Why Youtube-dl?

"G.F." ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Hi all,
I read that people here suggest Youtube-dl to download videos, but
Youtube-dl is a command line program, therefore it may be uncomfortable.
Why nobody suggests a more comfortable one?

Youtube-dl no longer available. RIP

"G.F." ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Youtube-dl no longer available. RIP

And the one we already have no longer works as Youtube has once again
changed the way to read its videos.
RIP again.

"G.F." wrote

| Youtube-dl no longer available. RIP
|

You should figre out what you're talking about before
you post. I just downloaded the new version this morning.
There's a "dust up" about the RIAA demanding github take
down the source code. MS, the owner, complied and is
also an RIAA member. Others have posted the source code
elsewhere. None of that has anything to do with youtube-dl.org,
where the download links are for the program.

The whole thing is controversial because youtube-dl helps
people to bypass obstacles to get files online. On the other
hand, those files are not encrypted or restricted. Your browser
has to download the file to play it. The only difference is that
your browser starts to play it as it downloads and then deletes
the actual file when it's done, which makes it appear to be a
broadcast. But it's not a broadcast. Like everything else
online, videos are files that are free for the taking and are
downloaded. All youtube-dl does is to process the webpage
code as a browser would and then download instead of
streaming. So it's a bit of a stretch for the RIAA to claim
it's illegal usage. But they'll keep trying.

"Mayayana" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

You should figre out what you're talking about before
you post. I just downloaded the new version this morning.

I tried two hours ago: no download of video, no update of the program.

GF

On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 at 17:47:59, G.F. wrote:
"Mayayana" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

You should figre out what you're talking about before
you post. I just downloaded the new version this morning.

I tried two hours ago: no download of video, no update of the program.

GF


I ran "youtube-dl -U" around 16:20 GMT (about 40 minutes ago), and it
updated itself to version 2020.11.01.1 .
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Mike Jackson |\ _,,,---,,_
and Squeak /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Shame there's no snooze button
[1998] |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'- on a cat who wants breakfast
zzz '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

"G.F." ha scritto nel messaggio
...

I tried two hours ago: no download of video, no update of the program.

C:\Xyoutube-dl -s -F "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA"
[youtube] pAgnJDJN4VA: Downloading webpage
[youtube] pAgnJDJN4VA: Downloading embed webpage
ERROR: Unable to extract JS player URL; please report this issue
on https://yt-dl.org/bug . Make sure you are using the latest version;
type youtube-dl -U to update. Be sure to call youtube-dl with
the --verbose flag and include its complete output.

C:\Xyoutube-dl -U
ERROR: can't find the current version. Please try again later.

"G.F." wrote

|
| C:\Xyoutube-dl -U
| ERROR: can't find the current version. Please try again later.
|

Why didn't you just go to the website? The link
I got redirected to "gitlab", so that might explain the
error. I don't know. But I checked the checksum and
it matches.

There are still some youtube videos that won't
work, though. I ran across one this morning that
showed an error of unable to extract video in both
old and new youtube-dl.

"G.F." ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Youtube-dl no longer available

And the one we already have no longer works as Youtube has once again
changed the way to read its videos.

I tried two hours ago: no download of video, no update of the program

I solved the matter: I simply manually downloaded the new version of the
program from the website where I got the previous version. It works now.
Sorry but it wasn't my fault as I believe I have acted correctly, in good
faith.

G.F. wrote:
"G.F." ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Youtube-dl no longer available

And the one we already have no longer works as Youtube has once again
changed the way to read its videos.

I tried two hours ago: no download of video, no update of the program

I solved the matter: I simply manually downloaded the new version of the
program from the website where I got the previous version. It works now.
Sorry but it wasn't my fault as I believe I have acted correctly, in good
faith.

The important thing is, it worked, and it's dated Nov.1 .

It will have as many bugs and issues as it always has,
because the target is a moving target and the game playing
never stops.

It means the status quo has returned.

Paul

On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 10:04:57 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"G.F." wrote

| Youtube-dl no longer available. RIP
|

You should figre out what you're talking about before
you post. I just downloaded the new version this morning.
There's a "dust up" about the RIAA demanding github take
down the source code. MS, the owner, complied and is
also an RIAA member. Others have posted the source code
elsewhere. None of that has anything to do with youtube-dl.org,
where the download links are for the program.

The whole thing is controversial because youtube-dl helps
people to bypass obstacles to get files online. On the other
hand, those files are not encrypted or restricted. Your browser
has to download the file to play it. The only difference is that
your browser starts to play it as it downloads and then deletes
the actual file when it's done, which makes it appear to be a
broadcast. But it's not a broadcast. Like everything else
online, videos are files that are free for the taking and are
downloaded. All youtube-dl does is to process the webpage
code as a browser would and then download instead of
streaming. So it's a bit of a stretch for the RIAA to claim
it's illegal usage. But they'll keep trying.


I think they are mad because when you download a You Tube, you don't
get the commercials.

wrote

| I think they are mad because when you download a You Tube, you don't
| get the commercials.

