[HN Gopher] Yt-dlp - A YouTube-dl fork with additional features ...
___________________________________________________________________
Yt-dlp - A YouTube-dl fork with additional features and fixes
Author : makeworld
Score : 752 points
Date : 2021-08-26 19:42 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| Y_Y wrote:
| So how come a fork was necessary?
| ozarkerD wrote:
| Devs on yt-dl have been inactive for a few months iirc
| julienpalard wrote:
| Does not look inactive to me: https://github.com/ytdl-
| org/youtube-dl/graphs/contributors
| nannal wrote:
| Jun 29, 2021 - Aug 26, 2021: 0 commits
| rtkwe wrote:
| It does look like there's little activity in the last
| couple months and none in the last almost 2 months.
| MrDOS wrote:
| For longer than that. 846 open PRs, 3.7k open issues. And
| this long predates the GitHub takedown debacle. This isn't to
| say that they're totally AWOL: they do a really good job
| keeping on top of the boring break/fix work, like keeping on
| top of the ever-changing interfaces of video providers. But
| they're very conservative about expanding functionality, and
| even fixing more minor bugs.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| And they've closed many issues as duplicates with no
| further explanation given:
|
| https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues/23860
| rovr138 wrote:
| Have they been duplicates?
| nonbirithm wrote:
| The linked issue contains several issues describing the
| same problem, but what I meant to say was that _which_
| duplicate they were of was never made clear. The
| maintainers seemed to assume that everyone knew what it
| was and never provided a link to the original issue.
| SevenSigs wrote:
| my youtube-dl still works fine for youtube.com but I haven't
| tested many other supported sites...
| the-dude wrote:
| Wasn't the repo taken down for a while?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| Yes, but it was brought back on November 16, 2020, and
| there was plenty of activity after that, till this recent
| drought of dead air.
| kunagi7 wrote:
| youtube-dl has been inactive for the last 2 months.
|
| Most things still work but support of different services is
| something that needs daily updates to not break. Even if most
| popular websites still work, pages like Newgrounds are
| breaking.
|
| There's 3.7k open issues right now and nothing gets merged [0].
|
| [0] https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues
| krick wrote:
| It's really stupid that this stuff still happens. I mean,
| youtube-dl main devs are stepping away, it's understandable.
| But it would be so much more convenient for everyone, if it
| was passed over to somebody, who is still interested (yt-dlp
| devs?) instead of ending up as a bunch of forks nobody knows
| about, and a dead project everyone continues to use. Just
| think about how many apps and scripts have youtube-dl
| hardcoded somewhere in them.
| executesorder66 wrote:
| But still, why a fork? Why not contribute to the original
| project?
|
| Why not ask for maintainership if you need it?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Fairly unrelated but I've always gotten a kick out of the NSFW
| issues that users report on youtube-dl's page.
| database64128 wrote:
| I just updated my youtube-dl GUI to support yt-dlp.
|
| https://github.com/database64128/youtube-dl-wpf
|
| Currently it's WPF based and therefore only supports Windows. I'm
| considering porting it to Avalonia so I can also use it on my
| Linux desktop.
|
| The reason I made this GUI is mostly for manual format selection.
| The automatic 'bestvideo+bestaudio/best' doesn't always result in
| the best format combination. So I always select AV1 + Opus
| manually and use the WebM container. The GUI also includes some
| opinionated defaults like embedding metadata, thumbnail,
| subtitles.
| thomasfl wrote:
| Why can't YouTube and Alphabet simply provide a download button
| or a public API? When you are running the worlds largest digital
| museum of rare video footage, you have some obligations to the
| society.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Apparently, copyright law makes this an unwise proposition. But
| the least they could do is offer the Internet Archive with some
| privileged access so all this can be mirrored and viewed when
| it's out of copyright in 80 years.
| caractacus wrote:
| It's not copyright law, it's the agreements that YT has with
| copyright owners. No one is going to license their content to
| YT if the site allows anyone to download whatever is there.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| If it wasn't for copyright law, there wouldn't be copyright
| owners. So copyright law is ultimately responsible for the
| status quo.
| alerighi wrote:
| They could at least let you download videos for which the
| author specified a free license, such as Creative Commons, or
| videos that are public domain. There are a lot of these
| videos so why not?
| thomasfl wrote:
| Just discovered that several video sharing sites, like
| pexels.com, have a download button on videos with creative
| commons license. They are off course useless for
| professional YouTubers, but great for everybody else.
| gmemstr wrote:
| Can't run ads on them, and you risk lawsuits of all kind if you
| let people easily download copyrighted content. They aren't
| running a museum, it just happens to be the largest video
| sharing platform on the planet.
| hansel_der wrote:
| > it just happens to be the largest video sharing platform on
| the planet.
|
| china might want to disagree
| caractacus wrote:
| No chance. YT has 2bn+ unique logins a month. China only
| has 800m internet users max. Further the video streaming
| landscape in China is much more fragmented than outside the
| country where YT is dominant.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Love it.
|
| The question, especially for the folks around here.
|
| When Github _eventually_ takes a stronger stand against this sort
| of thing, because it is 100% going to happen, are folks going to
| properly fight it?
| Macha wrote:
| They were DMCAed, they got bad press out of it, they eventually
| stood up for the developer in exchange for a token concession
| (deleting test data that referred to copyrighted music and was
| named in the complaint):
| https://github.blog/2020-11-16-standing-up-for-developers-yo...
| , and reversed the takedown unilaterally (which would mean the
| claimant could take github/microsoft to court if they felt like
| it).
|
| Whether it's a matter of principles or just the bad press from
| the initial takedown is less clear, but I think it'll be a
| while before they re litigate this issue.
| totetsu wrote:
| I still can't access my fork of YouTube DL with all my custom
| plugin work on GitHub
| kragen wrote:
| Why not? Did you forget your GitHub password?
| totetsu wrote:
| They blocked everyones forks at the same time as the
| original.
| kragen wrote:
| What does "blocked" mean? Is your fork still "blocked"?
| totetsu wrote:
| Blocked meant that when I tried to view my fork I got a
| DMCA page. There were some instructions about how to
| merge in the changes or something but I didn't have time
| at the time.
| kragen wrote:
| Oh, so if you merge in the changes from the original repo
| that remove the copyrighted music URL from the test data,
| then your repository will work again?
| totetsu wrote:
| Yes I think that was the instructions. But I forgot where
| I kept my local copy of the repo, and it was far behind
| the current master head. I was just parsing wfmu playlist
| to make track meta-data.. probably if I did it again I
| would write it better anyway.
| [deleted]
| jrm4 wrote:
| Lawyer here. Forest/Trees, people. It may not ever come to
| "litigation," there are so many other ways to make this
| happen.
|
| I suppose I should be a bit clearer. When Microsoft and the
| big media people get together to try to make it go away, what
| will be the the response?
| Ruthalas wrote:
| I suspect it will simply move to being hosted on gitlab or
| similar. Less discoverable, but likely available.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _(which would mean the claimant could take github
| /microsoft to court if they felt like it)_
|
| I can't imagine that ever happening. But what I can imagine
| is the media groups giving Microsoft a hard time on whatever
| deals they have in the Xbox ecosystem, pressuring until
| GitHub unilaterally reverses their reversal, or does
| something else to satisfy them.
| pwdisswordfish8 wrote:
| Against forking an inactive project? Why?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > are folks going to properly fight it?
|
| I hope so. I would really like to see git hosting as a Tor
| hidden service.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Thanks for this post! First I am hearing about this fork!
|
| Darn...unfortunately still can't download Joe Rogan Spotify.
| Guess they haven't found a way around the widevine
| encryption...(Right now it seems like only a few podcasts are
| encrypted so other Spotify streams work)
| pabs3 wrote:
| I wonder if it would work with this:
|
| https://github.com/cryptonek/widevine-l3-decryptor
| nerdponx wrote:
| It's always strange to think that there is encrypted data
| flowing through my software, through my operating system, into
| my hardware, that somehow I, the user, I am unable to access,
| but that the hardware can handle just fine.
|
| How does this work?
| kuschku wrote:
| You can access it just fine. It's just processed by very
| obfuscated code that constantly changes.
| lights0123 wrote:
| With Widevine L3, it does send your OS unencrypted data.
| You're free to screen record videos or audio record e.g.
| PulseAudio Monitor channels of your speakers. You just can't
| easily convert it to a DRM-free format at speeds faster than
| realtime.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| One way is x86. Intel's chips have SGX (software guard
| extensions) that allows code to run in "enclaves" that
| outside code can't access. You can send data into the enclave
| and read what it spits out, but you can't inspect (debug) it.
| joshspankit wrote:
| HDCP is one method, as are the "safeguards" built in to the
| audio and video APIs on macOS (to protect them from losing
| revenue by recording iTunes Music (before they removed DRM)
| or screen capturing new movies (thus threatening the
| contracts with Hollywood).
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| The OS prevents you from screen recording when a new movie
| is playing? You can still use a third party tool to screen
| record right?
| Arnavion wrote:
| >The OS prevents you from screen recording when a new
| movie is playing?
|
| Yes.
|
| >You can still use a third party tool to screen record
| right?
|
| The third-party tool is as stymied by the OS / video
| driver's API for screen capture as the first-party tool.
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| I have no words. Wow.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Right. This is not just Mac OS, same thing can happen on
| Windows. Modern media DRMing sometimes involves bypassing
| your OS entirely[0]. Audio/video streams have special
| hardware paths through the CPU and GPU. HDCP uses
| encryption to create a safe pipe between the incoming
| stream and your monitor, so the data can't be snooped on
| or modified mid-flight. Etc.
|
| --
|
| [0] - Or at least almost entirely, I suspect at least the
| kernel must get involved somehow. Otherwise Widevine
| support wouldn't be an issue on Linux the way it is (or
| was).
| weq wrote:
| Im going to claim original idea that all these other downloders
| built off ~2006
|
| still get k's of downloads a day even though its been 15yrs since
| the last update
|
| https://sourceforge.net/projects/gvdownloader/files/
| totoglazer wrote:
| Is Google video still live somewhere?
| capableweb wrote:
| See https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Google_Video and
| https://archive.org/details/googlevideo2011
| Ansil849 wrote:
| So does anyone know what happened to youtube-dl? Development
| seems to have just abruptly ceased with no explanation.
| dwrodri wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if the drama surrounding the DMCA
| takedown issued on the main git repository scared away a lot of
| contributors.
|
| Here's some coverage from the EFF, in case you missed it:
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-reinstates-yout...
| arp242 wrote:
| Quite the opposite; number of contributions increased:
| https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/graphs/contributors
|
| Just seems a case of the same what usually happens: main
| author loses interest, has other stuff to do, etc. and no one
| really takes up the slack.
| Mathnerd314 wrote:
| Also there are a lot of PRs that got ignored. A fair amount
| of the stuff in yt-dlp is just merging PRs from yt-dl.
| Bellamy wrote:
| I pay for YouTube premium, but this beautiful piece of software
| automatically strips out the commercials from the videos and it
| seems I can download any video from YouTube even without logging
| in. My question is the following:
|
| What is benefit of setting my credentials to the config file?
| ObscureScience wrote:
| From the description I understood it as better quality audio
| stream.
| scns wrote:
| I would highly advise against that, after all the stories about
| G accounts suspended without explanation && recourse.
| polote wrote:
| Why don't they split youtube-dl in two parts:
|
| - The extractors part (all the scrappers basically)
|
| - The cli tool
|
| What would be wonderful is that the extractors part is splitted
| out, so that anyone can use it without using youtube-dl. That
| would be much easier to update it too, each extractor is
| independent, so it is only a question, does this scrapper
| (extractor) works or not.
