The script downloaded music into Google Drive and on the mobile phone I had a program that would sync that folder with music to the phones music folder.
But the current system is far superior, for one it doesn't fill up my Google Drive and secondly it doesn't require multiple devices to work.
Being able to use a terminal on my phone makes me really happy! ^^
youtube-dl is what makes most youtube music ripping sites function. Which are widely used by people who aren't paying for music streaming subscriptions.
I just assume they are about 5+ years behind most of the population because in this kind of media stuff I tend to be about 4 years behind the population and a little over a year ago I decided ah, this using youtube-dl to download music etc. and rip it with ffmpeg and save it to my iphone is sort of a hassle I guess I will get that damn spotify membership like everyone else.
I mean obviously I am not the last person to make this decision, but I have a feeling that the population yet to do so are vanishingly small.
I use youtube-dl to download Cracking the Cryptic videos. The RIAA does not own those videos. In fact there are quite a few videos on youtube the RIAA doesn't own.
To me, it sounds like music industry execs are not familiar with the Streisand effect. The first time I became familiar with Youtube-dl, it was during the Github DMCA PR fiasco. The number of stars for Youtube-dl increased sharply as soon as MS reviewed the decision and let them back online.
> music industry execs are not familiar with the Streisand effect
The Streisand Effect didn't save Napster or Popcorn Time. It could only save these people from the RIAA if they actually made enough money to fight the lawsuits and win.
Will the music industry sue the 1978 me, with the tape recorder right next to the radio, and me holding the "record" button to catch my favorite songs (along with the banter leading right up to the first lyrics)?
Short answer: yes, the music industry (and similar media industries) has historically fought tooth and nail against any technology that allows anyone to consume content in any way not directly controlled and monetized by the music industry. There's a well-documented history of media industries fighting against "time shifting."
No because that is not a loss-less copy. The quality is severely affect and that amount of damage you can potentially do to sales is minimal. EDIT: Completely forgot about the "tax" on blank media and tape records.
Anyway, if they didn't want people to be able to copy their stuff, then they shouldn't have put it on YouTube. The music industry is being as dumb as they ever where, it's fascinating that they've learned NOTHING in the past twenty years. How much money can they possibly lose on youtube-dl vs. how much money they continue the scam out of artists.
At this point who doesn't have a subscription to a streaming service? Those who don't where never going to pay anyway. They aren't losing money.
I would've preferred submitting the article by netzpolitik.org [1] where I first encountered these news but as far as I am aware HN submission are required to be in english.
I seriously doubt that this would be an issue at all if they believed it ended at "they kept it". They think youtube-dl (and similar programs) are enabling people to share these files widely, not just to save them.
Damn. I probably need to up my monthly fee for my different projects I host with them.
For more than 12 years now I host my web projects (nearly) exclusively with them. I really enjoy the way they are setup and structured.
You pay what 10GB of hosting is worth to you (min 1 Euro). Shared hosting without sudo. Great user support. Really helpful and real knowledgeable people actually trying to help.
I can't recommend them enough.
When I started I couldn't afford to pay more than a few bucks a month. Now using them professionally and hosting client projects there I can support them by paying more per month.
Sadly having to fight in the Hamburg doesn't help. In Germany the Hamburg court is known for their pro music industry stance.
Youtube-DL has been an incredible tool for a very long time. I have never used it for music, but I have used it for countless educational videos that I intended to use while on a subway or a transcontinental flight.
The experience of consuming media via an offline software is just infinitely better for my focus.
I would rather see Youtube die than Youtube-DL. Youtube-DL has a lot of use cases.
The more they are obsessed with taking down youtube-dl, the more they advertise it and let other people know that it exists, the more I feel like I'm doing the right thing using it on a daily basis.
Seriously, we're talking of a tool whose purpose is to download publicly available videos. What's the big deal? It's not even used for music piracy, for God's sake. I've never seen anyone download their favourite album from YouTube videos and use ffmpeg to extract the mp3s. Most of the folks just use Spotify.
So what's the big deal? That if we use youtube-dl then we don't see ads and we don't get tracked? Oohh, actually that's the whole fcking point, you know? youtube-dl pisses lots of people in the majors not because it's used to illegally download musical content (I'm pretty sure that's only an insignificant fraction of its usage), but because it hurts their "new" way of doing revenue: ads, tracking, and more ads.
And you know what? I'm more than happy to hurt such a shtty way of doing revenue!
