- This topic has 22 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated Nov 8-7:10 pm by ModdIt.
-
Posts
-
ModdIt
Bach is mot complaining, he has been dead ages.
Piracy can also be defined as robbing the world by claiming rights to works of persons who died a
century or more ago.I do not download or condone downloads from YT by the way.
Quality is crap,the original rubbish from the so called content industry mostly same.
If i want to see something I hire or purchase second hand…flyntstone
Did you already try
First purge youtube-dl then do apt clean apt autoremove then
sudo wget https://yt-dl.org/downloads/latest/youtube-dl -O /usr/local/bin/youtube-dl
sudo chmod a+rx /usr/local/bin/youtube-dlWell, I tried this:
$ sudo apt-get –purge remove youtube-dl
[sudo] password for demo:
Reading package lists… Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information… Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
youtube-dl*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 234 not upgraded.
After this operation, 5,819 kB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] y
(Reading database … 150674 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing youtube-dl (2020.03.01-1~antix) …
Processing triggers for man-db (2.8.5-2) …
(Reading database … 149852 files and directories currently installed.)
Purging configuration files for youtube-dl (2020.03.01-1~antix) …
dpkg: warning: while removing youtube-dl, directory ‘/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/youtube_dl/postprocessor’ not empty so not removed
dpkg: warning: while removing youtube-dl, directory ‘/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/youtube_dl/extractor’ not empty so not removed
dpkg: warning: while removing youtube-dl, directory ‘/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/youtube_dl/downloader’ not empty so not removeddemo@antix1:~
$ sudo apt-get clean
$ sudo apt-get autoremove
Reading package lists… Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information… Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 234 not upgraded.$ sudo wget https://yt-dl.org/downloads/latest/youtube-dl -O /usr/local/bin/youtube-dl
[sudo] password for demo:
–2020-11-07 10:00:19– https://yt-dl.org/downloads/latest/youtube-dl
Resolving yt-dl.org (yt-dl.org)… 2001:1a50:11:0:5f:8f:acaa:177, 95.143.172.170
Connecting to yt-dl.org (yt-dl.org)|2001:1a50:11:0:5f:8f:acaa:177|:443… connected.
ERROR: The certificate of ‘yt-dl.org’ is not trusted.
ERROR: The certificate of ‘yt-dl.org’ has expired.
Xecure
anticapitalista updated the version to one of the most recent releases some days ago.
$ apt policy youtube-dl youtube-dl: Installed: 2020.11.01.1-1.0antix1 Candidate: 2020.11.01.1-1.0antix1antiX Live system enthusiast.
General Live Boot Parameters for antiX.Anonymous
Well, I tried this:
$ sudo apt-get –purge remove youtube-dl[..]
$ sudo wget https://yt-dl.org/downloads/latest/youtube-dl -O /usr/local/bin/youtube-dl
So am I right in saying that you are trying to download The Best of Bach. Are you aware that this is a commercial video that is not free and is for sale also embedded. This would be looked at as PIRACY.
And you are asking why youtube is attacking youtube-dl. People like you is why.
Well, I felt rather insulted by your pigeon-holing comment, so I got to thinking. I wanted to keep this concise because we are off-topic, but it is not really.
Do I have the right to own a computing device with various forms of memory on it? Yes.
Do I have the right to acquire data without hacking other’s systems? That is, do I have the right to acquire freely available data on my system? I think so.