|
| The next step would be to have a multi-language format to
| describe a scrapper, instead of being coded in Python. But no
| idea if this is possible or maybe that would make things much
| more complex
| FiloSottile wrote:
| That is mostly already the case, you can invoke the extractors
| through the Python API or through the CLI and do the download
| yourself.
|
| Extractors regularly require custom logic, so they can't be
| described in anything else than a programming language.
| polote wrote:
| Being two different projects has advantages, especially when
| one part (need to) moves much faster.
|
| The fact that some requires custom logic doesn't prove that
| you need a programming language, it is just custom logic
| compared to the standard framework.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| If you're implementing custom logic, why not just make it
| easy on yourself and use a proper programming language.
| Trying to invent custom logic systems gives us cmake.
| aexl wrote:
| I have proposed this some years ago (https://github.com/ytdl-
| org/youtube-dl/issues/14646), but it didn't get much attention
| from the maintainers. It has been previously rejected in 2013
| already (https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues/1185).
| colethedj wrote:
| yt-dlp does support "3rd party extractors" (in the form of
| plugins): https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp#plugins
| codetrotter wrote:
| Not currently available for installation via Homebrew for macOS,
| as opposed to youtube-dl and youtube-dlc both of which can be
| installed via Homebrew.
|
| However, there is an open pull request for it from just a few
| hours ago https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/84049
|
| So here's to hoping it'll be available there soon :D
| gillytech wrote:
| This is going to cost me karma but don't waste your time with Joe
| Rogan.
| _arvin wrote:
| Don't tell people what to do. People don't watch JRE for Joe
| (mostly), but for more his guests. Not only that, Joe is great
| and you're a hater. Try harder. He's not perfect but you likely
| sure aren't either. Rogan podcast is fine and I recommend it.
| gillytech wrote:
| > Try harder.
|
| See my response to nebula8804
| _arvin wrote:
| Keep up the great censorship, HN. Real noble.
| _arvin wrote:
| I should tell Paul Graham about this.
| _arvin wrote:
| My comment got 3 downvotes. I'm devastated. I'm not looking
| at your comment. Not interested.
|
| I have formed an already solid opinion on Joe Rogan. I'm 35
| years old, I don't you to help me form it.
| _arvin wrote:
| Oh no. Another downvote. Devastated. Make it stop.
|
| This upvote/downvote system is broken. Flawed system. Have
| fun, mods.
| _arvin wrote:
| I beg you. Stop. Who's flagging this stuff? What am I
| saying that's terrible wrong? Nice censorship, HN.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads on tedious flamewar tangents.
|
| (Also, please don't downvote-bait or whatever that first bit
| was. Also tedious, and actually against the guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - see the
| second-from-last...)
|
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28321103.
| gillytech wrote:
| 10-4.
|
| Can't blame you for keeping HN tidy. I honestly wasn't trying
| to bait anyone and definitely didn't expect that crazy
| tangent. Will hold my tongue on off topic quips in the
| future. Thanks for the tip on the community guidelines!
| dang wrote:
| Appreciated!
| nebula8804 wrote:
| I enjoy some of his podcasts. Yeah some are a waste of time but
| many have been spectacular.
| sovnade wrote:
| Joe's interviews with some people are excellent. He more or
| less lets them talk for an hour straight, something they
| probably rarely get to do. It gives you much more insight
| into a person than a quick 2 minute TV interview or sound
| byte.
|
| But lately he's anti-vaxx, conspiracy theory, and peddling
| nonsense that's going to get people killed. It's no longer
| worth listening to.
| gillytech wrote:
| To be fair I would agree with you that some of his guests are
| great (e.g. Quentin Tarantino) and I do enjoy the long-form
| interviewing. But Rogan himself, to me, gives off bad vibes.
| Not really sincere or actually interested in his guests more
| than he is interested in himself. I find he'll say he's
| interested and come back with some show of how cultured and
| learned he is by bringing some obscure minutiae. I think he
| should be truly interested in his guest and put them in the
| spotlight.
|
| Sorry to point out the truth but Joe himself is an
| unaccomplished stoner and promotes lifestyle choices that are
| repugnant to me. I would never trust him with my kids. So why
| would I trust him with my time?
|
| Others do a much better job of the long form interview and
| have themselves provided some value to society on their own
| merits. Tim Ferriss and Jordan Harbinger to name a couple.
| dleslie wrote:
| ... Unaccomplished?
|
| I've done a lot in my life. Enough to be proud of myself,
| if I may be so bold, but I'm nowhere near as accomplished
| as Joe Rogan; irrespective of how I or others may feel
| about him.
|
| At the very least, he has impacted the lives of far more
| people than I, and given a platform to many others to do
| the same. I've impacted many, millions even, but I'm still
| nowhere near his capacity for influence.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Sorry that this whole thing spawned something we both
| didn't expect.
|
| Joe does look pretty hilarious these days. If you look at
| pictures of him younger vs now he went from decent looking
| italian showman to some alien humanoid. Becoming a
| muscleman who works out for hours, plus tries crazy things
| like his diet, pill regimen, and sitting in a sauna/ice
| bath for an hour daily is something he wants to do and it
| is his prerogative.
|
| The only thing he really promotes heavily is for people to
| lose weight and stop eating junk food. Yeah he does have
| ads for Gatorade clone drinks but still I don't think he is
| really implying people should adopt his whole routine. It
| is easy to ignore and focus on the podcast content.
|
| If you don't mind which lifestyle choices are you referring
| to?
|
| >Not really sincere or actually interested in his guests
| more than he is interested in himself. I find he'll say
| he's interested and come back with some show of how
| cultured and learned he is by bringing some obscure
| minutiae.
|
| There have been a lot of podcasts where he has no freakin
| clue how to add to the conversation so he tries to
| contribute topic he does know about (comedy, MMA, working
| out) but for the most part he sits and listens. For me if
| the guest is not interesting or acting in bad faith, I shut
| it off and move on with the understanding that I will
| rarely miss any insight from Joe himself. If he is friends
| with the person then I see a totally different vibe. I'm
| not trying to convince you of anything, just stating my
| observations.
|
| At the end of the day he has repeatedly said that the
| podcast is just supposed to be two people sitting around
| "shooting the shit". In fact I only started listening in
| mid 2020 just because of some guest that intrigued me. I
| didn't even know who Joe Rogan was before that.
| newbie789 wrote:
| > Joe himself is an unaccomplished stoner...
|
| This is an interesting take. I personally find Joe Rogan to
| be an abhorrent human being that gives a platform to
| pseudoscientists and white supremacists, but I've never
| heard "his tens of millions of dollars are negated by the
| fact that he smokes weed" as a criticism.
|
| Out of curiosity, what value does Tim Ferris provide to
| society? I'm not being sarcastic, I just only know him as
| the guy that wrote the four hour work week book, which I
| did not find substantive.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, who were the "psuedoscientists" and
| "white supremacists" you're accusing Joe of giving a
| platform to?
|
| Slanderous accusation to just drop and not expand on.
|
| Or is that what you call people that you don't agree with
| their scientific or political beliefs?
| newbie789 wrote:
| Off the top of my head Alex Jones comes to mind as both,
| but if we don't agree on him I doubt we'll agree on any
| part of this topic.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Probably not. I'm not for blacklisting people based on
| their ideals and sanctioned topics.
|
| I think you should talk people you disagree with, who
| wants an echo chamber?
|
| Fight misinformation with more information, not
| censorship.
|
| The laptop and lab leak censorship fiasco should have
| been an awakening to that.
| newbie789 wrote:
| I didn't mention blacklisting. I said that I, as an
| individual, do not like Joe Rogan. I personally do not
| listen to his podcast, nor do I watch or listen to Alex
| Jones.
|
| Thank you for your suggestion about what I _should do_ ,
| but I'll politely decline your request that I go out of
| my way to consume media made by people I dislike in order
| to reverse an arbitrary judgment of being in an "echo
| chamber" from a stranger.
|
| I'm happy stating my opinion and not being prescriptive.
| I hope you enjoy whatever media you choose to consume.
| dleslie wrote:
| I thought it was telling that Rogan tends to pair Jones
| with another guest who is ... obviously out to lunch. The
| last time I saw he had AJ on he was sitting beside a flat
| earther. Having the two together made both look as
| ridiculous as they really are.
|
| That said, he's had too many questionable dieticians,
| anti-vaxxers, and such that he leaves unquestioned and
| unchallenged. To say nothing of his poor history with
| gender issues.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Joe Rogan was a UFC interviewer & commentator, Fear Factor
| host, and comedian. Not exactly an unaccomplished stoner.
| All his jobs were great experience in interviewing people.
|
| Everything you said is subjective. I don't really like him
| as a person, but our personalities are different. His
| interviews and podcasts are interesting because he lets the
| guest talk, unlike many other hosts.
|
| All in all I don't agree with your assessment. I'm sure
| they people you listed are nice, but you could apply your
| same shallow subjective critiques to them as well.
| prvc wrote:
| >yt-dlp is a youtube-dl fork based on the now inactive youtube-
| dlc. The main focus of this project is adding new features and
| patches while also keeping up to date with the original project
|
| yt-dlc's last commit was only 4 days ago, from the project owner.
| What are the advantages of each, and what about other forks out
| there?
| sbarre wrote:
| The README covers most of these questions FYI
| prvc wrote:
| The above quotation is from README.md in the yt-dlp
| repository, which does list some differences, but I get the
| sense this is not the full story.
| [deleted]
| molticrystal wrote:
| https://github.com/blackjack4494/yt-dlc/commits/master
|
| The previous update was July 25, and the one before that was
| December 2020.
|
| While the July update dealt with the updater, having 2 days of
| small changes since December is not very active.
|
| As far as the advantages, there are plenty of comments now
| outlining them better than I could. For me there are many
| additional sites that work with yt-dlp that do not work with
| the other forks. I found myself using this fork more and more
| instead of youtube-dl due to the additional support, until I've
| now made it my default. It does have a compat mode so if you
| use a lot of youtube-dl switches that yt-dlp may of removed or
| depreciated in the cleanup, they will still usually work if
| applicable with this fork as well.
| Scaevolus wrote:
| > NEW FEATURES
|
| > Cookies from browser: Cookies can be automatically extracted
| from all major web browsers using --cookies-from-browser
| BROWSER[:PROFILE]
|
| Very nice. Having to manually copy cookies to get past login
| walls is annoying.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| As much as I like this feature, it is _scary_ on the other side
| how easy it is to essentially steal cookies - what yt-dlp can,
| so can malware.
|
| Why don't OSes have some sort of system-wide secret store
| linked to an user's account (like the macOS Keychain) and an
| application's code-signing certificate? That would at least
| prevent easy file-dump attacks, moving the barrier to "execute
| something in the browser process context" instead.
| Popegaf wrote:
| 1. Other OSes (at least linux) have user keychains.
|
| 2. Once malware is running as your user, how do you expect to
| protect against that even with a keychain? They can log all
| your keystrokes, extract certificates and keys from
| applications running as your user or anything your user has
| access to, etc.
|
| 3. How are you going to support different keychains on
| different OSes? And what happens when they diverge? Say Apple
| gets "brave" again and allows only Apple signed binaries to
| access the keychain with the excuse of "user security", will
| binaries have to roll their own keychain? Are you going to
| make apps add another corporate dependency?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 2. Once malware is running as your user, how do you
| expect to protect against that even with a keychain?
|
| A kernel-backed mechanism could enforce that access to the
| secret decryption syscalls can only be done from untampered
| signed processes.
|
| Assuming an user has a distinct login password they are not
| using anywhere else and the public key of the codesign
| certificate is part of the kernel-side secret, a malware
| has _no chance_ of getting access to the secret, unless it
| exploits a code execution vulnerability in the target
| program.
|
| > How are you going to support different keychains on
| different OSes?
|
| A minimal interface with three calls: 1) create/delete a
| kernel-side secret, 2) encrypt a secret using a key derived
| from the user's keychain and the application's public key,
| 3) decrypt a secret using said key.
