Newpipe/yt-dlp stops working(github.com)
github.com
Newpipe/yt-dlp stops working
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/11254
134 comments
Someone should create an "analog loophole" version of yt-dlp for Premium subscribers who want to be able to download DRM-free video. Launch Youtube in an offscreen browser with the Premium account and record the HTML element as it plays.
(I'm a Premium user and even though I'm already ad-free, I do have legitimate uses for downloading DRM-free videos for my own personal use.)
(I'm a Premium user and even though I'm already ad-free, I do have legitimate uses for downloading DRM-free videos for my own personal use.)
The browsers are open-source, so you could just make a custom build of the browser with a patch that saves the stream, which wouldn't require the analog hole.
Wouldn't the sites just not allow the content to play on a non-DRM approved browser?
There's no good way to verify that the browser hasn't been tampered with at the moment. Web Environment Integrity was an attempt, but that was withdrawn after outcry.
If they start doing that I would just run the DRM-approved browser in a virtual machine and capture its screen.
With true web DRM (like the one for Netflix but not the one for YT), that doesn't work, at least not at higher resolutions and in the most secure modes.
The video is decrypted such that your OS is prevented from ever seeing its contents, it goes straight to the GPU. If that isn't possible, the video won't play at all (or it's going to play in a less secure mode and hence at a lower resolution).
The best you can hope for is playing the video and capturing it with a physical HDMI capture card, though that loophole is eventually also going to go away as newer HDMI standards are released and better DRM gets enforced.
The video is decrypted such that your OS is prevented from ever seeing its contents, it goes straight to the GPU. If that isn't possible, the video won't play at all (or it's going to play in a less secure mode and hence at a lower resolution).
The best you can hope for is playing the video and capturing it with a physical HDMI capture card, though that loophole is eventually also going to go away as newer HDMI standards are released and better DRM gets enforced.
> newer HDMI standards are released and better DRM gets enforced
In that case the true analog loophole will still be possible with a camera pointed at a monitor inside a light-proof box. If it comes to that, I will build such a device. AI can probably fix degraded video quality pretty nicely anyway.
In that case the true analog loophole will still be possible with a camera pointed at a monitor inside a light-proof box. If it comes to that, I will build such a device. AI can probably fix degraded video quality pretty nicely anyway.
Until most people switch to VR / AR and devices refuse to play any content unless they successfully do a retinal scan.
This definitely won't happen in the next 5 years, but the next 30? I wouldn't be so sure.
This definitely won't happen in the next 5 years, but the next 30? I wouldn't be so sure.
Please drink verification can to continue
It’s sad that instead of developing new technologies to fight global problems like poverty and climate change, the best engineers in the world are working on preventing people from using their own devices however they want.
I don't work in DRM, but they are probably having their hands tied with effectively "work on this or you may not be able to stay in the US", greencard application still in the pipeline, threat of being pipped. The poverty/climate change places also don't pay enough to even live a mediocre life. Hence, the best engineers just obey orders and work on shitty things that pay the bills.
It would be great if you could possibly expand on the AI re-rendering usecases, that you mentioned before the edit. Genuinely interested on what the possibilities are.
What if the Premium user's username is watermarked in the videos?
I would caution to say that my understanding of DirecTV DRM is that GE & Hughes just outspent the hackers. Certainly there are efforts to lock down devices but so far the holes are still there. And more specifically to your point if the audience and the potential porate are the same group, it really can't ever work.
Oh there's still quite a lot of hacking TV signals, it's just been moved into IP TV hacking, for which you can even buy ready to use boxes from China that has everything configured.
Or the guy down the pub, wink wink, nudge nudge.
In the entire history of piracy nobody has meaningfully outspent the hackers.
> DRM is always broken, given enough time
This actually applies a lot less to Youtube than it does to any other service.
On other video streaming platforms, think Netflix, Max, Disney Plus etc, you have a fairly limited number of shows, each with a fairly large number of views. This means that if you break DRM, you can share your tool with a few trusted co-conspirators and only release the videos you rip, but not the tools themselves. This protects you from the platforms discovering and breaking your method.
