Re: Background on Firefox setting Digital Rights Management (DRM) Cont

[Larry Wolff]

On 8/30/2023 5:56 PM, candycane wrote:

> https://techradar.com/pro/youtube-ripping-site-finally-goes-dark-following-court-ordered-ban

Thanks for that article, which starts off with this quote.
"Youtube-dl site no longer loads & cannot even be accessed using a VPN"

Two things potentially confusing with that quote are that Stan Brown (and
the rest of us) know that the youtube-dl.exe has been long deprecated.

And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or
whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.

Another sentence which seems to explain what's going on is this one.
"Despite GitHub being the platform hosting the open-source YouTube
downloader, Uberspace was held legally liable because it linked
to the developer platform."

So it seems, perhaps, a rogue site (which is what's been taken down) was
calling the (long deprecated) youtube-dl.exe (presumably from GitHub).

As Stan Brown said, the executable currently used is 'yt-dlp.exe' and not
'youtube-dl.exe' which, as far as anyone knows, uses legal public api's.

Another problem with the author's interpretation of the situation in that
article is this sentence, which to me, means the author is not technical.
"At the time of writing, the website doesn't load and cannot be accessed
not even by using a VPN service."

Maybe a VPN is more magical than I thought it was, but unlike onion sites,
if you can't access a domain without a VPN, you're not going to access it
with a VPN (unless it's georestricted - which isn't mentioned as the case).

The article describes the history, which seems to be listed as this
a. In 2020 this RIAA takedown notice was directed at GitHub
<https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-takes-down-popular-open-source-youtube-dl-software-201024/>

b. Then GitHub restored the repository with necessary changes being made.
<https://www.techradar.com/news/github-reinstates-popular-youtube-downloader-project>

c. And GitHub made a legal case for having restored the repository.
<https://www.eff.org/document/eff-letter-github-youtube-dl-takedown>

d. The EFF lawyers made pertinent arguments in favor of youtube-dl.exe.
"First, youtube-dl does not infringe or encourage the
infringement of any copyrighted works..."

"Second, youtube-dl does not violate Section 1201 of the DMCA
because it does not "circumvent" any technical protection
measures on YouTube videos."

"Importantly, youtube-dl does not decrypt video streams that are
encrypted with commercial DRM technologies, such as Widevine,
that are used by subscription video sites, such as Netflix."

Still, none of this seems to be about 'yt-dlp.exe', which is what has long
ago superseded the deprecated 'youtube.dl.exe' executable as far as I know.

[Wally J]

candycane <cand...@f172.n1.z21.fsxnet> wrote

> Yes, but it's a bit worrying they are starting to take legal action..

As long as the third-party downloaders use public APIs, they may be sued,
but as we saw even in the case of the deprecated youtube-dl.exe, the law
will prevail on the side of the downloaders which use only public APIs.

NewPipe:
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/releases/
https://newpipe.net/

ClipGrab:
https://clipgrab.org/
https://download.clipgrab.org/clipgrab-3.9.7-portable.exe

yt-dlp:
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/releases/latest
https://ffmpeg.org/download.html

In terms of lawsuits, I think the industry is more about getting clickbait
in the news than it cares about successful lawsuits in the US courts.

For example, despite the news about torrenting movies, there has never in
the history of the United States ever been a successful movie torrenting
case (Malibu excepted, as the lawyers were disbarred after it was revealed
they seeded them themselves!) that was contested by the defendants (plenty
defendants gave in though and paid the thirty to hundred dollar requested
fee to drop the cases).

Think about that.

Other than the one Malibu case (where the lawyers were eventually
disbarred), there has NEVER been a successful contested US torrent case.

There are legal reasons for that fact - which most people don't understand
- but they can understand that there has never been a single success in
court - but you have to understand copyright law to understand why.

[Larry Wolff]

On 8/31/2023 9:03 AM, Newyana2 wrote:

>| And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or
>| whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.
>|
>

> It's a legit site that had been operating but outdated for
> a long time. I don't know about the case. Maybe it's a case
> from 3 years ago that finally got a ruling. Maybe the RIAA are
> going after whoever they can, as a PR move. Microsoft now
> owns github, so that connection won't be so easy to block.

I didn't know M$ owns GitHub, which, well, maybe that's not a good thing.
But I do agree with you that the RIAA cares more about PR than about law.

The more people the RIAA can scare, the more they can claim success.

> I never got yt-dlp working properly. I had to keep restarting
> it. Recently I found 3dyd, thanks to someone in these groups,
> and it even works on my XP box. Now, that's software! :)

Thank you for suggesting 3dyd, which I had never heard of until now.
https://www.3dyd.com/
https://yd.3dyd.com/download/

It seems to be updated frequently and even seems to have a batch option.
https://www.videohelp.com/software?d=3dyd_1.19.1.exe
https://www.videohelp.com/software?d=3dyd_batch_2.11.exe

https://download.yd.3dyd.com/3dyd64_1.20.exe
Name: 3dyd64_1.20.exe
Size: 20226239 bytes (19 MiB)
SHA256: 05ADEEED0106AF971275698C27E5A4DB20585380047D11613F5C875E4C1CC2FC

https://download.yd.3dyd.com/3dyd32_1.20.exe
Name: 3dyd32_1.20.exe
Size: 18335077 bytes (17 MiB)
SHA256: F1A4659C0F1A5E5C52AAE574222E3DA596BF8F051E1781AC3BEFB4ED8DB447CA

> 3dyd seems to fail with at least some music, so maybe they're
> trying to work with the RIAA. Which is fine with me.