The copyright owner has already freely allowed me to acquire this information. The data *must* be stored in memory before it can be played locally. This is a technological given. I assert that other entities have *no right* to dictate my software implementation. Actually, I wonder why youtube does not slow the stream more to make downloads slower to and penalize me for not watching their ads. But fundamentally, why should I be forced to not store information that is already on my own machine? Or why aren’t they forcing me to get a subscription to download fast? I get the feeling they want us to argue.I simply wanted to get offline temporarily for security reasons. It is true that I can play it now when I like, but that was still true (with light ads) when I was online. I worry about artists, and I want them to get paid. I am not sharing the file. I am not hacking their system. I am not somehow acquiring a free HD version, if any. I am merely listening offline to data that was already allowed to exist on my system. I do not think anyone has the right to force me to make my system memory volatile or temporary. I am currently paying for Google Music which is going away for Youtube Music. (They have been a pain in the ass with “app passwords” and required plugins not working on Windows, so my $$ are somewhat wasted.) I find the corporate position rather hypocritical for the reason given above that they have allowed me to copy data to my system memory and then said that I have no write to copy the data. Saying that they somehow have a right over how information moves around in tech that I own seems repugnant to me. I recently did some research into the history of patent law. Surprisingly, I find that some of the Founders were not only not keen on patent law, but not keen on copyright law either. This is an old discussion. They allowed laws around these things, but preferred a more generous approach. I think we have too many lawyers. Perhaps I will buy the work at some point when I feel like I can do so financially. For now, I find it a stretch to find a moral wrong here. You may be determined to think ill of me.
Again from LegalBeagle:
‘However, there is fine print to even this clause. The RIAA website states, “There’s no legal ‘right’ to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of the CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as the copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own (and) the copy is just for your personal use.”‘This passage sounds pretty harsh, until you consider that I have an authorized free copy on my system that was “streamed” to me. I suppose this has all been hashed out by others, but what was the conclusion? I find a resounding silence online (maybe I’m not looking in the right place). I am not inclined to feel bad about myself for using a different tool to control my personal experience of content that is freely streamed (by the legal owner, presumably).
I have another view on why YouTube is attacking youtube-dl at this moment. You may not have noticed the very credible (non-big tech) journalistic sources reporting that the incumbent US President was receiving winning momentum in the swing States — in fact was getting ready to celebrate. Then these States suddenly stopped counting and are now denying access to Republican inspectors. Meanwhile big tech corp “news” is announcing wins for Biden.
(E.g.,
)
Now, I am not an expert in the reach of youtube-dl, but you can see from the links given earlier that journalists are selectively affected which is curiously negative timing during the information war (you might have noticed the world is having one).Now, you have flipped the “verbose” flag (that was a joke). I will do my best to forgive you (not a joke).
- This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by caprea. Reason: shrinked video
@skidoo,
thanks, you are right to point out security issues.
Downloading directly from dev sites is very common, for some software no other way.User is as responsible for his computer and checking before installing
as he is for how he uses the internet.Personaly I think google is against youtube dl because they can not cash in on
live auctioning ads which are a pain in the rear on yt lately.My clear suggestion was: If i want to see something I hire or purchase second hand…
At least that way I get some semblance of sound quality and not a distorted mess.I posted that because:
visiting the mentioned URL in browser, I met a HTTP302 redirect.
At the redirected destination, the web browser popped a prompt to download (Save) a “bin” file.
What!?!
The youtube-dl “program” is a set of python scripts.Possibly, the dowload server is ignoring, or is blind to, a requestor’s operating system
(per http-user-agent string within the web browser’s request header)
and is serving a “.exe” self-extracting executable intended for winOS users…
or
(perhaps unknown to the project maintainer) the expected file has been replaced by malware on the hosting serverWhen I posted, I had just tabbed away from reading, moments earlier
a same-day discussion about linux malware, questioning “How do the attackers get onto the affected devices?” Aha, seeding the malware from a hacked youtube-dl download server would be a glorious (effective, widespread, and ironic) ploy, eh?Hi skidoo,
when I looked before posting that did not happen, my os as shown by browser is mac.
Is yours maybe win.Today the download link brought up a DCMA takedown notice.
Go back to a very few years ago:
“How do the attackers get onto the affected devices?”
In the company I used to work for freebie usb sticks with Logo were main ploy. Many came from Aero
trade fairs. In Malaysia loads were about in repair stations, some labeled GE aviation, some EA.
That is Engine Alliance.Anyone plugging a USB stick in to a client was invited for a nice little talk.
Happened in engineering office where I worked. Fun stuff. Our new thin clients ran linux.
When we got them I watched the boot sequence.I could get in to console, keyed in root, root, had a look at root directory then went for a walk to
the office block for a quiet talk. More than 400 clients were on default root pwd. –
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