Youtube doesn't really work like that, a lot of people who use yt-dlp and other such tools care about videos with relatively fewer views, which are unlikely to be available anywhere else. This would require any potential DRM-breakers to share their method publicly, which would make them extremely short-lived.
Good DRM algorithms nowadays aren't just some obfuscated code in a binary that you have to reverse engineer, they rely heavily on some content being decrypted in hardware. Even if you understand every single instruction in the binary, re-create a perfect open source version of it and have full read/write privileges to any part of the memory that your OS kernel can access, it's still not enough.
This actually applies a lot less to Youtube than it does to any other service.
On other video streaming platforms, think Netflix, Max, Disney Plus etc, you have a fairly limited number of shows, each with a fairly large number of views. This means that if you break DRM, you can share your tool with a few trusted co-conspirators and only release the videos you rip, but not the tools themselves. This protects you from the platforms discovering and breaking your method.
Youtube doesn't really work like that, a lot of people who use yt-dlp and other such tools care about videos with relatively fewer views, which are unlikely to be available anywhere else. This would require any potential DRM-breakers to share their method publicly, which would make them extremely short-lived.
Good DRM algorithms nowadays aren't just some obfuscated code in a binary that you have to reverse engineer, they rely heavily on some content being decrypted in hardware. Even if you understand every single instruction in the binary, re-create a perfect open source version of it and have full read/write privileges to any part of the memory that your OS kernel can access, it's still not enough.
Isin't it a problem for youtube though for the amount of devices it has to work on? If they suddenly changed all of there DRM, then a lot of things would break including various smarttv's etc.
I just won't be watching youtube at all until a workaround is found. If that doesn't happen, it was nice knowing you youtube. My guess though is that this will be fixed pretty quickly. Just like every other time Google has done this.
Do you think anybody at YouTube is concerned that you can no longer download their videos?
Download/watch/interact with in any way. I doubt they care about any one person not using their services. It's just that watching youtube using youtube.com or using their app (which I won't even install) is such a shitty experience that it isn't worth it to me. I'd rather never see another youtube video again than subject myself to it.
I doubt enough people will reach that level of fed up for it to hurt Google's profits, but that doesn't matter to me. I was happy enough to use youtube and give google my data on my own terms. If a workaround to this issue can't be found I'll be disappointed by Google's decision to cut off third party applications, but they won't be successful in trying to force me to accept their terms.
I doubt enough people will reach that level of fed up for it to hurt Google's profits, but that doesn't matter to me. I was happy enough to use youtube and give google my data on my own terms. If a workaround to this issue can't be found I'll be disappointed by Google's decision to cut off third party applications, but they won't be successful in trying to force me to accept their terms.
> I was happy enough to use youtube and give google my data on my own terms.
I don't think they're really that bothered about your data. They want to show you ads or sell you yt premium.
I don't think they're really that bothered about your data. They want to show you ads or sell you yt premium.
The thing google cares about most (after money) is your data. Youtube is just one of many places ads are shown and ads themselves are just one way to turn your data into money. Youtube ads in particular make money in part by being so obnoxious that people will pay youtube to stop the ads from getting in their way.
I have a strict policy against paying people to remove the problems they themselves created for me (AKA racketeering) so I was never going to be a youtube premium customer, but there are plenty of other opportunities to make money from my data, including through ads, even without those ads I won't tolerate on youtube. I'm not Google's preferred user, but that doesn't mean they can't still make money at my expense.
I have a strict policy against paying people to remove the problems they themselves created for me (AKA racketeering) so I was never going to be a youtube premium customer, but there are plenty of other opportunities to make money from my data, including through ads, even without those ads I won't tolerate on youtube. I'm not Google's preferred user, but that doesn't mean they can't still make money at my expense.
If I were working at YouTube, I would be at least somewhat concerned at the increasing volume of nerds unhappy about not having videos for projects like PeerTube to call upon.