|
| Android brings such an API (KeyStore), macOS' Keychain
| should support something like that via its ACL feature.
| Where additional work is needed is Windows (its DPAPI only
| protects secrets from other users, apps can get other apps'
| secrets by design to implement SSO) and Linux (which
| doesn't have any way to verify in the kernel if an
| application has a code signature).
|
| Browsers and other apps wishing to protect secrets from
| malware could use an abstraction layer that uses the best
| available mechanism on each platform, the three operations
| should be enough for this purpose.
| q-rews wrote:
| It's annoying that this has been downvoted because having
| your identity in easily-readable files on your computer is
| literally worse than saving passwords in a text file:
| Passwords will prompt 2FA, notifications and whatnot; Cookies
| might just work, albeit temporarily.
| avhception wrote:
| While I see the problem with malicious applications
| pillaging your users home directory, let's not forget that
| being able to tinker and hack together things is also one
| of the greatest strengths of the desktop platform.
| qqii wrote:
| Linux does right? I believe this is how android works but you
| can set something up manually by creating a seperate user and
| changing the permissions on the browser cache/data folder,
| then run the browser as one user and yt-dlp as a seperate
| one.
|
| There might be a more modern and streamlined solution for
| Linux, but in Windows land they also introduced Controlled
| Folder Access into defender.
| fsflover wrote:
| If you really need security through isolation, have a look at
| Qubes OS.
| Jenda_ wrote:
| Run browser under different user.
|
| And have a look at AppArmor.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Oh yes, that's what I need as a user: files on my drive that
| I can't read.
|
| It's enough that I already can't read the data that's being
| sent and received by my own computer, because of certificate
| pinning.
| 22c wrote:
| I was recently looking for a library that did this and couldn't
| find anything nice. I was surprised but also slightly
| disappointed to see that yt-dlp has essentially rolled their
| own (cookies.py [1]).
|
| [1] https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-
| dlp/blob/master/yt_dlp/cookies....
| c6401 wrote:
| There's https://github.com/richardpenman/browsercookie. Also
| at least for firefox it's quite easy to implement in like 5
| strings or so.
| vxNsr wrote:
| It's open source so you could theoretically pull it out and
| generalize it... idk if anyone wants to manage that project
| (seems like a ton of work even for an open source project)
| but I'm sure it be interesting.
| Scaevolus wrote:
| I've used pycookiecheat successfully with Chrome on Ubuntu:
| https://pypi.org/project/pycookiecheat/
| chr_cookies =
| pycookiecheat.chrome_cookies('https://example.com')
| session = requests.Session() for k, v in
| cookies.items(): session.cookies.set(k, v,
| domain='.example.com')
| paulcarroty wrote:
| Actually it works with mpv: create `~/.config/mpv/script-
| opts/ytdl_hook.conf` file with content `ytdl_path=yt-dlp`.
| wp381640 wrote:
| If you use youtube-dl and haven't noticed that it hasn't been
| receiving updates it's worth aliasing youtube-dl with this
| project
| pluc wrote:
| There's this too: https://github.com/deepjyoti30/ytmdl
| TillE wrote:
| A neat tool, but YouTube is generally an abysmal source for
| music. That's partly deliberate (from record labels) and partly
| an inevitable consequence of recompression with different lossy
| formats.
|
| Unless something is completely unavailable elsewhere, you'll
| find far better audio quality from other (original) sources.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| It's not so much about availability or even quality as it is
| convenience for a lot of us. Soviet funk here, favorite TV
| news theme there, C64 remixes over here, NPR tiny desk over
| this way, and a rendition of the full original vocal lyrics
| to the M:I theme which is basically only available on YT
| itself...
|
| I can't imagine trying to source this stuff independently and
| keeping up with it, and if some commercial music crept in I
| imagine it'd be easier to simply stay on YT and ask what
| level of quality one subjectively needs for dental drilling,
| or mindless work, or throne-in-lair-sitting, or whatever it
| is...
| Macha wrote:
| > Unless something is completely unavailable elsewhere
|
| I do run into this from time to time. Let's say I want the
| soundtrack to one of my favourite anime, from 2006.
|
| Some items from it are also on the source game soundtrack, so
| are available on iTunes. This is actually kind of rare for
| older anime which usually don't bother releasing in iTunes
| outside Japan, but being a game adaptation helps it here, I
| guess. Still, anything composed for the anime are not
| included.
|
| Some of it is there on Spotify. Actually, at one point it all
| was, and I can still see the tracks are there but grayed out
| in other people's playlists, so I assume there exists some
| region in which it was available, and the availability in my
| region initially was a mistake by a licensee who forgot to
| limit it to the regions they had rights for. Either way, it's
| no longer legally available for me.
|
| So I could.... VPN to Japanese iTunes, thereby breaking the
| terms of service, (assuming it's still there) or I could try
| import some decade old special edition DVDs of the anime
| which contained the OST.
|
| Or I could rip it from YouTube. Eventually, if you make no
| effort to sell to me, I'm going to resort to other options.
| input_sh wrote:
| > So I could.... VPN to Japanese iTunes, thereby breaking
| the terms of service...
|
| In my experience, you'd immediately enter "vacation mode",
| which is limited to two weeks in free version, but
| unlimited in premium. Spotify doesn't even complain when
| you switch countries in a couple of seconds. They're very
| lenient on enforcement, I've used it for like five years
| before Spotify actually became available in my country
| (though I couldn't pay for the premium with a card from a
| different country). Just log in via VPN once, then it works
| for two weeks.
| Fogest wrote:
| That and a lot of music I have found on there has a music
| video version of the song which can sometimes be slightly
| different than the original song. It's usually something like
| a longer intro before the music starts or something like
| cheering from a crowd or whatever to mimic it being a live
| performance music video. So you're getting a subpar sound
| quality combined with a sometimes differing song from the
| original.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| You can usually find a lyric version with the unedited
| album track.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| YouTube has a ton of obscure music that can't be found on
| Spotify, plus things like old TV specials, theme tunes,
| outtakes and the like.
|
| The quality is usually pretty bad, it's true. But in many
| cases, this stuff is almost impossible to buy even if you
| wanted to, so YouTube is your only option.
|
| YT is also fairly unpleasant to use, which is why a lot of
| people go for youtube-dl.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| haven't paid attention to this since all the drama last year but
| again - what are all of you using youtube-dl for? Archiving your
| channel subs?
| ronnier wrote:
| I made a tool for myself so I could 1 click download videos to
| my iphone's camera roll. It's based on youtube-dl. I like to
| share raw videos and do not like to share URLs. I use this tool
| to make that easy -- I copy a url and run the iOS shortcut and
| the video auto saves to my camera roll.
|
| https://github.com/rroller/media-roller
| vxNsr wrote:
| Where do you direct share videos that will allow >5min of
| 1080p?
| hansel_der wrote:
| telegram for example
| arp242 wrote:
| My internet connection can be flaky, and just downloading stuff
| and playing it locally works a lot better. YouTube tries very
| hard to minimize the buffer size to only what's needed - which
| makes a lot of sense at their scale - but it also means that
| less-than-stable internet connections are difficult because
| it'll never buffer enough to bridge the 3 minute outage.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| My experience is that the internet is really bad at forgetting
| the stuff you want gone, but really good at turning all your
| bookmarks into 404s and parked domains (another reason why
| bookmarks are pretty much worthless). So if you don't save it,
| it'll be gone next time you're trying to look it up. Doubly so
| if it is something even mildly controversial (now or then).
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Doubly so if it is something even mildly controversial
| (now or then)._
|
| Triply so if it's hosted by a corporation.
|
| Looking at you, Microsoft. For all the good[0] things you're
| doing for developers using your platforms, I'm still angry at
| the way your documentation links rot. It seems that
| everything that ever linked to MSDN prior to ~2015 will now
| have their links redirected to 404 or "buy new Surface" page.
| Hell, plenty of internal links are broken too. It's
| particularly apparent when trying to read about C++ and COM
| (vs. C#/.NET, which seems to be MS's main focus).
|
| --
|
| [0] - In a pragmatic, day-to-day dev experience sense.
| Explicitly not talking about wider ethical issues here.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| So... on-the-go playback, general data-hoarding, music piracy,
| weird 'raw video' sharing instead of URLs that everyone has
| been doing since 2006 (please stop this! It's baffling to
| receive video files in emails from boomers in this day and
| age), and a bit too much attention to the abundance of terrible
| passively consumed content that you all spend too much time on
| youtube.com itself for
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Watching videos in my media player rather than my browser.
| Hardware acceleration has better support in mpv than Firefox.
| marbu wrote:
| Mostly for off-line usage. Especially for videos where I care
| about audio only, I can download the audio part and then save
| it to my phone so that I can listen to it later without a need
| to have network connection. Another use case is archival.
| crazygringo wrote:
| 1) Videos disappear. Anything I think I might want to watch
| again in the future, I always download rather than bookmark.
| Not just YouTube but any video site (e.g. Reddit).
|
| 2) When Internet is flaky or doesn't exist. I've downloaded
| whole sets of tutorial videos for example to watch on a plane.
|
| 3) Stuff in 4K where my video player does a better job with
| hardware acceleration than my web browser does
|
| I mean out of all the video I watch from the internet, 95% is
| streaming, but youtube-dl is for that other 5% that falls into
| the three categories above.
| arthur2e5 wrote:
| A recent example of videos disappearing is when Radio TV Hong
| Kong got a new, more pro-Beijing head. The "inflammatory"
| stuff first went down, followed by anything older than 1 year
| on YouTube as cover.
| thewebcount wrote:
| I genuinely hate using YouTube because it's awful. Random pop-
| ups all over the page. Weird suggestions on the sidebar because
| I don't have an account and don't want one. Ads that start in
| the middle of a sentence and play again if you rewind, etc. so
| you can't actually understand the video you're watching. So I
| wrote an app that takes a YouTube URL, downloads the video with
| youtube-dl, and just plays it in a normal OS window. No web
| browser needed. No junk. It's awesome!
| lorenzhs wrote:
| You can just run "vlc https://youtube.com/watch/...". There's
| also YouTube-dl integration for mpv if I'm not mistaken.
| dryfish wrote:
| I did the same but it's all bodged together which means I
| usually don't watch anything from Youtube.
|
| It's a shame that the only video links on HN seem to be from
| Youtube.
| xelxebar wrote:
| You might also enjoy invidio.us, in the off chance you end up
| stranded on a remote island without youtube-dl handy.
| austhrow743 wrote:
| Watching YouTube videos with no or poor internet connection.
|
| Watching many high res videos without destroying phone data
| plan.
| sralbert wrote:
| I download Twitch vods and Youtube videos at home and copy them
| to my work PC to listen to during the day.
| Aachen wrote:
| Safekeeping, offline viewing, producing derivative works (it's
| great they allow setting CC licenses on videos, but are
| subsequently hostile to anyone trying to actually use those
| rights), and viewing on platforms where the browser or player
| doesn't work (that's been a few years by now though, now that
| all my hardware is newer and I'm no poor student anymore).
|
| A great example I recently saw is someone extracting the audio
| feed and double checking the Doppler shift of a passing
| quadcopter to confirm a speed claim. It checked out and the
| math was included. Stellar comment. Harder to do if obtaining
| the video's data is made hard.
| jjulius wrote:
| Live music performances, both new and old. YT is a great
| resource for that sort of thing, and I don't trust that that
| stuff will remain on YT and readily accessible for years to
| come, so I slap them on my NAS and watch them via Plex.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Mainly not having to worry about reliability of my connection
| to youtube. I get loading-spinners and changes in resolution
| fairly regularly on YT.
| [deleted]
| Larrikin wrote:
| I've started saving anything I ever watch more than once.
| Cooking recipes, music videos, learning materials, etc.
