Comment by metadat
4 years ago
Could youtube-dlp and YouTube Vanced now be hosted on.. YouTube?
I wonder how long it'd take for Google to crack down on the system abuse.
Is it really abuse if the videos are viewable / playable? Presumably the ToS either already forbids covert channel encoding or soon will.
It's one of those problems that resolves itself.
The process of creating and using the files is prohibitively unusable and so many better solutions exist that YT doesn't need to worry about it
Probably breaks TOS under video spam
Just gotta add some good 'ol steganography
This brings up an interesting question: what is the upper-bound of hidden data density using video steganography? E.g. how much extra data can you add before noticeable degradation? It's interesting because it requires both a detailed understanding of video encoding and also understanding of human perception of video.
4 replies →
Good luck preserving it through YouTube's video compression. It's super lossy with small details, in bad cases the quality can visibly degrade to a point it looks more like a corrupted low-res video file for a few seconds (saw that once in a Tetris Effect gameplay video).
1 reply →
Add a music track, it is now a psychedelic art video.
A music track in which the music happens to be FSK data disguised as chiptune.
Then how is Roel Van de Paar allowed to be on youtube?
yeah wonder how long until the ban, also bans all of your descendants for 10 generations?
If you put youtube-dlp on youtube as a video, make sure to use youtube-dlp to it up.
>Is it really abuse if the videos are viewable / playable? Presumably the ToS either already forbids covert channel encoding or soon will.
If creators start encoding their source and material into their content Google would probably be fine with that because it gives them data but also gives them context for that data.
Edit: I meant like "director's commentary" and "notes about production" type stuff like you used to see added to DVDs back in the day. Not "using youtube as my personal file storage". Why is this such an unpopular opinion?
> If creators start encoding their source material into their files Google would probably be fine with that
it'd depends, as I don't think people using YT to store files would watch a lot of adds
If creators use it like the appendix in a book I can see people watching ads on their way to it.
> If creators start encoding their source material into their files Google would probably be fine with that
Not true at all, lol. Google has a paid file storage solution. YouTube is for streaming video and that's the activity they expect on that platform. I couldn't imagine any service designed for one format would "probably be fine" with users encoding other files inside of that format.
I think the parent comment is limiting themselves to the embedding of metadata specific to the containing file. It would be like adding a single frame, but would potentially give useful information to Google. In those limited circumstances I think the parent is correct.