Why is that streamers and videos on youtube can't play music but xxx web cam models are allowed to? I really don't understand it. Every cam model plays whatever their heart desires.
Might not be the best place to ask this, but its something I wonder about a lot.
At the same time, "music industry" has the worst behavior in total impunity:
Like, for example, how at the beginning of January 2022, Sony Music Entertainment had got ALL the legitimate Youtube videos of the Vienna New Year's Concert forbidden to stream in Japan...
This is yet another example of abuse of the fact that Youtube, confronted with a copyright infringement report, will first just block the reported video, and only after that will consider appeals...
So now all these videos are allowed again. (took several weeks)
"With the software, which is available on the code sharing platform Github, YouTube videos and music files can be downloaded without a web browser."
I could argue that the software is a web browser, admittedly one tailored around a specific use case.
I feel the music industry has to do a better job explaining how downloading a youtude video via the youtube-dl user agent is different than downloading the same video via the firefox user agent.
Interesting, I recommended somebody to take a look at Uberspace just yesterday. I can't personally vouch for them because I haven't had a project fitting the profile, but they seem extremely nice mostly partly due to their pricing structure.
YouTube really somehow reacts to the use of third-party utilities for viewing video. Recently noticed that youtube-dl and vlc downloaded video stream with long delays. Stream receiving rate never exceeded 50-60 kbit/sec. One of the youtube-dl forks somehow bypasses this limitation
Good, let the Streisand effect flow through them.I encourage people to host youtube-dl(& it's forks) on GH, Gitlab and things like IPFS.
A tool is not piracy.This is not even an argument, let alone a stupid one ,alongside the idiocy of one who believes it.The web already becomes cancerous enough with DRM [Ex: Try installing a FOSS-only system, let's say fedora + librewolf and try playing anything w/o installing flash or drm plugins].
[+] [-] samtheprogram|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|4 years ago|reply
If something gives us any power at all, they'll sue it into oblivion.
[+] [-] jasode|4 years ago|reply
Even though videos are the main content, Youtube is also the #1 website in the world for streaming music:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-did-youtu...
https://musically.com/2021/03/22/surprise-youtube-is-the-mos...
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endofreach|4 years ago|reply
Music is culture and important. Yes, it is important to be paid for your music, but it is more important for music to be heard. Piracy should live. Fuck the labels, fuck the whole music industry creating plastic „art“ that has no meaning whatsoever. Let‘s make art, not money.
[+] [-] taneq|4 years ago|reply
Someone's told them that "X million songs per year" are downloaded via youtube-dl. They get $Y in royalties per thousand views, and they have some number Z which is the average number of times an individual will listen to a song. There's been a boardroom meeting where these numbers have been presented as "X million songs per year are being pirated, costing us X * $Y * Z / 1000 per year, THIS must STOP!"
[+] [-] davidgerard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeeMassive|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitwit005|4 years ago|reply
Honestly, they're probably targeting it because it's easy to find with the Google searches they're trying.
[+] [-] LoveMortuus|4 years ago|reply
I've got a playlist called music into which I add music. ^^
On my mobile phone I've got Termux with an add-on that allows you to add widgets that run custom code.
I've written a simple script ( yt-dlp -P ~/storage/shared/Music -i -o "%(title)s.%(ext)s" --no-restrict-filenames --download-archive ~/music_archive.txt -x --audio-quality 0 <link to the playlist> ). Which is ran whenever I press on the widget. I could use crontab, but since I don't add music that often, I prefer to do it manually. ( The -o is for file name, normally the file would have the same name as the source, but for unknown reason so of my files' names for restricted to ~40 chars, doing it the way you see above solves the issue).
Before this system I used to have a similar script on my PC and crontab running it. The script downloaded music into Google Drive and on the mobile phone I had a program that would sync that folder with music to the phones music folder.
But the current system is far superior, for one it doesn't fill up my Google Drive and secondly it doesn't require multiple devices to work.
Being able to use a terminal on my phone makes me really happy! ^^
[+] [-] chaos_a|4 years ago|reply
ex: https://github.com/Rudloff/alltube
[+] [-] biztos|4 years ago|reply
It works very well with many non-YouTube sites, especially ones hosting “adult” videos.
I assume porn is the most common case, but archiving Stanford lectures might well be second.
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|4 years ago|reply
I mean obviously I am not the last person to make this decision, but I have a feeling that the population yet to do so are vanishingly small.
[+] [-] grishka|4 years ago|reply
I do. And I pirate it myself. Though many people around me did get Spotify when it launched here recently.