|
| I started when a group I listened to removed all the content
| they had put up over the past year and said it was promotional
| material for their latest album which was garbage.
|
| Ads have gotten so bad that any videos over three minutes have
| multiple ad breaks so watching longer music videos or sets are
| just completely ruined when watching on YouTube.
|
| I wish there was a good set up for single watch videos since
| the ad algorithm tries to anticipate good places for breaks,
| which often times is right before punch lines to joke and when
| you skip over the ad they tend to put you back a few
| milliseconds ahead of where you stopped which can ruin jokes. I
| rarely watch for enjoyment (as opposed to learning) on a
| computer so I don't get the benefit of using an ad blocker like
| Ad Nauseam.
| IronWolve wrote:
| Good for saving music videos or concerts to throw up on the
| tv at the cabin on the weekends.
|
| Theres tons of place without internet access, or I dont have
| a device with internet access.
| ufo wrote:
| I also use it to stream videos, not just for downloading. I can
| watch using a native video player (such as mpv) instead of the
| web interface. More control over the playback speed and less
| buffering when I pause or fast forward. Very useful for longer
| lectures and presentations. mpv --ytdl-
| format="best[height<=720]" "$URL"
| krick wrote:
| Literally everything.
|
| 1. I download whole channels if there's a series I want to
| watch.
|
| 2. I download music, since youtube is a really quite nice music
| library.
|
| 3. I download long videos before I watch it, because it's just
| more pleasant to rewind the thing when it's already on your
| SSD. Also, it won't freeze spoiling a beautiful scene because
| of some stupid WiFi problem.
|
| 4. Even if I don't download it _before_ watching, I still use
| mpv to watch it, which uses youtube-dl internally, because mpv
| is a much nicer video-player than what you can have in a
| browser.
|
| And I'm sure I forgot some important use-cases. Browsers are
| evil, js-apps are stupid, don't use them, if you can.
| nsomaru wrote:
| What is your workflow for this?
| hansel_der wrote:
| this effectively extracts media urls from the current page,
| puts them into a m3u file and let's you open it with any
| application https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/play-with/
|
| mpv itself uses ytdl (or others) for accessing streming
| sites and will buffer the whole vid if you crank up cache
| settings like: cache=yes demuxer-max-
| bytes=5G demuxer-max-back-bytes=5G prefetch-
| playlist=yes force-seekable=yes
| Ruthalas wrote:
| If you feel like chatting with others who also archive
| YouTube content, consider stopping by my discord server:
| https://discord.gg/xjj538vD
|
| We maintain a central list [1] of content that various
| members have archived, such that when content is removed from
| YouTube, people can direct inquiries to contributors who have
| archived that content.
|
| It's a small way to keep track of what things have been
| successfully archived, and occasionally direct efforts to
| preserve specific content.
|
| [1] https://tinyurl.com/v4rpe9w
| cfn wrote:
| For me was YouTube playing the same add every few minutes on
| almost every video I watched (some tooth paste ad) on the iPad.
| I started by downloading the videos on a PC and watching them
| later from my NAS but in the end I gave up on YouTube on the
| iPad and bought a Surface Pro.
| nikisweeting wrote:
| I wonder if I should switch ArchiveBox to use this... is it
| available as easily via apt/pip/brew/Pkg/etc as YouTube-dL?
| Otherwise vendoring is always a pain.
| dewey wrote:
| Doesn't look like yet, but at least for brew there's a pending
| MR: https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp#installation
| mattl wrote:
| How much to get a way to block "hey guys" at the start of a
| video?
| sodality2 wrote:
| Sponsorblock can skip sponsors, self-promos, subscribe
| reminders, intro animation, and end credits. (crowd-sources the
| timestamps)
|
| https://sponsor.ajay.app/
| mattl wrote:
| Alas not really watching a video on a browser.
| Ruthalas wrote:
| If you use youtube-dlp to download the videos, it can use
| sponskrub to cut out those sections entirely (or flag
| them).
| sodality2 wrote:
| Android? Youtube vanced offers this built-in.
| mattl wrote:
| iOS/Mac OS X
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Youtube-dl works on Mac, and you can get it working on
| iOS too. https://www.macstories.net/linked/downloading-
| youtube-videos...
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Never heard of YouTube Vanced. I see it's not open
| source. The feature list is interesting, but it doesn't
| say anything about tracking/telemetry. Does the app track
| you (and how much), independently of YouTube tracking?
|
| I'm currently happy with NewPipe - which is essentially a
| youtube-dl GUI, and has to be updated just as often,
| which is damn annoying because FDroid is _still_
| completely broken UX-wise - but I have less tech-savvy
| people around me, who would very much like an alternative
| to the official YouTube app.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Newpipe works as well. Youtube vanced cannot be open
| source as it is just a nodded youtube client, which isn't
| open source. I cannot speak on tracking but I tracked its
| DNS requests and nothing out of the ordinary.
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Need to check out vanced, NewPipe keeps breaking.
| Tistron wrote:
| For me, something like this is exactly where Deno would shine. I
| could just run `deno run <script url> --allow-net=YouTube.com
| --allow-write=.` and not worry about that it could do anything
| dangerous. Probably the url list would be a bit more complicated,
| but I could also just blanket allow net without worrying, since
| allow-read isn't needed.
| xmprt wrote:
| Do you know if generic sandboxing tools exist? I feel like it
| should be possible to use Docker and some sort of Firewall to
| isolate your running application from your system if you're
| worried about it accessing things that it should be able to.
| And that way you don't need to worry about using deno or
| relying on the program being written in a certain
| framework/language.
| NotEvil wrote:
| Firejail?
| dpacmittal wrote:
| While it's great that Deno is sandboxing code, but I feel like
| this should be a part of the OS and not the language.
| chaorace wrote:
| Should it also be the OS's job to sandbox JS from the
| websites you visit?
|
| Admittedly, that question is made in bad faith -- I know what
| you mean, even if what you mean isn't necessarily
| "sandboxing": permissions!
|
| Android and iOS do it right. One OS-level source of truth
| that manages application-level permissions for the entire
| machine. When you frame it that way, it becomes clear that
| Deno asking for rights on a per-run basis is indeed silly,
| but only in the context of the user experience... not
| necessarily the core software design.
| dasl wrote:
| youtube has recently been implementing download speed throttling
| on some video downloads. See: https://github.com/ytdl-
| org/youtube-dl/issues/29326 . Youtube-dl does not yet have a
| solution for this occasional download speed throttling.
|
| This yt-dlp fork has a workaround (though not a true fix) for the
| issue: https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-
| dl/issues/29326#issuecom...
| makeworld wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you don't even need those flags, and it just
| uses the non-throttled mdoe by default: https://github.com/yt-
| dlp/yt-dlp/pull/492
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| One of the nice features added to yt-dlp recently: It integrates
| with sponskrub to call into the SponsorBlock database and with
| the right options will strip the sponsor segments from downloaded
| videos.
|
| Edit: Correct typo
| DavideNL wrote:
| Has anyone managed to build/install sponskrub for the Raspberry
| Pi 4?
|
| https://github.com/faissaloo/SponSkrub
| app4soft wrote:
| > _It integrates with sponskrub to call into the SponsorBlock
| database and with the right options will strip the sponsor
| segments from downloaded videos._
|
| Also here is a fork of _NewPipe_ with _SponsorBlock_
| functionality.[0]
|
| [0] https://github.com/polymorphicshade/NewPipe
| themodelplumber wrote:
| dlc? Don't tell me that's a different one...
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| dlc is abandoned and dlp integrates its features.
| stinos wrote:
| So dlc is a fork of dl, but dl itself has actually a bunch
| of fairly recent commits which dlc does not have. And dlp
| nor dlc are 'forks' in the Github sense of forking. So how
| does one figure out whether recent dl commits are in dlp?
| And does this matter? Is this the downside of 'if you don't
| like it then just fork it and fix it'?
| [deleted]
| nnt38 wrote:
| Just get dlp its the most up to date version
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| Whoops, typo on my part. Sorry about that.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Are the sponsor parts really so bad? To me not only is it easy
| to skip, I want indie people to make enough money to produce
| high quality content; otherwise media is just what a few
| biggies want to fund. They're not enough from YouTube itself
| unless you're in the top percentile.
|
| Also what sponsored content are people downloading versus just
| streaming live? I don't get the use case.
| chalupaman wrote:
| For me, the issue is that overwhelmingly the sponsor blocks
| are for products and services not available in or relevant to
| my country. Unlike the regular ads loaded through YouTube,
| they can't be customized based on the viewer's region. They
| will just assume that viewers of English-language content are
| in the USA, mostly. When you subtract mobile games, which I
| don't play, I would say that maybe 1 in 20 of them are things
| I could buy even if I wanted to. So it just feels pointless,
| they see no benefit from my seeing the sponsorships and it
| wastes my time.
|
| As for what sponsored content people are streaming: where I
| live Internet providers provide unlimited bandwidth during
| off peak hours (midnight to 8AM) but give you a monthly data
| limit outside those hours. If you are in an area not wired
| for high-speed internet, you might be relying on 4G which can
| have a monthly limit of as little as 50 GB... which isn't
| much at all for a family. So it's nice to be able to queue up
| all the videos you want to watch to download overnight,
| making the answer "everything/anything."
|
| (And that is the chief use of YouTube-DL for me. YouTube
| premium lets you save videos to watch offline, but only on
| mobile devices --- which typically have little storage for
| them --- and you can't schedule it, you'd have to get up at
| midnight to manually select each video. With YouTube-DL I can
| schedule downloads of all my subscriptions and bookmarks to a
| nice big hard drive and then automatically put my PC to
| sleep.)
| grapist420 wrote:
| I'm not gonna buy your headphones or VPN or "online course",
| and I skip over them whenever possible. So no point in seeing
| them.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| > Are the sponsor parts really so bad?
|
| It depends. Some Creators get pretty creative with their
| sponsor blocks. JayzTwoCents comes to mind with his "iFixit"
| ad - it's hilarous every time it appears.
| CraneWorm wrote:
| I just want the advertisers to burn money paying for content
| I watch, but I don't want to see the ads.
|
| That, or post-scarcity to finally happen, whichever cones
| first :).
|
| I would be fine with adblock that fakes that I saw the ad
| without me having to wait for it to buffer.
| xmprt wrote:
| I usually see sponsorships for products that I already know
| about. If it's a creator's first sponsorship or if it's a new
| product (I check the description links to see) then I watch
| it through but otherwise, it's a massive waste of time to sit
| through a bunch 1 minute sponsorship in the middle of a 10
| minute video.
| sen wrote:
| I pay for YouTube premium but still see them. That's not OK,
| especially when the creators make 10x more money off YouTube
| Premium users than from ad-based users.
|
| YouTube needs to make a way for creators to label the sponsor
| sections and it skips it for Premium users.
|
| As for why downloading, I download any/every video I find
| useful so I don't have to go back to YouTube to watch it
| later. Everything from blender tutorials to car build videos
| that taught me something to music video clips and generally
| just anything interesting. It all goes to my NAS and I can
| instantly pull it up for reference and scrub quicker and
| don't have to deal with YouTube's increasingly annoying
| website.
| sbarre wrote:
| > YouTube needs to make a way for creators to label the
| sponsor sections and it skips it for Premium users.
|
| I have read that more and more creators use sponsored
| segments because that pays much better than YT revshare..
|
| So they may not care about the Premium user experience as
| much, and if Premium lets people skip sponsored segements,
| that might drive down the overall segment viewership, AND
| increase Premium subscribers and then it's a lose-lose for
| the creator since those segments will be less and less
| valuable to the sponsor.
| sen wrote:
| They're talking about the free ad-watching type users.
| It's been published by multiple creators that YT Premium
| is easily their biggest income stream but there's just
| very very few people willing to pay Premium (for most
| creators it's like 1-2% or less).
