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?
Copyright law only permits making copies of artistic works when you have license to do so. Youtube only permits use of content it serves in the specific situations described in its terms of service. All other use is prohibited.
In particular, the first three points in the "permissions and restrictions" section explicitly prohibit tools like youtube-dl. I've pasted these below:
The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:
1. access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as specifically permitted by the Service; (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders; or (c) as permitted by applicable law;
2. circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage, or otherwise interfere with the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that: (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content; or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
3. access the Service using any automated means (such as robots, botnets or scrapers) except: (a) in the case of public search engines, in accordance with YouTube’s robots.txt file; (b) with YouTube’s prior written permission; or (c) as permitted by applicable law;
As a convenient figleaf, it is also possible to use youtube-dl for some purposes that are not dubious. Of the people I know who use the tool, none of them do that.
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?
Copyright law only permits making copies of artistic works when you have license to do so. Youtube only permits use of content it serves in the specific situations described in its terms of service. All other use is prohibited.
You can see the terms of service here:
https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms
In particular, the first three points in the "permissions and restrictions" section explicitly prohibit tools like youtube-dl. I've pasted these below:
As a convenient figleaf, it is also possible to use youtube-dl for some purposes that are not dubious. Of the people I know who use the tool, none of them do that.
1 reply →