Re: Solving the YouTube Ad Problem?

[😉 Good Guy 😉]

On 09/07/2022 23:34, lu...@invalid.com wrote:

How in the heck does anyone with UpToDate browsers watch YouTube at
all with all those ads?

People use Google's Subscription plan to avoid all those Ads especially if users are still using unsupported Operating system such as Windows XP. XP users are required to sing in on YouTube website and that might reduce some Ads but not all. Subscription is the best way to avoid Ads or use some tools to download Videos and view them offline.

<https://www.youtube.com/premium/annual>
<https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116>

Arrest

Dictator Putin

We Stand

With Ukraine

Stop Putin

Ukraine Under Attack

--
Similar to Windows 11 Home edition, Windows 11 Pro edition now requires internet connectivity during the initial device setup (OOBE) only. If you choose to setup device for personal use, MSA will be required for setup as well. You can expect Microsoft Account to be required in subsequent WIP flights.

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning

[Paul]

On 7/9/2022 6:34 PM, lu...@invalid.com wrote:
> I'm using Firefox 52.9.0 - 32 bit (non ESR) and MyPal 29.1.1 with XP
> Pro.
>
> I use FFx to watch and download YouTube vids because using my version
> of FFx does not show the ton of commercial ads which infests YouTube
> when using MyPal or other newer browsers.

>
> How in the heck does anyone with UpToDate browsers watch YouTube at
> all with all those ads?
>

> Does anyone know of an add-on for my version of MyPal which would
> allow watching YouTube without ads? I'd like to use MyPal instead of
> my old FFx because it's faster and and shows shaper vids
>
> Also, does anyone know of a proggie similar to AdBlock Plus which
> works with my version of MyPal?
>

The adverts are not really adverts. They're an irritant, to
make you pay a monthly fee for a subscription.

https://www.youtube.com/premium

[Paul]

On 7/9/2022 6:34 PM, lu...@invalid.com wrote:
> I'm using Firefox 52.9.0 - 32 bit (non ESR) and MyPal 29.1.1 with XP
> Pro.
>
> I use FFx to watch and download YouTube vids because using my version
> of FFx does not show the ton of commercial ads which infests YouTube
> when using MyPal or other newer browsers.
>
> How in the heck does anyone with UpToDate browsers watch YouTube at
> all with all those ads?
>
> Does anyone know of an add-on for my version of MyPal which would
> allow watching YouTube without ads? I'd like to use MyPal instead of
> my old FFx because it's faster and and shows shaper vids
>
> Also, does anyone know of a proggie similar to AdBlock Plus which
> works with my version of MyPal?
>

There is a business model to this. If the adverts (irritants) are
bad enough, you will want to fork over cash for the ad-free version.

https://www.youtube.com/premium

*******

This downloads a video, ad-free.

https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/blob/master/README.md

yt-dlp.exe Windows (Win7 SP1+) standalone x64 binary (recommended for Windows)

It is available for other platforms as well. Just not WinXP.

The program needs frequent updates, to keep the profiles and
methods up-to-date.

Paul

[grinch]

On 10/07/2022 3:54, Paul wrote:

> https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/blob/master/README.md
>
> yt-dlp.exe Windows (Win7 SP1+) standalone x64 binary (recommended for Windows)

How does that yt-dlp.exe compare to the youtube-dl.exe most of us have been
using to download (and convert, and rip) the Youtube video streams?

https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/releases
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/releases/tag/2022.06.29
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/releases/download/2022.06.29/yt-dlp.exe

VERSUS

https://youtube-dl.org/
https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/
https://ytdl-org.github.io/youtube-dl/
https://yt-dl.org/latest/youtube-dl.exe

By the way, there is some interesting DMCA information here.
https://github.blog/2020-11-16-standing-up-for-developers-youtube-dl-is-back/

Does that mean only the OLDER youtube-dl.exe files are the last known good
versions?

[Paul]

A "release" would be a coherent package as controlled by the lead developer.

youtube-dl 2021.12.17 Latest Dec 16, 2021 +340 releases

If they don't make any more releases, then the "commits"
are not instantiated in any practical way, as far as an
end user is concerned.

You can take the repository as it stands, and go work on
it if you want.

These things are source control systems, for managing
software projects. As a consumer, I don't have to know
any more than that. I don't know the github offerings,
which are paid, which are free, why a github page
doesn't need to have source on it, all that jazz.
No idea what they're doing. Any more than I know
what internal Twitter policy is. I don't drool over
this stuff, just use the output like everyone else.