|
| If YouTube made it more appealing to buy Premium, eg by
| letting you block sponsored segments, download videos
| easily, etc etc... everyone would win.
| sbarre wrote:
| I've heard the opposite, that people don't really see a
| bump from premium.
|
| While I'm sure it's different for every creator I would
| be curious to see the math.
|
| But you may be right.
| saghm wrote:
| > YouTube needs to make a way for creators to label the
| sponsor sections and it skips it for Premium users
|
| I have to imagine it wouldn't be long before some clever
| sponsor offers extra money not to mark their sections...
| skinkestek wrote:
| Solution: a report ad button for Premium subscribers.
|
| Once a significant (number && percentage) of users report
| it kt is flagged,
|
| - first to the creator
|
| - and then shortly afterwards - if the creator does not
| either fix it or verify it - to a review team or even to
| a customer panel
|
| Some logic can be applied to filter out abuses of the
| system by:
|
| - looking for reports by new viewers of this channel
| (brigading)
|
| - dismissing / less weighting for people who have
| previously attempted to abuse the report button
|
| - look at the clustering of reports in time
| f1refly wrote:
| Why not just use the original sponsorskip at that point?
| skinkestek wrote:
| Im not against sponsorskip.
|
| I'm just pointing out that this should be the job of the
| premium team at YouTube, not left to subscribers.
|
| so:
|
| - Sponsorskip is a good solution to a problem that
| shouldn't exist
|
| - If YouTube cared they could make this an even better
| experience and make sure both honest producers, paying
| customers and sponsors got a better deal. Today the
| revenue maximizing play seems to be to add sponsors on
| top of premium and hope advertisers doesn't realize they
| are being skipped.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Surely as soon as you have this there'll be a service to
| leak the time codes to non-subscribers so embeds, yt-dl's
| forks, etc. can auto-skip.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Already happens which us a good thing given how YouTube
| drag their feet on this.
|
| Maybe there had been less enthusiasm around such projects
| though if they didn't have legitimate uses?
| kortilla wrote:
| Yes, they are just ads in an even worse form because it's not
| clear when to skip to to pass over them.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Like how all the wood-workers on YouTube have $1K Festool
| track saws and $4K SawStop table saws.
| globular-toast wrote:
| It doesn't make any difference to the channel whether you
| watch the sponsored segment or not. If you want to archive
| some videos then sponsored segments are just a waste of
| space. I archive any useful information that I intend to use.
| For example, an instructional video showing how to repair my
| car.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| not per se.
|
| but if you are like me and watch a lot of curated playlists,
| you end up watching the same sponsor segments over and over.
|
| it's like watching anime on primevideo without hitting the
| skip intro button
|
| it gets annoying pretty soon.
| krick wrote:
| Bad? No, not really. If you ask me, (almost?) nothing is
| inherently bad. But it's a nice and obvious feature to skip
| them if you want, so it's pretty amazing that such options
| are possible now. (However, I don't think I'll use it,
| because there is an mpv plugin for that, and it feels pretty
| weird, to actually skip parts of the video when downloading.
| I mean, what if I'll need it one time: do I have to re-
| download the video?)
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| If the products where A) relevant B) good.
|
| How many youtubers have you seen shilling out raid shadow
| legends? They all praise it like it's the next coming of
| Jesus while everyone knows that the game is absolute garbage.
|
| How many times will I get ad for NordVPN? Why would I use
| such a widely known and blocked VPN for streaming services?
| It is literal noob trap.
|
| Worst is the reybud or whatever ear buds. Everyone says how
| good they sound and how amazing they are, but realistically
| if a brand comes out of nowhere with no other products what
| are the chances that they are good or even decent?
|
| All of these are terrible sponsor ads for me. All they do is
| annoy me and waste my time. At least many video makers I
| follow have the decency to somehow indicate in the video how
| long the ad will go on so it is easier to skip. Only reason I
| don't use the automatic extension is that anyone can mark any
| segment of any video as an ad and it will be automatically
| skipped and I don't like that idea. Maybe if it was just some
| friends who I trust.
| httpsterio wrote:
| Some people, like Internet Historian puts some effort in and
| the sponsor segments are actually entertaining and I don't
| mind watching those. Some people also do the quick shout out
| that takes some 10 seconds and they're fine too.
|
| I also watch some meme compilations with my SO and they're
| usually pretty different. I appreciate that compiling those
| memes into one video is for the convenience of the viewer but
| the original video creators don't benefit from those, only
| the ones making the compilations so I don't want to support
| that. On top of that, there are some channels that have
| several minutes long product ads inside the video, not the
| normal YouTube adverts. I simply hate those.
| lawl wrote:
| > Are the sponsor parts really so bad? To me not only is it
| easy to skip, I want indie people to make enough money to
| produce high quality content; otherwise media is just what a
| few biggies want to fund.
|
| In my experience, it's the same with ads everywhere else. It
| (usually) starts out not being overly obnoxious, with just a
| "this video is sponsored by [garbage tier mobile
| game/earphones/vpn/whatever] more about them at the end of
| the video" and then the pitch at the end.
|
| I don't mind these. They quickly get the name out at the
| beginning and then don't interrupt the video. What really
| annoys me are the ones that interrupt the video. At some
| point a few of them annoyed me enough that I installed
| SponsorBlock. Because I don't _want_ to hear or see these
| ads, but i tolerated them. But once that threshold is crossed
| where I don 't tolerate all of them anymore, why would I not
| just block all of them? I'm not going to unblock specific
| channels that are well-behaved to listen to ads for products
| i will definitely never buy.
|
| It's the exact same thing with regular ad-blocking. Sometimes
| when I'm on a fresh OS I start browsing the web and only
| notice I don't have an adblocker once I visit a page with
| super obnoxious ads (e.g. google on mobile and realize
| there's only ads and no organic results for like the first 5
| screens).
| midasuni wrote:
| Map Men do great sponsor parts, actually entertaining to
| watch.
|
| I find the same with christmas adverts each year - I don't
| do tv, but go out of my way to watch the adverts and get in
| the festive mood come December.
| RealStickman_ wrote:
| The only adverts I actually unskip (using SponsorBlock
| normally) are those by InternetHistorian.
| eptcyka wrote:
| I find their sponsor parts to be obnoxious enough to
| deter from watching their videos when a new one comes out
| :/
| swiley wrote:
| Theirs are very creative, I almost always watch them just
| because they're like a little encore.
| input_sh wrote:
| > What really annoys me are the ones that interrupt the
| video.
|
| Especially when those interruptions take two minutes. I
| don't mind them up to 30 seconds, but their length does get
| pretty ridiculous from time to time.
|
| There's no medium that's gonna make watch two minutes ad
| without looking away or trying to skip it. You either sell
| it quickly or don't.
| azinman2 wrote:
| But what then do you think is a realistic alternative?
| YouTube costing $20/mo or more? Can't watch videos without
| a patron?
|
| If your answer is nothing -- I expect everything for free,
| then that's both unrealistic and parasitic.
| lawl wrote:
| > But what then do you think is a realistic alternative?
|
| Not my department. I'm perfectly happy being a parasite.
| I used to watch Twitch every now and then. Twitch
| introduced server side ads and made ad-blocking
| unreliable and annoying - so i stopped using twitch.
|
| My life doesn't depend on youtube, and if they decide to
| shut me out or the platform stops existing, that's fine
| with me. Maybe other video platforms can try out other
| models instead of that effective monopoly google has on
| online video currently.
|
| I've also already said that I tolerate non-obnoxious ads.
| But looking at the rest of the web, it doesn't seem to go
| in that direction, so I'll keep blocking until they kick
| me out.
| russelg wrote:
| Twitch is still perfectly fine with streamlink. There's a
| 15 second loading screen where ads are meant to go (only
| at the start of your stream), but you don't see any ads.
| opan wrote:
| mpv + youtube-dl also works fine.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| apparently the average viewer spends 41 minutes per day
| on youtube, so that's about 20 hours per month. 1 dollar
| per hour is pretty cheap when it comes to entertainment,
| no?
| InvertedRhodium wrote:
| I already pay $24 NZD for YouTube Premium. I'm simply
| using SponsorBlock to get the actual experience that
| payment implies - no ads.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Psst. We're trying to keep YouTube from turning into
| cable TV. Please don't interfere.
| dvtrn wrote:
| Were you the guy I was having this exact comparison
| conversation with last night over bourbon and ginger
| ales?
|
| I'm terrified we're already well on the other side of the
| Rubicon
| [deleted]
| kelnos wrote:
| I pay $10/mo for YouTube Premium, and my expectation is
| that I will not have to sit through any ads. A
| sponsorship is an ad, which violates that expectation, so
| I use SponsorBlock to skip them.
|
| For channels that I watch regularly, I contribute to
| their Patreon if they have one. I shouldn't have to sit
| through a sponsorship segment in addition to that.
| willow-x wrote:
| If you pay for YouTube Premium, the creators of monetized
| videos you watch get paid an order of magnitude more than
| with just YouTube ads.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| "order of magnitude" implies 10x. That's great news for
| small / independent creators! Can someone point me to a
| source for this information?
| epse wrote:
| It's hard to compare apples to apples, as ad revenue is
| based on amount of ads shown and your premium
| subscription is divvied up among your most watched
| creators based on watchtime [1]
|
| [1]
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Great link! Do you think it is fair to say the YouTube
| Premium payout model is similar to the music streaming
| platform, Spotify?
|
| At the risk of nerd sniping myself, thinking deeper, I
| wonder if people who sign up for YouTube Premium do
| _less_ random surfing on YouTube and instead focus on a
| few channels they love? That would _further_ concentrate
| their payouts. If true, then the 10x figure sounds
| reasonable.
| chupasaurus wrote:
| Nope. Spotify divides the whole subscription revenue per
| content's share in total time being played, thus it
| doesn't matter if you listen exclusively to some garage
| band - your money would go to whatever pop is now
| topping.
| corobo wrote:
| It's not possible to give that specific information
|
| The reason being that people in the businessy genre
| already get 10x (~$10CPM) what a gaming channel (~$1CPM)
| gets because there's more advertisers and less channels.
| You'd need to know the source channel
| deeblering4 wrote:
| Its not entirely the channels fault. If youtube paid
| creators a higher share on monetized videos and didn't
| keep changing the ranking and terms there would be less
| need to add alternate forms of monetization.
|
| Heck, youtube could even build in a patron feature much
| like twitch has with subscriptions.
| corobo wrote:
| Realistic alternative is others will pick up the slack
|
| Mass market viewers don't care, adblockers get ad free
| content, creator gets their slice. We all win
| Nadya wrote:
| For about 20 years most everything was supported on
| nothing but some person's own desire to put themselves
| out into the world. This meant spending out of their own
| pocket if necessary. If hosting became too much of a
| bandwidth issue for them to be able to pay for hosting
| they would release it as a torrent and it would become
| shared and distributed peer2peer or they'd throw it up on
| a free file share and the it became the file sharing
| platform's problem to deal with the bandwidth and try to
| collect (typically through member-only "premium download
| speeds").
|
| In the past 10 years or so quality has largely gone down
| and annoyances like ads and sponsor shoutouts have gone
| up to the extent "Sponsored by Raid: Shadow Legends" is
| an actual meme. There are very, very few content creators
| I feel are worth supporting. This ends up being a bit
| classist as mostly people with enough personal cash flow
| and free time can afford to become full-time content
| creators but by and large that's already kind of the case
| if you look at the people who become full-time content
| creators. But I personally feel that if your content is
| more of the "popcorn" variety that people use to fill
| their day but don't actually value compared to something
| people do value then the world at large isn't missing
| out. If enough people felt they would miss out - they'd
| pay to keep it around.