For people who just follow subscriptions, not the discovery page, Youtube doesn't really have a moat. PeerTube integrated into Mastodon is a borderline existential threat.
For people who just follow subscriptions, not the discovery page, Youtube doesn't really have a moat. PeerTube integrated into Mastodon is a borderline existential threat.
> PeerTube integrated into Mastodon is a borderline existential threat.
Sorry even as a big fan of PeerTube and Mastodon this is simply delusional.
Sorry even as a big fan of PeerTube and Mastodon this is simply delusional.
of course not. i think parent comment means not accessing youtube's videos is preferable to ever visiting the bloated, tracker-infested, dark pattern rife g**gle frontends.
As someone who pays for YT, i hate it and generally can't wait to leave it permanently.
Sounds bizarre, i know. But i get _some_ value out of YT, but not the price of the sub. Worse even, is that as a paying customer i still feel like their UI is hostile and i need to modulate my behavior to fight their algoritm.
God forbid i click on a video that i don't want to see 5,000 times on my home page.
Sounds bizarre, i know. But i get _some_ value out of YT, but not the price of the sub. Worse even, is that as a paying customer i still feel like their UI is hostile and i need to modulate my behavior to fight their algoritm.
God forbid i click on a video that i don't want to see 5,000 times on my home page.
No, not really. But the longer this sort of things goes on, the more eager people there will be to jump on the next YouTube competitor. In any case, even if they don’t care, I do. And as long as a video has to be played on a screen there will be workarounds.
Probably not.
Its funny because they could probably satisfy all parties. Why not explore silent ad banners similar to during sports games broadcasts?
I'm of the opinion that applying logic to advertising is a fruitless effort. The largest and most successful companies in the world regularly waste insane sums of money on avenues of advertisement that can't even be measured.
I've sat in on meetings with marketing teams ordering hundreds of thousands of dollars of custom development work for ad campaigns with research entirely based on what I can only describe as "vibes".
They will hire psychologists to tell them that flashing the color yellow while playing a tone in C-flat increases the viewer's desire to spend money on floral scents and no one in the room will question it.
There are reasonable advertisements that would not annoy consumers, but those aren't what keep an industry of middle managers and scam artists alive.
I've sat in on meetings with marketing teams ordering hundreds of thousands of dollars of custom development work for ad campaigns with research entirely based on what I can only describe as "vibes".
They will hire psychologists to tell them that flashing the color yellow while playing a tone in C-flat increases the viewer's desire to spend money on floral scents and no one in the room will question it.
There are reasonable advertisements that would not annoy consumers, but those aren't what keep an industry of middle managers and scam artists alive.
> They will hire psychologists to tell them that flashing the color yellow while playing a tone in C-flat increases the viewer's desire to spend money on floral scents and no one in the room will question it.
Sadly some of those psychologists aren't lying or scamming. There are all kinds of weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the human brain (some universal and some cultural) that can be exploited, at least often enough for it to be worth doing.
There's an entire dark psychology industry around it and it involves human experimentation, including experiments on infants and children (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/even-3-year-old-k...), research into centuries of real world data on what tends to work well for scammers, fraudsters, preachers, cult leaders, and politicians, and the cutting edge of neuroscience.
I mean, yeah, some of it really is bullshit with very shitty science behind it, but it's easy (and tempting) to dismiss how effective and manipulative advertising is. We all want to think we're smart enough to see through it and are therefore immune, but like many optical illusions even when you know what's really going on your brain can't help but accept the lies. We're full of blind spots, cognitive biases, and hubris which is why such insane amounts of cash get pumped into ads and ad research. To an uncomfortable extent, it works.
We can arm ourselves with knowledge and critical thinking skills, but the most important thing you can do to protect yourself is to just avoid advertising wherever and whenever you can.
Sadly some of those psychologists aren't lying or scamming. There are all kinds of weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the human brain (some universal and some cultural) that can be exploited, at least often enough for it to be worth doing.