As you noted, all of the youtube downloaders suffer when Google does
"something" that breaks them, whether it's ClipGrab/yt-dlp or NewPipe.

I found those GUIs worked well but they must be updated often.

I suspect Google, who has all the source code, makes minor changes on
purpose to slow down their efforts - even as they all use public APIs.

> I'm not
> generally interested in Taylor Swift's latest bubble-gum-pop.
> I'm usually looking for academic lectures, car repair videos, and
> the like. On the other hand, why would the RIAA go after youtube
> downloaders, rather than Google? Why do they allow music on
> a publicly accesible website at all? Why not issue takedown
> orders to Google?

Like you, I download documentaries and repair videos, both of which I can
watch when I'm far away from my home Wi-Fi or waiting in a waiting room.

I think the RIAA just wants to get in the news to scare people who don't
understand that all these downloaders use the API that any web site does.

> It's possible that the RIAA are in bed with Google,
> on a PR campaign to do battle against basic http protocols.

I don't know if Google is "in bed" with the RIAA but Apple certainly is.
Which is why every operating system (other than iOS) allows these GUIs.

> There's a general move to turn the Internet into a subscription
> service for interactive cable TV and services.

Yup. You're on the ball. Subscriptions equate to easily forcasted profits.

I, for one (probably like you) don't have a single Internet subscription.

And yet I can rather easily get anything I want that is on the Internet.
So that's my personal proof that subscriptions aren't needed.

For example, can you think of anything that you get by subscription on
YouTube that you can't get without that subscription - if you're smart?

> That's at odds with
> the original design and intention of the Internet as an open,
> transparent communications medium. If the Hamburg ruling is
> legit it implies that their courts have been duped into believing
> that "difficult access" to a webpage or online file constitutes
> a purchase contract. That could clear the way for news sites,
> for example, who claim no one has a right to load their webpages
> without also being sent to a half dozen ad/spying domains and allowing
> the news website to control their browser via script.

I must admit that recently, they've added the Epic Privacy Browser proxies
(which Epic calls a VPN) to the cloudflare "wait a minute" domain blocks.

So, one by one, little by little, domain by domain, I have to agree with
you that the Internet is becoming more & more a "difficult access" for us.

Still... with judicious use of thousands of free openvpn servers, most
sites can be "unblocked" from the cloudflare blockers - albeit with effort.

> As it stands now, many of the popular sites I visit don't work
> without script. They cover the page with an opaque DIV. They bury
> the page text in javascript. Crazy stuff. It used to be that the idea
> was to make pages work in any browser. That's now reversed: Use
> the latest Chrome, enable script and turn off ad blockers, or we'll
> stop you accessing content.

I must agree with you that javascript is de rigeuer for most websites,
which is why the Tor Browser often has trouble with those javascript sites.

Luckily a proxy-based web browser (such as the Opera VPN Browser - again,
not a VPN but a proxy) usually has that unnecessary 'crazy stuff' blocked.

Since you knew about 3dyd (which was new to me until you mentioned it), I
wonder if you know of any other Windows-based proxy-based privacy browser?

> The other day I was reading an article at Atlantic. I don't normally
> allow script. Atlantic works fine, except that their pages are designed
> for cellphones, so I need to either read giant, serif text or turn off CSS.
> With both JS and CSS disabled I get an ugly but very readable webpage.
> A friend was having trouble getting the full article, so I revisited with
> script enabled. I got a page with a picture of 2 hardhat workers that
> said they're having problems! I toggled JS on and off, cconfirming that
> this was a lying webpage intended to block visitors without admitting
> that they're doing so. Crazy. I'm guessing that JS allowed them
> to figure out that not all files/ads were being loaded, probably due
> to my HOSTS file. (I don't actually use an ad blocker.) So they sent
> me a "broken page" page instead. And it's not a 404. Someone actually
> designed the page and illustration and they're swapping it in at that
> URL.

Since I use proxy-based browsers almost exclusively, I've found out that
sites such as the NYT, Atlantic and Financial Times (among many others)
will let me in sometimes, and then suddenly won't let me back in again.

I suspect they have an IP count (e.g., three free articles per IP per day).
The solution, which seems to work for me, is to change the browser proxy.

But I do agree with you that they are all about blocking IPs, which is
where some of the useful domain blockers seem to work well such as
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

Someday I'm going to install the Acrylic host blocker which uses wildcards!
https://mayakron.altervista.org/support/acrylic/Home.htm

> With rulings that claim it's illegal to download a file in one piece
> from a publicly accessible server, we're one step closer to making
> http a closed protocol and having a legal basis to make web browsers
> conform to a DRM model, with no settings, no saving of pages, and no
> ability to view source code. Restriction via hassle could become
> legal precedent.