|
| There are plenty of content creators I watch where I
| would not be all that sad if they vanished and they
| stopped creating content - because I use their content to
| fill gaps of boredom in my day and not because I place
| any significant value in their content. Then there are a
| few I absolutely do value and I already support them when
| possible. I assume ones without a method to directly
| support them are OK with losing some revenue to ad-
| blockers and the like. I have absolutely let personal
| opportunities of collecting cash slide past me because I
| weighed the effort to collect it to be greater than it
| was worth so I assume the reason they haven't opened up a
| way to donate to them directly is for similar reasons.
|
| I consider ads to be psychological warfare and something
| that should (but never will) be illegal if they are
| designed to be emotionally manipulative in any way. If a
| dry, boring informercial doesn't inspire you to buy their
| product then it probably isn't worth buying howdy. I feel
| absolutely nothing bad about blocking them.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| In fact I do pay for yt premium, yet still get these
| kinds of ads.
|
| So much for that misplaced and invalid attempt at
| moralizing.
|
| "are they so terrible?" and "what's the alternative?" are
| not my problem to answer, and I don't even have to agree
| they are valid questions that _someone_ has to answer.
|
| I do not accept the premise that the only way content can
| exist is if advertisers pay for it. That's a false
| dichotomy. There is no such either/or choice.
|
| I will _happily_ live in a world that only has content
| that was either fully paid for by purchasing copies or
| subscriptions, or given to the world for free.
|
| You attempted to paint anyone using this software or
| anyone complaining about the ads as somehow morally
| lacking. I say, if you don't understand why anyone would
| give away something for free, and only think of the
| consumers as ungrateful parasites, then I think that says
| something worse about you than what you tried to say
| about anyone else.
| realityking wrote:
| > I will happily live in a world that only has content
| that was either fully paid for by purchasing copies or
| subscriptions, or given to the world for free.
|
| How do you feel about DRM to make sure content is only
| accessible to those who paid for it?
| p1necone wrote:
| I'm perfectly fine with businesses that use intrusive ads
| going out of business - none of this is essential to my
| well being. The onus is on them to find revenue gathering
| methods that don't suck, not me.
|
| And before you say "but creators have to make money too"
| - independent art gets created just fine without
| capitalistic motives, and I _vastly_ prefer the patreon
| model, or just paying up front for larger content
| (documentaries, games, films etc).
|
| (Although in this particular case, I'm pretty fine with
| the sponsor method with most of the creators I watch on
| youtube - there's definitely a line where it could get
| overbearing, but for the most part it's pretty easy to
| skip if you want and the brand they're shilling still
| gets shown to you over and over again so the advertisers
| aren't really losing out).
|
| (Also chiming in with the "I do pay for YouTube premium"
| gang as well).
| helloworld11 wrote:
| One thing I absolutely despise about "creators have to
| make money" is when some of those creators actually use
| YouTube to cram their shitty music down my throat via ads
| while I'm playing some other, completely different music
| that I actually chose.
|
| It's grotesque that they think this is an ideal way to
| promote fan appreciation. I mean, the music styles don't
| even sync: You could be listening to Bach, with a
| playback history that clearly shows a preference for
| classical music, and some idiotic teen pop song by some
| attention-desperate, barely known singer starts playing
| via ad, which if you don't click to skip it (say you're
| in the kitchen with your hands dirty while listening to
| your interrupted Bach) will play FULLY for its entire 3
| to 4 minute duration. Just bloody stupid...
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| > I expect everything for free, then that's both
| unrealistic and parasitic.
|
| There are plenty of youtubers who do videos as a hobby
| with no money and the videos still are amazing. Then
| there are plenty of youtubers who only make 10 minute
| videos so they can get as many ad breaks as possible and
| add sponsor ads in the videos and the video quality and
| content is just terrible.
| kadoban wrote:
| I'm 100% not going to buy whatever they're selling. If
| anything I'm less likely to buy something that's
| advertised to me. I've specifically stopped using
| services/products if I notice their ads too much.
|
| So who is benefiting from me watching sponsor segments?
| Not me, not the content creator, not the brand.
|
| I just skip them manually though tbh, haven't gotten
| around to automating it.
| anonymousab wrote:
| What is the difference between running this code and
| simply clicking ahead on the video timeline past the ad?
| How is it any different from recording a show on tape and
| just fastforwarding past the commercials?
| helloworld11 wrote:
| Youtube doesn't really let you do that. If you're
| watching a video you chose and some shitty little ad gets
| crammed in there to screw with your enjoyment, its own
| little yellow timeline appears that you have to sit
| through until you can click to skip ahead after X
| seconds.
| varelse wrote:
| Easy: a downloader that makes it look like you've watched
| those stupid commercials, but you actually haven't and
| you're back to the original video. Let the sponsors
| beware.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Until they see they get very little ROI and stop
| advertising that way. It's not like people sponsoring
| aren't looking to see what these channels do for them and
| just spend blindly...
| genewitch wrote:
| In the 1940s and 1950s radio programs and eventually
| television shows were sponsored by advertisers. soap
| operas get their name for being vehicles for soap
| companies. Off the top of my head Fitch's soap company
| was a big advertiser in the 40s. Another big advertiser
| in the forties and fifties was rexall.
|
| I don't know what the return on investment was, I always
| figured they did it as a way to show that they supported
| the arts.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I've long known this, but not how they used it to
| advertise -- was it product placement, pre-roll, being
| the only mid-roll adverts??
| comprev wrote:
| Unilever was a sponsor of early TV dramas in the UK
| path411 wrote:
| Do you have YouTube premium? If not consider at some point,
| someone has to give the channel revenue stream or the
| channel will die
| jtbayly wrote:
| I would think that cutting sponsored sections of videos
| wouldn't affect the money they receive at all. With
| Adblock, they can tell it wasn't loaded. Can the sponsor
| tell that your view skipped the sponsor part?
| vxNsr wrote:
| YouTube Premium doesn't get rid of embedded ads, they're
| part of the video, not a part of YouTube.
| ElCapitanMarkla wrote:
| I've got YouTube premium but I've noticed more and more
| channels breaking mid video to go into ad mode. Ordinary
| Sausage has been a too channel with the kids but jeez the
| last few videos there are nearly more ad than content.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > Do you have YouTube premium? ... someone has to give
| the channel revenue stream
|
| doesn't youtube premium give GOOGLE a revenue stream?
| thinkloop wrote:
| YouTube premium sends money to creators as people watch
| their videos. According to a redditor [1], CGP Grey (a
| prominent youtuber) claims to get more money from premium
| users than ads.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeMusic/comments/8s1b70
| /does_y...
| epse wrote:
| It gives a very significant cut to the creators, based on
| how much you ask them
| kadoban wrote:
| Why not just throw some money at their patreon, or buy
| some merch? Fairly sure they'll get more of that anyway.
| wpietri wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| Personally I am done with indirect funding models where
| people burn my time and attention in hopes of getting me
| to waste enough money on something that surplus cash can
| be skimmed to pay for the original content. It's
| ridiculous. Direct payment or GTFO.
|
| And I'm putting my money where my mouth is. My Patreon
| bill was $150 this month. And that's not counting direct
| payments to creators.
| thinkloop wrote:
| I love this, but that means you are now paying 3 times:
| ads/premium, sponsored messages, and patreon. Even if you
| block ads - as well as the much more complicated
| sponsored messages - you are still paying by having to
| manage that system and work around its edge cases. Direct
| "donation" should include ad-free and sponosor-free
| access to videos.
| wpietri wrote:
| I'm mostly supporting people who are writers and the
| like, so that's less of a problem for me. But I hope that
| more direct payment shifts things in that direction.
| kadoban wrote:
| In some cases it does, but that requires basically way
| too much work from the content creator, they have to have
| a separate way to give paying subscribers videos. For
| example, LinusTechTips has videos on their own video
| delivery service available, and they're pretty much ad
| free. I know some other creators do a similar thing (not
| setting up their own youtube competitor, but the rest).
|
| Personally I just use adblock, skip the sponsor segments
| and live with it. Sponsor stuff is really easy to skip in
| my experience, especially on mobile where if you double
| tap the right side it skips 10 seconds. You get used to
| how many taps to do per content creator, their sponsor
| segments seem to be consistent lengths usually.
| skinkestek wrote:
| > And I'm putting my money where my mouth is. My Patreon
| bill was $150 this month. And that's not counting direct
| payments to creators.
|
| Nice!
|
| I'm still not using Patreon but I "guilty" of paying for
| promising alpha quality stuff, subscribing to services I
| don't use deliberately even after realizing I cannot use
| it yet etc.
|
| I think we IT people have a reputation for being a bunch
| of cynical whiners and I also think it is somewhat
| deserved so I am happy to hear that I am not alone in
| actually wanting to pay for good stuff.
|
| If anyone wonder what makes me pay, here is the best I
| can come up with:
|
| - stuff I use or can see myself using
|
| - one time payments, no subscriptions (unless there is a
| specific ongoing cost that I realized must be there)
|
| - tokens are a nice alternative to subscriptions (eg: $10
| for 50 tokens that let me start multi-player games is
| something I would easily consider for a good game like
| Polytopia)
|
| - not too expensive, once it passes impulse buy at around
| $10 monthly or $40 one time it gets significantly harder
| bjt not impossible
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| I'd be willing to pay 5EUR/mo for ad less youtube. That
| can't be achieved by patreon in any shape or form and
| youtuber merch is pretty cringe.
| [deleted]
| kadoban wrote:
| Then throw 5 pounds at a rotating list of whoever you
| like's patreon and install an adblocker.
|
| Merch, it depends. I've grabbed some tshirts here and
| there that are comfy and not branded all to hell, couple
| of random knick knacks. A lot of it is indeed not
| appealing, so I mostly just send money.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| That's the problem. That is too much effort for the value
| provided.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| This is pretty much same thing as other websites in
| general. While the content is entertaining and good
| enough to watch it is not consistent enough to pay for.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Why would you pay YouTube only to watch videos with
| hardcoded ads? Let it die.
| ithinkso wrote:
| 'This video was sponsored by X' is ok.
|
| And that is ho... 'HEY! Don't forget to check out X!' is not
| j1elo wrote:
| At first I saw the sponsor segments, later it became too
| repetitive so I started doing the double-touch action (skip
| 10 or 20 seconds forward) when a video would start talking
| _once again_ about the VPN service of the month (really, it
| seems to always be VPN services!), and later I ended up
| having to actually pause the video, scroll forward even a
| couple minutes (some sponsor segments have gone wild in
| duration lately).
|
| Then I started using[1] SponsorBlock, and now we're back at
| square 0.
|
| [1]: I had known about it for a long time but didn't feel
| like using it, until I did (or you can see it as "they made
| me feel like using it"...)
