If you cite a price that high for bulk data then if you get an answer of "no" it won't prove anything. Try asking about a competitive price.
For ballpark numbers, youtube dedicates 1200kbps to 1080p videos in VP9. Let's say we have a 10 minute video with an RPM of $3.
We can arrange a CDN to deliver files at $0.005 per GB without even putting effort into it. And that's at a super low scale. The price drops a lot from there as things get bigger. So I'll use that number, and note that it's being generous to google.
So that's 0.3 cents of revenue per watch, which is 90MB of data that would cost .045 cents to deliver.
One view would pay for about 7 downloads. And how many downloads are we likely to see? Probably under 10% of viewers.
There's a difference between combatting entitlement to a platform and complaining about something not serving a greater good. Leftists are also censored either way. Those companies censor or don't censor according to what would maximize profit.
Monetization and reach are probably mutually exclusive with freedom.
That's... quite a response in defense of a tool intended for breaching TOS and performing copyright infringement. Can you clarify exactly who it is and isn't OK to steal from, again? I'm struggling here.
> As a matter of policy (as well as legality), youtube-dl does not include support for services that specialize in infringing copyright. As a rule of thumb, if you cannot easily find a video that the service is quite obviously allowed to distribute (i.e. that has been uploaded by the creator, the creator's distributor, or is published under a free license), the service is probably unfit for inclusion to youtube-dl.
Does using a different User Agent instead of a typical browser amount to copyright infringement in any jurisdiction?
Many channels would be more than happy to enable download options, if possible.
Hell, how is Creative Commons licence they totally give you option to select, work in case of videos that can't be downloaded in any way?
But would the channel owner be happy to enable download options if $0.09 per GB downloaded was subtracted from their ad revenue?
If you cite a price that high for bulk data then if you get an answer of "no" it won't prove anything. Try asking about a competitive price.
For ballpark numbers, youtube dedicates 1200kbps to 1080p videos in VP9. Let's say we have a 10 minute video with an RPM of $3.
We can arrange a CDN to deliver files at $0.005 per GB without even putting effort into it. And that's at a super low scale. The price drops a lot from there as things get bigger. So I'll use that number, and note that it's being generous to google.
So that's 0.3 cents of revenue per watch, which is 90MB of data that would cost .045 cents to deliver.
One view would pay for about 7 downloads. And how many downloads are we likely to see? Probably under 10% of viewers.
I'd turn that option on.
They've also chosen to be a monopoly.
Just because they have the right to do it doesn't make it right.
it’s sort of an extension of the state / surveillance
There's a difference between combatting entitlement to a platform and complaining about something not serving a greater good. Leftists are also censored either way. Those companies censor or don't censor according to what would maximize profit. Monetization and reach are probably mutually exclusive with freedom.
> you also think billionares should be taxed more
That's... quite a response in defense of a tool intended for breaching TOS and performing copyright infringement. Can you clarify exactly who it is and isn't OK to steal from, again? I'm struggling here.
> As a matter of policy (as well as legality), youtube-dl does not include support for services that specialize in infringing copyright. As a rule of thumb, if you cannot easily find a video that the service is quite obviously allowed to distribute (i.e. that has been uploaded by the creator, the creator's distributor, or is published under a free license), the service is probably unfit for inclusion to youtube-dl.
Does using a different User Agent instead of a typical browser amount to copyright infringement in any jurisdiction?
2 replies →
It's their platform but it's also a web site and that comes with certain expectations of interoperability.