There's an entire dark psychology industry around it and it involves human experimentation, including experiments on infants and children (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/even-3-year-old-k...), research into centuries of real world data on what tends to work well for scammers, fraudsters, preachers, cult leaders, and politicians, and the cutting edge of neuroscience.
I mean, yeah, some of it really is bullshit with very shitty science behind it, but it's easy (and tempting) to dismiss how effective and manipulative advertising is. We all want to think we're smart enough to see through it and are therefore immune, but like many optical illusions even when you know what's really going on your brain can't help but accept the lies. We're full of blind spots, cognitive biases, and hubris which is why such insane amounts of cash get pumped into ads and ad research. To an uncomfortable extent, it works.
We can arm ourselves with knowledge and critical thinking skills, but the most important thing you can do to protect yourself is to just avoid advertising wherever and whenever you can.
I suspect what they will eventually do is dynamically splice ads directly into the source video when serving it, so it's just there in the mp4 data along with the video you actually want to watch.
This can be bypassed by perceptually hashing B-frames and skipping those associated to ads (or using a cheap dimensionality reduction method and rejecting dissimilar frames). This can be done without even decompressing the frame. You also don't have to do it every B-frame, you can just do it every 30 seconds and then binary search for the start and end.
If they do end up doing it, I'd love to write this, it would be a lot of fun.
If they do end up doing it, I'd love to write this, it would be a lot of fun.
They are already testing this approach on some percentage of audience.
Sponsorblock already exists.
True, and it can work... As long as the ad spots are static and not dynamically placed.
Eventually we'll have AI going through youtube videos and cutting out the ads for us before we watch them. This isn't a war that youtube can win. People who don't want to see ads won't. For me right now, that means I won't be watching youtube.
*dynamically generated!
Otherwise you could probably fingerprint ad spots and submit them into a shared database. Like musicbrainz. For dynamic blocking of static content. Acoustic ID is probably enough and it would work with podcasts too!
I hate ads so much, I would totally volunteer to make this my hobby.
Otherwise you could probably fingerprint ad spots and submit them into a shared database. Like musicbrainz. For dynamic blocking of static content. Acoustic ID is probably enough and it would work with podcasts too!
I hate ads so much, I would totally volunteer to make this my hobby.
Even then, in the download case, there's an easy fix:
download the video several times. The part that changes between versions is the ad
You'd probably throw some AI bullshit at this problem, in a race to the bottom. My hope would be for any "content creator" worth watching to be displeased with extremely low effort crap painted all over their production, so they ultimately get the message.
Advertisement simply sucks and is offensive. There is nothing to respect about any of it. People will always find ways around.
Advertisement simply sucks and is offensive. There is nothing to respect about any of it. People will always find ways around.
agree! its just not make sense to block user attention before or while watching the vids.
apparently what they are testing does move around enough to defeat sponsorblock
Surely it won’t be that hard to automatically detect and cut out parts with a sudden increase in volume and a change to the whole screen.
Problem with that is they're easy to skip
How much $ do they make for each ad? To splice in ads they'd have to re-encode on the fly no? At scale that could become painful because it raises their costs to show an ad when most people don't block them anyway.
You can splice video without re-encoding, because video compression eventually has to send a standalone frame (B-frame), so there is a facility to "reset" the current stream without affecting the rest of the video. Both videos need to be the same format, of course, and you need the beginning and end of the host video to be a B-frame (you can insert B-frames cheaply so no issues) and start the spliced clip at a B-frame as well.
You can do this with ffmpeg.
You can do this with ffmpeg.
Yep, splice on key frames. I'm ignorant on anything further than that but I assume it could be complicated on such a massive and old video repository.
> To splice in ads they'd have to re-encode on the fly no?
No. Video files on streaming services like YouTube are served as a bunch of chunks listed in a text playlist. So all they need to do is just to add a bunch of lines in the middle of a playlist.
No. Video files on streaming services like YouTube are served as a bunch of chunks listed in a text playlist. So all they need to do is just to add a bunch of lines in the middle of a playlist.