[+] [-] shaan7|4 years ago|reply
My choice is usually to just reboot to Windows, fire up iTunes, buy the songs I want and listen to them DRM free. The only Apple product that I use xD
[+] [-] howdydoo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeeZ|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheeze|4 years ago|reply
Not saying that I agree with them, but "I use it for a legit purpose" doesn't mean they are going to act sensibly.
[+] [-] ILMostro7|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mastazi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smt88|4 years ago|reply
The Streisand Effect didn't save Napster or Popcorn Time. It could only save these people from the RIAA if they actually made enough money to fight the lawsuits and win.
[+] [-] victor9000|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smm11|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belter|4 years ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/21/arts/issue-and-debate-roy...
[+] [-] standardUser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tshaddox|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrweasel|4 years ago|reply
Anyway, if they didn't want people to be able to copy their stuff, then they shouldn't have put it on YouTube. The music industry is being as dumb as they ever where, it's fascinating that they've learned NOTHING in the past twenty years. How much money can they possibly lose on youtube-dl vs. how much money they continue the scam out of artists.
At this point who doesn't have a subscription to a streaming service? Those who don't where never going to pay anyway. They aren't losing money.
[+] [-] grishka|4 years ago|reply
/s
[+] [-] agumonkey|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2pEXgD0fZ5cF|4 years ago|reply
[1]: https://netzpolitik.org/2022/urheberrecht-musikindustrie-ver...
[+] [-] ILMostro7|4 years ago|reply
Sorry, couldn't resist.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|4 years ago|reply
English is the Lingua Franca of the tech world.
[+] [-] jvanderbot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nightfly|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smt88|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdoering|4 years ago|reply
For more than 12 years now I host my web projects (nearly) exclusively with them. I really enjoy the way they are setup and structured.
You pay what 10GB of hosting is worth to you (min 1 Euro). Shared hosting without sudo. Great user support. Really helpful and real knowledgeable people actually trying to help.
I can't recommend them enough.
When I started I couldn't afford to pay more than a few bucks a month. Now using them professionally and hosting client projects there I can support them by paying more per month.
Sadly having to fight in the Hamburg doesn't help. In Germany the Hamburg court is known for their pro music industry stance.
[+] [-] champagnois|4 years ago|reply
The experience of consuming media via an offline software is just infinitely better for my focus.
I would rather see Youtube die than Youtube-DL. Youtube-DL has a lot of use cases.
[+] [-] blacklight|4 years ago|reply
Seriously, we're talking of a tool whose purpose is to download publicly available videos. What's the big deal? It's not even used for music piracy, for God's sake. I've never seen anyone download their favourite album from YouTube videos and use ffmpeg to extract the mp3s. Most of the folks just use Spotify.
So what's the big deal? That if we use youtube-dl then we don't see ads and we don't get tracked? Oohh, actually that's the whole fcking point, you know? youtube-dl pisses lots of people in the majors not because it's used to illegally download musical content (I'm pretty sure that's only an insignificant fraction of its usage), but because it hurts their "new" way of doing revenue: ads, tracking, and more ads.
And you know what? I'm more than happy to hurt such a shtty way of doing revenue!
[+] [-] nyjah|4 years ago|reply
Might not be the best place to ask this, but its something I wonder about a lot.
[+] [-] henearkr|4 years ago|reply
Like, for example, how at the beginning of January 2022, Sony Music Entertainment had got ALL the legitimate Youtube videos of the Vienna New Year's Concert forbidden to stream in Japan...
This is yet another example of abuse of the fact that Youtube, confronted with a copyright infringement report, will first just block the reported video, and only after that will consider appeals...
So now all these videos are allowed again. (took several weeks)
[+] [-] somat|4 years ago|reply
I could argue that the software is a web browser, admittedly one tailored around a specific use case.
I feel the music industry has to do a better job explaining how downloading a youtude video via the youtube-dl user agent is different than downloading the same video via the firefox user agent.
[+] [-] solarkraft|4 years ago|reply
https://uberspace.de/en/
[+] [-] rcpt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yokoprime|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crmd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] verholom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jug|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sebow|4 years ago|reply
A tool is not piracy.This is not even an argument, let alone a stupid one ,alongside the idiocy of one who believes it.The web already becomes cancerous enough with DRM [Ex: Try installing a FOSS-only system, let's say fedora + librewolf and try playing anything w/o installing flash or drm plugins].