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > Are the sponsor parts really so bad?
|
| Yes. Some of us don't like being assaulted with sales pitches
| everywhere we look.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yeah! Why do people think this is acceptable? It boggles my
| mind.
| kaladin-jasnah wrote:
| I think for some us pro-sponsor-segment people, I feel like
| regular ads are particularly dry and more of an "assault."
| But sponsor segments... can be creative, funny, and
| sometimes make me actually want to buy the product (...not
| the generic Raid: Shadow Legends ones... but even those if
| they're well done). I appreciate well-made ads, so I don't
| mind sponsor segments.
|
| Here's an example of one that is... nonsensical and perhaps
| a bit humorous (well, at least I liked it):
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0jPLRtEEjhU
| kelnos wrote:
| I watch a video for whatever topic the video title and
| description leads me to expect I'm going to hear about. A
| sponsorship segment, no matter how "clever", is still an
| ad.
|
| > _But sponsor segments... sometimes make me actually
| want to buy the product_
|
| That's exactly what I don't want: more sophisticated
| psychological manipulation that gets me to buy more
| stuff.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > I appreciate well-made ads, so I don't mind sponsor
| segments.
|
| Then don't use the sponsor segment removal portion of the
| tool. Simple as that.
|
| Those of us who don't want "clever" advertising any more
| than "annoying" advertising can use it. And that's that.
| corobo wrote:
| > sometimes make me actually want to buy the product
|
| Yes this is why we dislike them (other than time wasting)
|
| I don't want to be manipulated into buying crap, I'm good
| enough doing that myself
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| The only time I don't smash the fast-forward button
| during podcast ads is during the Unmade Podcast. They
| actually manage to continue the show's conversation while
| they promote Hover and Story Blocks. It also means that
| sometimes their ad slots (as defined by the time between
| "and now a word from this episode's sponsor" and "thank
| you very much for supporting this episode") can be over
| seven minutes at times.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Maybe these creators should post sponsor-free versions of
| their videos on Patreon?
|
| If you are watching for free, and you're that annoyed by
| ads, then maybe you just feel entitled.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| puchatek wrote:
| You conveniently skipped the rest of his comment which was
| really the important part...
|
| There is no need to state the obvious. Nobody would miss
| any kind of advertisement in the media they consume but
| that doesn't answer how content creators are supposed to be
| compensated for the effort they put in.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I'll add another wrinkle: I like content-creators that
| create for the love of doing it and not to try and turn it
| into a business.
|
| When I follow a YouRuber (I'm borrowing that typo, I like
| it) and have seen them descend into the paid/promotional
| arena, I have been turned off and stopped subscribing to
| their channel.
|
| Advertising tends to naturally weed out, for me, the ones
| who are not as passionate about what they do. Sorry if this
| model is counter to YT's business model.
|
| Better: if you want to make a business out of it, sell
| plans like WoodenGears guy, or kits like Ben Eater.
| AkBKukU wrote:
| Preface: I am a Youtuber who prefers not to do sponsored
| segments but has done some in the past.
|
| > Advertising tends to naturally weed out, for me, the
| ones who are not as passionate about what they do.
|
| This is a remark I see over and over again, basically
| "You're only in it for the money" once you do sponsors.
| Here's the thing that no one really gets, Youtube is not
| a hobby. I don't care what the channel topic is, building
| cars, lathe projects, tech reviews, pets, etc. The hobby
| for the creator is the subject, not the video production
| platform or process. Youtube is not social media, we're
| not posting videos so our friends can see what we're up
| to. The entire system is built completely differently
| from something like facebook, twitter, instgram, etc. It
| requires actual work. Planning videos, making thumbnails,
| responding to comments from strangers, making business
| connections, and more when you get larger. "Making
| videos" themselves isn't just waving a camera around
| while you do something either and requires it's own
| thought and effort.
|
| Anyone who has reasonable success on Youtube can be
| monetarily rewarded for that. That alone creates an
| expectation that it could possibly be a source of income
| from the outset. If you can achieve making it a
| sustainable income source capable of being lived off of,
| why wouldn't you? You can continue to do and build upon
| your actual hobby, whatever it is. But instead of working
| a different "conventional" job you do video production,
| PR, marketing, and potentially advertising. The problem
| is that the on platform advertisement revenue is not
| enough to cover the effort and resources required to make
| videos as you become more serious about it. Part of this
| is on viewers because Youtube knows if you are using
| adblock. I can see this on the back end, on average for
| my channel less than 50% of views are monetized. So if
| nobody used adblock I could make literally double the
| amount on just the on platform ads alone. But that's not
| how it is and it's not going to change.
|
| So you have to do something else as well. Personally, as
| a Youtuber, I see two revenue paths. You either go crowd
| funded with something like Patreon or do sponsors. You
| can do both but unless it's well done and relevant it
| feels like double dipping to me. But the in video
| sponsors aren't any different than the other
| advertisements on platform on youtube, except they aren't
| blocked by adblock. (Youtubers properly disclosing the
| ads is a completely separate issue that should not
| besmirch everyone who does it.) Youtubers don't get to
| choose their sponsor partners unless they are gigantic
| and have to take what they can get. We get tons of spam
| offers that try to screw us, taking real ones from even
| slightly reputable companies can make a big impact.
| Youtubers should do a better job of picking them, but not
| everybody understands something like what a VPN actually
| is and how is just moves your endpoint to a different set
| of private hands. But advertising is tied to media and
| not new at all. Complaining about a slightly more
| effective version of it is just naivety about how the
| service works and what the people who make the videos do.
|
| TL;DR: Youtube is not a hobby, the subject Youtubers talk
| about is. Youtube is a job that takes real work, but it
| can't pay well enough, partly because of adblock. In
| video sponsors are just a different ad method that
| directly pays bypassing the adblock problem.
|
| PS: I do not use adblock, partly because it feels
| hypocritical to make money on ads and then block them for
| others. The internet is indeed annoying without it, but I
| manage just fine.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| YouTube is not a hobby? Interesting. I don't think I ever
| thought it was. I guess I consider it closer to art.
|
| Plenty of musicians, artists perform/create with no
| prospect of monetary gain. They do it for the accolades.
| They do it for the positive feedback. They do it because
| they have to: they're artists.
|
| I suspect YouTubers like "Applied Science" are artists of
| a sort. I guess I'm drawn to YouTube artists.
| AkBKukU wrote:
| I am conflating things in my mind a bit because most of
| the comments on my own videos that complain about
| sponsors or other revenue options use the "not as
| passionate" argument alongside the idea of "Youtube
| should just be a hobby". My apologies if that came off
| wrong. But it is inevitable that anyone making videos
| that is successful will have to treat it as a business
| because it is work.
|
| Applied Science is a good example of someone who has not
| gone the sponsor route. He is crowd funded and has a
| Patreon page that is setup to charge when he releases a
| video(I'm a patron of his actually). It is still work to
| make the videos and describe what he's doing and how it
| works. He could be sponsored, even relevantly, if for
| example he used a Rigol scope to show something and then
| talked about it for a bit. But that wouldn't mean he is
| any less passionate about what he is doing.
|
| The musicians and artists example is different though.
| Their hobbies produce media as an end result. Publishing
| it is part of the process. I make videos about vintage
| computers. My hobby without youtube would just be me
| sitting alone in a room tinkering. Creating a video out
| of whatever I'm doing requires deliberate additional
| effort.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I don't want to suggest in any way that creating the
| videos is easy and not work. I have put together probably
| 30 to 40 videos myself (Final Cut) and know how much work
| it is.
|
| Gessoing a canvas is work. Setting up, taking down a drum
| kit is work too. If you want the world to see your hobby,
| or your art, there is a cost involved. We accept that
| cost for exposure in return: for the joy of sharing in
| return.
|
| I don't fault anyone wanting to make money from their
| hobby or their art. But I also respect a little more
| perhaps those, like Applied Science, that don't want to
| ... _sully_ their art with a blatant sponsor plug.
|
| Again though, I'm just a viewer, fan, enthusiast, lurker
| -- the content creators get to make their own rules, I
| don't get to tell them how to run their channel.
|
| Subscribed to your YT channel, BTW. Wrote a very early
| game on the Commodore PET, LOL.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Sure, but creators don't have many other avenues for
| revenue when you're already using YouTube-dl(p) to download
| videos without watching ads. I imagine sponsor spots will
| be devalued over time as sponsorblock usage continues to
| grow, especially for creators with audiences that watch
| content on desktop more than mobile.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| So what? Let creators figure out their business model.
| That's their job.
|
| We DO NOT want to look at ads. If their solution is ads,
| we'll block them. When are they gonna understand this?
| Forbo wrote:
| Is it apparent to the sponsor when someone is watching
| using youtube-dlp versus a regular view? I'd imagine most
| sponsored segments are negotiated based on subscriber
| count or view numbers.
| crtasm wrote:
| I don't believe the view counter gets incremented when
| using any unofficial front-end/downloader.
| boolemancer wrote:
| How would Google's backend know whether the traffic comes
| from their own frontend vs a utility like youtube-dl
| (assume for the sake of argument that the utility is
| trying to make the traffic look like normal YouTube
| traffic)?
| corobo wrote:
| If the actual video URL is somehow grabbable from the API
| you might miss whatever triggers a +1 view from the
| website in theory
| judge2020 wrote:
| Youtube proper does a lot of JS, eg. a view is usually
| only counted after ~30 seconds[0] and does other things
| like logging the current timecode so that it can return
| to that time in case the user clicks off the video and
| returns to it later[1].
|
| 0: https://www.tubics.com/blog/what-counts-as-a-view-on-
| youtube....
|
| 1: https://i.judge.sh/rare/Cherry/chrome_H0p9bAoLgy.png
| the red line is how far in i've watched.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| It does, it shows up as a "Other YouTube features" for
| the source.
|
| Though, YouTube seems to do some aggressive deduping
| here, if I download from 5 different IPs, excluding the
| IP I'm logged into YouTube's services, I see 5 views. If
| I download 50 times from one IP, I see one view.
| crtasm wrote:
| Good to know, thanks for the correction!
| judge2020 wrote:
| Sponsors might ask for some of the creator's analytics,
| eg. raid: shadow legends probably isn't going to sponsor
| channels that have very low mobile viewership compared to
| desktop. There are also paid analytics tools, eg. VidIQ,
| which can make good guesses about some metrics.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| I never buy anything based on ads, so it makes no difference
| for the advertiser whether I remove the sponsored part or
| not, they won't see a dime from me either way.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Are the sponsor parts really so bad? To me not only is it
| easy to skip_
|
| Well, yes. Skipping involves effort. If I wanted to engage my
| hands with the content, I would've opted for a book, not a
| video.
|
| Anyway, _actual_ sponsor parts I can stand. They 're at least
| somewhat interesting, by virtue of being unexpected. Like,
| who is this video sponsored by this time? Or, why this well-
| known and otherwise respected science/technology video
| vlogger keeps advertising scummy VPN services?
|
| What I can't stand is the "like and subscribe" dance. It's
| just completely mind-dumbing. Yes, I know you have a Patreon,
| it's in the video description. Yes, I know where the stupid
| "bell icon" is, I don't need unsolicited YouTube UI 101
| lessons. No, I'm not going to click anyway, because I'm here
| for a particular video, not the whole channel.
| comprev wrote:
| The more subscribers a channel has the closer they are to
| gaining an official star from YouTube. They want to boost
| the subscriber level to attract sponsorship too.
| Popegaf wrote:
| Considering the current system and real options that they
| have right now, what are they supposed to do if they want
| to earn money (or even a living) making videos that will
| make you happy?
|
| Perhaps more importantly, would you give them money?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Well...
|
| > _what are they supposed to do if they want to earn
| money (or even a living) making videos that will make you
| happy_
|
| Make _me_ happy? It 's simple: don't do videos for a
| living. If you have something interesting to say, say it,
| and put a PayPal link (or Patreon, if you discover that
| you regularly have something interesting to say). If you
| don't have anything interesting to say, just don't do the
| video. I'm not gonna watch it anyway.
|
| But that's just me, really. There's no good answer to
| your question, because for me, the moment a YouTuber
| wants to do videos _in order to_ make money (or a
| living), I don 't want to watch them anymore. Under the
| current system, they're creating a huge conflict of
| interest for themselves - monetizing views through
| advertising is in _direct opposition_ to delivering
| quality and trustworthy content. Almost all ways to
| improve engagement degrade the value delivered to the
| viewer.
|
| I'd be more comfortable with creators doubling down on
| Patron and one-time donations. Even the merch[0]. "I make
| this stuff for as long as I can afford it, want to help,
| send me money" is a honest deal. So is a paywall, but
| that's tougher to implement on the Internet.
|
| > _Perhaps more importantly, would you give them money?_
|
| Yes, I would and I do. I subscribe to a bunch of
| Patreons, occasionally buy stuff from creators or send
| them direct donations. But not for everything, of course.