[deleted]
This will also disable a lot of caching I guess.
There is ZERO caching of YT content. Every single vidoe/audio source link your client receives is individually cryptographically signed for you (IP) and for this particular time (timestamp, expires in couple hours). Refresh the page and you receive brand new list of different links to same files.
No. The cached files will remain intact, since the "video chunks" playlist will add new items, but not change or remove the existing ones like that:
video_part0076.ts
video_part0077.ts
video_part0078.ts
ad_part0001.ts
ad_part0002.ts
video_part0079.ts
video_part0080.tsWouldn't this be trivial to defeat by pulling the playlist multiple times (maybe via a proxy to get a different IP), and only showing the chunks which did not change?
I guess they could prevent that if they randomize the part names (with some m:1 mapping on the server side). As long as you have control of your CDN, this would even not mess with caching.
I guess they could prevent that if they randomize the part names (with some m:1 mapping on the server side). As long as you have control of your CDN, this would even not mess with caching.
> Wouldn't this be trivial to defeat by pulling the playlist multiple times (maybe via a proxy to get a different IP), and only showing the chunks which did not change?
Since the YouTube marks ads, I guess pulling the playlist twice won't really be needed. YouTube's player should somehow know when the ad starts and when it ends after all.
Since the YouTube marks ads, I guess pulling the playlist twice won't really be needed. YouTube's player should somehow know when the ad starts and when it ends after all.
Good point. One could probably patch the javascript on the fly to go from unskippable ad to auto-skip....
Regarding autoskip, I have an interesting experience with it in the past.
My friend asked me to write a userscript that simulates pressing the "Skip ad" button, so he won't stain his mouse with grease while eating.
Checking if there is a "Skip ad" button every quarter of a second and invoking its click() method eliminated the video ads completely. As it turns out, the button existed alongside the 5 second countdown, just wasn't visible.
I don't know if it still works the same way today, but it felt good to accidentally make an effective adblock with five lines of code.
My friend asked me to write a userscript that simulates pressing the "Skip ad" button, so he won't stain his mouse with grease while eating.
Checking if there is a "Skip ad" button every quarter of a second and invoking its click() method eliminated the video ads completely. As it turns out, the button existed alongside the 5 second countdown, just wasn't visible.
I don't know if it still works the same way today, but it felt good to accidentally make an effective adblock with five lines of code.
Not really! The main live video technologies work by having a playlist file which is a list of URLs that updates frequently and a bunch of short video files. So the caching of the short video files would be unaffected.
Nope. Possible to just insert video mid-stream with some care, so long as the videos are in the same format and resolution. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33969490
Rumour is that this is coming very soon.
[deleted]
i feel the same way, if YouTube becomes too hard to watch without adverts and buffering, I simply regain time. I have more than enough already to watch/read for more than one lifetime. YouTube is only useful insofar as I can get some more updated information, and a few distractions.
[deleted]
YT is doing some major rework on the backend:
AV1 encoded >fullHD sources were missing for a couple days recently, only VP9. Maybe Google was switching encoding hardware? preparing for encoding ads directly into sources?
N parameter function was rewritten - this broke yt-dlp. player b22ef6e7 https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/commit/297b0a379282a15c80d8...
source 22 (h264 720p combined video+audio), the only HD source older clients could play, was killed a ~week ago. Now older clients are only able to play 360p (source 18) IF they can correctly decode n parameter
AV1 encoded >fullHD sources were missing for a couple days recently, only VP9. Maybe Google was switching encoding hardware? preparing for encoding ads directly into sources?
N parameter function was rewritten - this broke yt-dlp. player b22ef6e7 https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/commit/297b0a379282a15c80d8...
source 22 (h264 720p combined video+audio), the only HD source older clients could play, was killed a ~week ago. Now older clients are only able to play 360p (source 18) IF they can correctly decode n parameter
I think there's a lot of unexplored room to regulate Youtube and other video streaming services which allow uploads as common carriers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
Doing so could ensure long-term compatibility and equal access.