You're right about the "restriction via hassle" and the tendency of the
RIAA to prosecute doomed-to-fail legal cases simply for the PR it spawns.

Luckily, for our use, the free graphical youtube downloaders all work well
using only the public APIs that Google allows any normal browser to employ.

[Quellen]

On 1 Sep 2023 at 12:05:59 AM, The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> But I suppose that UBlock Origin is a good option for people
>> who simply don't deal with tech. That will block a few things
>> even if you never configure it.
>
> What's most amazing is people complaining about ads who don't use
> adblock plus. How could they NOT know?

Since TheRealBev is also on Android, it's also amazing that people complain
about ads on Android & yet they don't know enough to use the FOSS NetGuard.
[https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/enable-netguards-hidden-ad-blocking-feature-your-android-phone-0176386/]

The NetGuard ad blocking works "like a hosts file" as explained here.
[https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md]

Note: You can't adblock if you install the NetGuard from the Google Play
Store repository - you have to use any non-Google-Play-Store repository.
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard]

This is another case where Android excels because you don't have to use the
Google Play Store to install the best apps (many of which aren't on it).
[https://netguard.me/]
--
Cheers, Quellen

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 01.09.23 um 06:32 schrieb Quellen:

> This is another case where Android excels because you don't have to use the
> Google Play Store to install the best apps (many of which aren't on it).
> [https://netguard.me/]

*ROTFLSTC*

--
Alea iacta est

[Oscar Mayer]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 00:32:13 -0400, Quellen wrote:

> The NetGuard ad blocking works "like a hosts file" as explained here.
> [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md]

What I like about using Netguard on a non-rooted Android with the ad
blocking VPN set up with any good HOSTS file found on the net is that I can
install software that ostensibly is ad supported - but I don't see any ads!

Installing that free GitHub Netguard makes all free apps also ad-free apps.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In alt.comp.software.firefox Larry Wolff <larry...@larrywolff.net> wrote:
> On 8/30/2023 5:56 PM, candycane wrote:
>
>> https://techradar.com/pro/youtube-ripping-site-finally-goes-dark-following-court-ordered-ban
>
> Thanks for that article, which starts off with this quote.
> "Youtube-dl site no longer loads & cannot even be accessed using a VPN"
>
> Two things potentially confusing with that quote are that Stan Brown (and
> the rest of us) know that the youtube-dl.exe has been long deprecated.

That's wrong. I use it all the time and it's still developed and working
fine, plus works with more versions of Python than yt-dlp.

The latest release at that website was, however, outdated. You can
get the latest daily build here:

Windows:
https://github.com/ytdl-patched/youtube-dl/releases/latest/download/youtube-dl.exe

Linux:
https://github.com/ytdl-patched/youtube-dl/releases/latest/download/youtube-dl

> And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or
> whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.

www.youtube-dl.org was a legitimate website, but the developer/s
who maintained it haven't been active, hence it hasn't reflected
the latest version of the software for a long time.

> Another sentence which seems to explain what's going on is this one.
> "Despite GitHub being the platform hosting the open-source YouTube
> downloader, Uberspace was held legally liable because it linked
> to the developer platform."
>
> So it seems, perhaps, a rogue site (which is what's been taken down) was
> calling the (long deprecated) youtube-dl.exe (presumably from GitHub).

Completely wrong.

It does suggest that YouTube are likely pushing at M$/GitHub too,
in which case youtube-dl and yt-dlp with both likely be targets
because that's where they're both really hosted:

https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/

They're trying the same thing with the web-based Invidious
YouTube downloader, which also uses GitHub:

https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3872

The latest post there is hopeful though:

SamantazFox commented Jul 14, 2023
"Hello everyone!

Quick update update on the subject: as we expected it, YouTube
didn't proceed further with their legal action threat.

If anything new comes by, we'll keep you informed, no matter what.

Thanks a lot for all of the supportive messages we received, this
means a lot to us!"

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[Larry Wolff]

On 9/1/2023 7:27 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> Quick update update on the subject: as we expected it, YouTube
> didn't proceed further with their legal action threat.
>
> If anything new comes by, we'll keep you informed, no matter what.

Wow. That's fantastic! I read your entire post, and I don't disagree with
anything you said (I only requoted the ending for continuity purposes).

Thank you for CORRECTING my wrong assumptions!
You helped me understand - and better yet - you helped everyone else.

I long ago stopped using youtube-dl.exe as I was under the impression it
was no longer actively supported - and I was very familiar with NewPipe
breaking whenever Google decided to break it - so I figured it was the
knell of doom (much like TrueCrypt's deprecation pushed us to Veracrypt).

What you claim makes sense that Google will "try" to go after them all, as
they all do the same thing - albeit only the code can tell how they do it.

I know NewPipe explicitly explains what their code does, which is use only
the public APIs so I assume Google can't stop them - only irritate them.
https://newpipe.net/

As they say on the GitHub site, Google has "billions of lawyers" so if
Google could shut down NewPipe legally, Google would - but they can't.
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/1160

Google would have to shut down every browser that plays YouTube content.