Yes. For a long time I didn't even know that some of
them had ads. When I tried to watch some on a Raspberry
Pi using Firefox it wasn't worth the trouble. And since I
disable script, the youtube website is completely broken for
me normally. I see nothing. Yet only 2-3 years ago it worked
fine. (I'm still not sure how widespread ads are. There don't
seem to be ads in many things I'm interested in, such as
videos put out by academics, when I watch them on the
Pi with "civilian" browser configuration.)

But I think the
really insidious aspect of this is the attempt, which has been
going on for a long time, to train the public that the Internet
is a broadcast that they have no control over. It's like the
conversion of the town common to a shopping mall. Websites
are now private venues where you're supposed to buy stuff.
Aside from a few heroes likes Craig Newmark of Craigslist, it's
all going commercial.

It didn't matter so much back when the whole thing was an
experiment and no one was making money. Then the big
challenge was to just make webpages work. But now that
it's becoming a venue for corporate profits they want to be
able to spell out the terms. I've seen similar shennanigans on
news sites and others. They want to force you to download
a javascript software program that will dynamically spy, collect
data, and insert ads. And they want people to believe that's
actually a broadcast of a new type of interactive, kiosk TV.

As someone who disables script I see a lot of experimentation
going on. Forbes.com completely broke at one point. They started
putting the HTML inside javascript functions. A lot of sites have
been experimenting with that. There's no page unless you run
the script! But then Forbes reversed course. Now their site
is semi-accessible. WashPo works fine for me, except that once
a week I get a blank page. (It's actually a "please pay us" page,
but I can't see it without script. NPR.org, allegedly non-profit,
does similar. Wired.com seems to try something completely
new every few months. More and more sites have done things
like covering links with invisible DIVs so they won't work, or
covering the page with an opaque DIV. The idea used to be
that a page should work as well as possible in as many browsers
as possible. But now it's reversed: A page should be as broken
as possible unless the visitor yields to script and spying. I've
ended up with a CSS toggle button and lots of custom settings in
usercontent.css, just to be able to make my daily rounds of
news reading.

Mayayana wrote:

But now it's reversed: A page should be as broken
as possible unless the visitor yields to script and spying.

Sadly, it doesn't matter what you do on your end.

They just don't care.

The web page can break 20 different ways, and as
long as they can suck packets out of your browser
"proving" you saw a bogus ad impression, their job
is done. I can have floating junk attack an article
on three sides, leaving a tiny square where the content
is located.

The design intent, is to keep you interested for
long enough, so the ad impression registers. If
you "get out of there" fast enough, they don't
make any money off you.

I have developed ninja-like reflexes for that "X"
up in the corner. It's like Gunfight At The OK Corral.
"Draw, sucker!". You can practice shooting at the "X".

Paul

"Paul" wrote

| The web page can break 20 different ways, and as
| long as they can suck packets out of your browser
| "proving" you saw a bogus ad impression, their job
| is done.

Yes. That's another issue. Using any old content to host
ads. I'm even seeing news headlines that lead to pages
where you have to follow another link to see the story.

But what I'm dealing with is different. I don't enable
script. They get no ads on me. But they're trying to
design their pages not to work without script. Not, "Sorry,
we need to use script." More like, "How can we make the
page unusable without script?"

On Mon, 02 Nov 2020 14:34:24 -0500, Paul
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

But now it's reversed: A page should be as broken
as possible unless the visitor yields to script and spying.

Sadly, it doesn't matter what you do on your end.

They just don't care.

The web page can break 20 different ways, and as
long as they can suck packets out of your browser
"proving" you saw a bogus ad impression, their job
is done. I can have floating junk attack an article
on three sides, leaving a tiny square where the content
is located.

The design intent, is to keep you interested for
long enough, so the ad impression registers. If
you "get out of there" fast enough, they don't
make any money off you.

I have developed ninja-like reflexes for that "X"
up in the corner. It's like Gunfight At The OK Corral.
"Draw, sucker!". You can practice shooting at the "X".

Paul

Since that "X" might really link to anything I wonder some times how
safe it is to click it.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:22:06 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Paul" wrote

| The web page can break 20 different ways, and as
| long as they can suck packets out of your browser
| "proving" you saw a bogus ad impression, their job
| is done.

Yes. That's another issue. Using any old content to host
ads. I'm even seeing news headlines that lead to pages
where you have to follow another link to see the story.

But what I'm dealing with is different. I don't enable
script. They get no ads on me. But they're trying to
design their pages not to work without script. Not, "Sorry,
we need to use script." More like, "How can we make the
page unusable without script?"


I think the worst are those click bait stories that show up on Yahoo
or Facebook. Some will dribble a 500 word article across 15 or 20
pages and sometimes when they present the page, as soon as you put the
cursor on the "Next" button , it shifts up or down so while you think
you are clicking the "Next" button, you end up clicking the ad above
or below it. You have to hover there and wait for the shift.
I just avoid reading that crap in the first place most of the time.