Doing so could ensure long-term compatibility and equal access.
Working fine here, and I didn't even have to update (and haven't in weeks). Makes me wonder if:
1) --cookies-from-browser is actually doing something for me since I'm authed
2) just lucky
1) --cookies-from-browser is actually doing something for me since I'm authed
2) just lucky
Isn't yt-dlp breaking and getting fixed again a pretty regular thing? What's special about this one?
Damn, I picked a good time to archive most of the channels and videos I care about ~3 months ago, I guess.
The arms race will continue to escalate. Eventually YouTube will implement DRM, content watermarking, and required logins.
They must have some ludicrous margins if they can allocate people and resources required to fight a battle against the small community aware of Newpipe and yt-dlp.
Thinking the same. I think they’re just fiddling around but it won’t be anything serious. AdBlock on the other hand is a way bigger issue for them - I could absolutely understand (from their perspective) why they should try to tackle this problem with a lot of resources.
It is almost as if they are doing it out of pure greed :)
Would it be feasible to patch firefox or chromium to add the ability to dump the stream from <video> elements?
Absolutely, and seems like a feature that would already be in there if not for the majority of Firefox / Chrome funding coming from the advertisers.
IIRC it's already something you can do in Firefox with am extension, I vaguely recall using that to dump a video I wanted to watch offline.
There are two streams, video and audio are separate files. Thats the first hurdle stopping browser from presenting you with a simple "download source" button like on normal Video elements.
I've been using JDownloader to download and remux youtube video/audio for almost a decade without issues.
JDownloader is great, very useful for downloading from DDL sites. Real Debrid is something similar in that it packages up DDL multi-downloads into one download that you can stream or download directly, somewhat like a seedbox for DDL, although it works as a seedbox more generally for torrents as well.
I've always wondered why YouTube doesn't use Widevine DRM like Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video, and other paid sites use. Is there a reason why using Widevine wouldn't be possible for YouTube? It looks like Widevine only requires files to be encrypted once on the server so it wouldn't break CDNs and encrypting the files would be cheap compared to the video encoding. Widevine has extremely broad support.
I'm not saying I like the idea of YouTube DRM. This is a technical (maybe organizational) question of whether there's something stopping Google from using Widevine for YouTube. Google is going through a ton of effort to frustrate tools like Invidious and yt-dlp when it seems (to me) that Widevine would accomplish their goal without as much effort (but there might be stuff I'm unaware of).
I'm not saying I like the idea of YouTube DRM. This is a technical (maybe organizational) question of whether there's something stopping Google from using Widevine for YouTube. Google is going through a ton of effort to frustrate tools like Invidious and yt-dlp when it seems (to me) that Widevine would accomplish their goal without as much effort (but there might be stuff I'm unaware of).
Because such a move would break YouTube for a lot of legitimate users without Widevine. Like the whole userbase of Safari.
My guess is that it breaks important edge cases that we're not thinking of typically? I'm reminded of trying to fiddle with Widevine on the Raspberry Pi because there was no good reason for it not to be a solid media player.
Widevine isn't available on 32-bit Linux, for one.
How do the multiple startups that import YouTube video into their platform work - one's that need the video/audio files? There seems to be a lot of webapps supporting this but I always wondered if they have a goto API for doing this. I myself have used microlink at some points for automated video source extraction.
https://microlink.io
https://microlink.io
The linked issue was reported on an Android player app; the underlying yt-dlp issue seems to be https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/issues/10397 (intermittent HTTP 403 Forbidden responses from YouTube when downloading videos).
that issue says intermittent 403 responses though, not persistent
In my experience it is as if they (youtube) want you to have the video playing on a visible spot, in window or popout. So when minimizing to background, it stops until switching back to where video plays. Probably they want to keep hosting content free but also deliver ads encoded in stream.
Maybe it's a staggered rollout, but yt-dlp is still working on my machine.