If it says the release is 2021.12.17, then that is what
it is. Any file changes after that date, may be pulled
by some other project, a fork, The contents of the
repository, may still have some value to the 700 contributors.
I have no way to estimate what that value might be.

This is a lot like asking what happened to TrueCrypt. Only
the project developers know for sure and "they aint sayin".
We know there were rubber hoses behind the scenes.

Paul

[grinch]

On 15/07/2022 17:26, Paul wrote:

> This is a lot like asking what happened to TrueCrypt. Only
> the project developers know for sure and "they aint sayin".
> We know there were rubber hoses behind the scenes.

I saw your other response in the windows 10 newsgroup and I checked and
what you said about youtube-dl.exe not being updated seems to be true.

Also yt-dlp.exe seems to be a combination of three different youtube-dl.exe
efforts, so it probably (put that in quotes, as in "probably") is better.
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp#readme

Digging a bit deeper it say yt-dlp "Merged with youtube-dl v2021.12.17+
commit/a03b977 and youtube-dlc v2020.11.11-3+ commit/f9401f2: You get all
the features and patches of youtube-dlc in addition to the latest
youtube-dl", so it seems to be a combination of TWO youtube downloaders.

What I don't know is how much the DMCA notice affected the functionality.
Does anyone know if they had to reduce functionality because of the DMCA?

And, if they did, why would youtube-dl.exe be affected but not yt-dlp.exe?
https://github.blog/2020-11-16-standing-up-for-developers-youtube-dl-is-back/

[Paul]

It was a takedown request of some sort.

The forks are an opportunity to change it.

Changing the original, the project is too complicated to gut,
without making it a non-entity. You just stop working on it.
If you wanted to make it "approved" materials, you just
replace the source with a three line "HelloWorld.py".

I think they could have continued to work on it, but you
don't know what barratry was used on the side, against
the principals of the project. I'm sure there would be
letters from Wiggins, Wiggins, Wiggins, and Flonk promising
to sue them in court. I don't think their opponents would
necessarily stop at using DMCA takedown notice.

Projects lose steam all the time, and that's what forking
is for. New blood to pick up the slack. Some of these
developers work damn hard on this stuff, and when an incident
like this happens, they have an opportunity to reflect
on whether it's worth it or not. Youtube-dl supports video
download from 10,000 sites, and you don't keep the profiles
on 10,000 sites current without a lot of submissions from
outside contributors, and you still have to review all
the proposed changes (to keep fake updates out of your tree).

It's as hair-raising as keeping crap out of the Linux kernel.

Paul

[grinch]

On 15/07/2022 23:5, Paul wrote:

>> And, if they did, why would youtube-dl.exe be affected but not yt-dlp.exe?
>> https://github.blog/2020-11-16-standing-up-for-developers-youtube-dl-is-back/
>
> It was a takedown request of some sort.

I figured it out.
I think.
At least with respect to the DMCA notice.
And with respect to what they objected to.
And what youtube-dl.exe coders did.
I think.

Github seems to have taken youtube-dl.exe down, and then put it back after
tests were removed that the DMCA complained about and then Github put the
youtube-dl.exe pages back - but - to make it more confusing - as you
surmised, the youtube-dl.exe authors appear to have stopped development at
around that time point (I think).

This is what GitHub said:
"Today we reinstated youtube-dl, a popular project on GitHub, after we
received additional information about the project that enabled us to
reverse a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown. "

They linked this as that "additional information" that Github received.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/github/dmca/master/2020/11/2020-11-16-RIAA-reversal-effletter.pdf

That letter states, in part, the following explanation.

First, youtube-dl does not infringe or encourage the infringement of any
copyrighted works, and its references to copyrighted songs in its unit
tests are a fair use. Nevertheless, youtube-dl's maintainers are replacing
these references.

Second, youtube-dl does not violate Section 1201 of the DMCA because it
does not "circumvent" any technical protection measures on YouTube videos.
Similarly, the "signature" or "rolling cipher" mechanism employed by
YouTube does not prevent copying of videos.

youtube-dl Unit Tests Referencing Commercial Music
The RIAA's letter refers to a single file of youtube-dl's source code which
references several copyrighted songs. This file contains series of
automated tests that verify the functionality of youtube-dl for streaming
various types of video. The youtube-dl source code does not, of course,
contain copies of these songs or any others. And the presence of
several copyrighted song links in a large series of such tests does not
induce or encourage copyright infringement, for several reasons.

We hope this will clear the way for GitHub to reactivate the repository.