Ehr this would be a duplicate but alright :/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40918652)
Bug is closed without comment, so I guess that means it's over.
the report was closed because it didn't follow the "template", not because it was fixed.
it drives me crazy when they create these rules that are very difficult for newbies to follow, then delete without comment when the rules aren't followed perfectly. It just discourages users from participating in the bug reporting process
it drives me crazy when they create these rules that are very difficult for newbies to follow, then delete without comment when the rules aren't followed perfectly. It just discourages users from participating in the bug reporting process
Yea I meant it was over for Newpipe. User seemed to follow the template well enough anyway to make the issue clear. This is Reddit-tier moderating.
I'm able to yt-dlp videos but NewPipe is busted.
Same, still able to download videos with the yt-dlp cli but NewPipe isn't playing videos
[deleted]
Relax. Version 0.27.1 is out. Problem solved.
I better take a deep sit down and grab all of those channels I love.
Fortunately, YouTube Revanced still works fine.
[deleted]
What's happening to the app?
Is PipePipe also affected?
3.4.3 stopped working for me, their repos don't seem to show a fix yet.
What's going on
Oh noooo...
"to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Yeah right.
"to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Yeah right.
"For free" isn't a part of that.
I wonder if the bandwidth even costs Google anything any more. Certainly they have peering agreements with any large ISP already. And they need some sort of egress to balance all the data collection they're doing from a bazillion Android devices and Chrome instances.
Not only peering agreements but 70%-90% [0] is directly served from your ISPs data center. google sends your ISP the server but rackspace, power and network is provided by the ISP.
[0] https://support.google.com/interconnect/answer/9058809?hl=en
[0] https://support.google.com/interconnect/answer/9058809?hl=en
At this point they are closer to keeping our information hostage than making it universally accessible.
All of the videos are still accessible on youtube.com though?
Youtube videos regularly get removed or made private. I have a collection of Saved videos with a fair amount of videos now marked private so I can no longer view them, nor can I see what the video even was. Entire channels have been nuked before. Only option is to keep your own local copy if you really want to keep something.
any idea why some videos get marked as private? I too have experienced this, but only for a few videos, and I thought it was the video creator who marked them as private. but are you saying that it is actually YouTube who does this?
I also assume it is the video creator that does this, but the point is it is out of your control. Creators can revoke access to videos at any time, so if you really want to save it you need your own copy.
Not very universal, if you ask me.
Universal in terms of people being able to access it for free, not that they can access it in any way they'd want to. You might disagree which how they used the word but that's what they mean.
But you can’t access them for free, you have to give up your privacy. And if you don’t have a device powerful enough to display YouTube’s bloated website, you can’t access them at all.
99.9% of people on the planet don't care about your first point, as being monetarily free is free enough, to them. Only in techie HN circles does anyone actually care about online privacy (which, for something like YouTube, is inconsequential, really; it's not like they have your government or criminal data or anything like that).
For your second point, most people who have phones can access YouTube, devices are not as weak as you think.
For your second point, most people who have phones can access YouTube, devices are not as weak as you think.
You really don't get what privacy is about.
Oh I get it, I and most people simply don't care.
I'm a shameless pirate but YouTube is not a charity
Name a thing that's free. Usually, you have to give up something to access it. In the simplest case, attention.
With enough mental gymnastics, you can remove the word free from vocabularies.
Exactly! Everyone clearly understands that "free" means free of charge.
If you went to a lemonade stand that said "Free Lemonade" and they had a guy standing next to it who drew a picture of you picking up a lemonade, that wouldn't make the lemonade not free. If you decided that lemonade was not free because someone drew a picture of you, then sure, but you can walk that all the way to having no things that are free.
If you went to a lemonade stand that said "Free Lemonade" and they had a guy standing next to it who drew a picture of you picking up a lemonade, that wouldn't make the lemonade not free. If you decided that lemonade was not free because someone drew a picture of you, then sure, but you can walk that all the way to having no things that are free.
[deleted]
[0] https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/issues/10397