| That's the nature of the market. A random video I got
| linked to is worth $0 to me until I finish watching it,
| and after I'm done, it's hard to price.
|
| --
|
| [0] - Though I seldom buy any, and really dislike the
| concept. Most merch is a waste of matter and energy used
| to create it; it exists only to break through people's
| reluctance to spend money on intangible content, but at
| the cost of most money being lost in making and shipping
| stuff that will end up in a landfill after a short dust-
| gathering break at some viewer's home. I hate these sorts
| of "hacks" for human psyche, but I see why they're
| needed.
|
| There's also a conflict of interest here too - the videos
| could become just a vector for peddling merch. But so
| far, I haven't seen any YouTube creator falling into that
| trap - unlike ad monetization, which affects everyone.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Sure. I pay for YouTube Premium (which I understand gives
| content creators a comparatively higher rate for my view)
| and I still have to deal with sponsorships.
|
| This also goes for channels with well over 1M
| subscribers. I honestly have a hard time believing
| they're struggling to make a living (but I haven't seen
| the numbers).
|
| Worst of all, the sponsorships tend to be for some scammy
| VPN or gacha, even when it comes to creators who
| otherwise create high-quality content.
| tonypace wrote:
| Don't forget the totally legitimate sites selling
| software licences.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Are the sponsor parts really so bad?
|
| All marketing is bad. It's essentially mindhacking.
|
| > I want indie people to make enough money to produce high
| quality content
|
| If people have something to say, they will say it whether
| they get paid for it or not. That's what I want. Real
| opinions from real people. Not some sponsored content you
| can't trust is real.
|
| > otherwise media is just what a few biggies want to fund
|
| It already is. All they have to do to lose funding is say or
| do something those sponsors don't like.
| anshumankmr wrote:
| There is only a certain number of times a person can watch a
| video where the creator mentions they are sponsored by Raid
| Shadow Legends before a person will go mad.
| sildur wrote:
| It is unnecessary filler that will also get stale pretty
| quickly. I archive videos, and the ads would be obsolete in
| less than 10 years.
| esyir wrote:
| An archivist might want to keep both the original and an
| integration that strips the sponsor
| detaro wrote:
| Is there a way of attaching cut instructions to a video
| file that players recognize?
| Stephen304 wrote:
| You could do something like how comchap works and just
| mark ads / ad breaks with chapters in the video file.
| Popegaf wrote:
| While watching live, probably not, but once downloaded they
| lose value, don't they?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| For me, yes, they're bad. I get it's not the end of the
| world, but a lot of the ad copy in sponsor segments really
| grates on me, like VPN ones. I try to get rid of ads from my
| life where I can, this is part of it.
|
| And for me, a lot of the videos I download are played back,
| audio only, while I go for walks or am otherwise away from
| the Internet. YouTube lets you download videos, but my audio
| comes from multiple sources, YouTube is just one source. I
| can integrate yt-dlp into my feed reader so I don't need to
| think about the source anymore than I need to worry about
| going to a random podcast's website to listen to those.
|
| In the end though, a tool like SponsorBlock is just another
| way I remove the annoyances from the modern Internet.
| arghwhat wrote:
| Ugh, the blatant lies in VPN ads.
|
| "MAKES IT SO YOUR ISP CAN'T SEE YOUR TRAFFIC" - yeah,
| congrats, now it's just another ISP that sees your traffic,
| which was probably protected by TLS anyway...
|
| Heck, they even keep recommending the utility of Terms of
| Service violations like accessing contents from other
| regions.
|
| VPN companies are scammy as hell.
| skinkestek wrote:
| > Heck, they even keep recommending the utility of Terms
| of Service violations like accessing contents from other
| regions.
|
| You mean helping helpless US companies who doesn't
| understand that Europeans can understand English?
|
| Or actually get the full database of movies when we pay
| the full price for Netflix?
|
| Yeah, shame on us.
|
| PS: I don't use VPNs to access Netflix, I just don't care
| to look at it anymore and one day I'll cancel it. No way
| I want to pay for the new stuff.
|
| Edit: disagreement is acceptable but I'd like to see an
| explanation if possible.
| arghwhat wrote:
| Not that I personally care if individuals violate terms
| of service, but using that in a sales pitch seems akin to
| advertising for piracy services.
|
| Abiding by the terms of the agreement which you enter
| into with the company providing the service is a
| requirement to continue service and/or avoid liability,
| irrespective of whether it includes completely idiotic
| and archaic business practices and irrespective of
| whether this causes harm.
|
| And yes, I also find Netflix to have extremely limited
| value.
|
| This isn't the right way to overturn stupidity.
| skinkestek wrote:
| What is the right way to overturn stupidity then?
| arghwhat wrote:
| Legal means.
|
| Not paying for a service whose terms you disagree with in
| areas you disagree. Using alternative services that do
| not have those terms. Demonstrating against the business
| practice. Petitioning for law that renders the terms
| illegal or invalid. Finding way to challenge the
| parasitic middlemen that are to blame. And so forth.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| I think you know that geo-blocking is due to licensing
| agreements with copyrights holders, which is a tangled
| mess in itself, not that streaming platforms believe that
| the content won't be appreciated by foreign audiences.
| Most of what's on them over here is already in English
| anyway. Besides, I don't think Americans have access to
| 100% of the content available on Netflix worldwide,
| either.
|
| That said, I agree that it's ridiculous if you take a
| step back, and in a sane world we wouldn't have these
| types of restrictions. But it's an artifact of an old,
| complicated system and isn't something Netflix or anyone
| else can unilaterally fix.
|
| I also agree with arghwhat that marketing your service as
| a way to violate another business' terms of service
| doesn't come across as serious, even if it's not
| something I'd necessarily have a problem with personally.
| ajdude wrote:
| I always remember the HN comment[0] where developer explained
| which video was the breaking point that pushed them into
| creating this app, and it was kurzgesagt of all authors.
|
| I am personally wondering if Yourube themselves are going to
| start implementing some thing like this sooner or later;
| after all, you are paying for an ad free experience on
| YouTube premium, just to watch all of those new videos become
| filled with in-video advertisements.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20781415
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Holy shit. Kurzgesagt of all things, indeed. It's the one
| channel where I could actually stand their sponsor section.
| Most other channels I know do much worse. But I guess the
| video referenced was kind of low, surprisingly low.
| gizdan wrote:
| > I am personally wondering if Yourube themselves are going
| to start implementing some thing like this sooner or later;
| after all, you are paying for an ad free experience on
| YouTube premium, just to watch all of those new videos
| become filled with in-video advertisements.
|
| Unlikely. It requires monitoring content and ensuring they
| people add (correct) timestamps for sponsored content. This
| would need to be verified by YouTube moderators and in
| general requires a lot more resources than you think.
| Crowdsourcing like SponsorBlock is feasible but it's
| unlikely that YouTube will integrate SponsorBlock into the
| site.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Man I thought I was in heaven when I accidentally stumbled upon
| SponsorBlock. Now you're telling me about this?! Amazing! How
| does the video quality fare after stripping? Is it re-encoding
| the video or somehow stripping it without altering the quality?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| It re-encodes. Actually, I think it defaults to marking the
| sponsor bits ... somehow. Whatever it's doing wasn't enough
| for my player to notice.
|
| That said, for this stuff, I've only downloaded audio, and of
| that mostly talking head type stuff, where I let it cut out
| the segments. Whatever re-encoding is done would have to be
| pretty bad before I'd care.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| What am I missing? This looks like a re-encode:
| $ yt-dlp -x --sponskrub --sponskrub-cut
| "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7vPNcnYWQ4"
| [youtube] _7vPNcnYWQ4: Downloading webpage
| [youtube] _7vPNcnYWQ4: Downloading android player API JSON
| [info] _7vPNcnYWQ4: Downloading 1 format(s): 251
| [download] Destination: Making an unpickable lock. Calling
| locksmiths [_7vPNcnYWQ4].webm [download] 100% of
| 12.72MiB in 00:00 [ExtractAudio] Destination:
| Making an unpickable lock. Calling locksmiths
| [_7vPNcnYWQ4].opus Deleting original file Making an
| unpickable lock. Calling locksmiths [_7vPNcnYWQ4].webm
| (pass -k to keep) [SponSkrub] Trying to remove
| sponsor sections WARNING: Cutting out sponsor
| segments will cause the subtitles to go out of sync.
| [libopus @ 0x5462c20] No bit rate set. Defaulting to 96000
| bps. size= 3515kB time=00:04:33.53 bitrate=
| 105.3kbits/s speed= 26x
|
| Without the audio only option, it's more clear it's re-
| encoding: [SponSkrub] Trying to remove
| sponsor sections WARNING: Cutting out sponsor
| segments will cause the subtitles to go out of sync.
| [libopus @ 0x5575420] No bit rate set. Defaulting to 96000
| bps. frame= 51 fps=8.5 q=0.0 size= 1kB
| time=00:00:01.95 bitrate= 3.5kbits/s speed=0.326x
| radicality wrote:
| I doubt it would have to re-encode. First it would split the
| video into separate files which don't include the sponsored
| content. Then would use something like the ffmpeg concat
| demuxer which will adjust timestamps of the input streams,
| and then output a concatenated result stream (no reencode)
| (https://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-formats.html#concat-1). So it
| should probably have zero quality loss.
| jokoon wrote:
| I noticed Reddit videos are sometimes mp4 iso5, which is an
| unusual format and refused by WhatsApp status.
| svnpenn wrote:
| I have a similar tool here
|
| https://github.com/89z/mech
| DarthNebo wrote:
| Nice, sponsor scrub!
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| The killer feature of YouTube-dl is that it has been actively
| maintained for years. Any competing tool will need to do the
| same, and it is highly unlikely that others will carry it on.
| kragen wrote:
| Nice to see this. youtube-dl -U keeps telling me:
| youtube-dl is up-to-date (2021.06.06)
| krick wrote:
| I know it sounds incredibly picky, but given it's supposed to be
| a drop-in youtube-dl replacement, it's quite annoying to suddenly
| change the name to something as hard to remember as yt-dlp
| instead of, say, youtube-dlp. I will be mixing it up every time
| I'll google it, I guess. Not to mention it messes with naming
| scheme of bash scripts and aliases I already have.
| aethanol wrote:
| alias it?
| krick wrote:
| I alias "youtube-dt <options>" to "yt-<something>". i guess a
| lot of people do. I won't be surprised if I already have some
| yt-dlp among the other variations. Also, I already said it's
| not hte only problem. So suddenly naming the thing itself yt-
| dlp is a "fuck you".
| gitgud wrote:
| Please remember it's an open source free project...
| [deleted]
| peterburkimsher wrote:
| Here's the aliases that I typically use. I'm very pleased to
| see that yt-dlp added --split-chapters, it's great for
| separating long videos into separate songs! e.g. the Faca
| Voce Mesmo EP from Under Control, a Brazilian punk rock bank
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSHEZ_HdjHs
| alias yt-mp3='yt-dlp --extract-audio --audio-format mp3
| --split-chapters --no-check-certificate' alias
| youtube-mp3='youtube-dl --extract-audio --audio-format mp3 '
| alias youtube-mp4='youtube-dl -f
| "bestvideo[ext=mp4]+bestaudio[ext=m4a]/mp4"' alias
| youtube-mp4-480p='youtube-dl -f
| "bestvideo[height<=480]+bestaudio/best[height<=480]"'
| alias youtube-playlist='youtube-dl -f
| "bestvideo[ext=mp4]+bestaudio[ext=m4a]/mp4" -ciw -o
| "%(title)s.%(ext)s" -v ' #alias ffmpeg-mkv=find .
| -type f -name "*.mkv" -exec bash -c 'FILE="$1"; ffmpeg -i
| "${FILE}" -vn -c:a libmp3lame -y "${FILE%.mkv}.mp3";' _ '{}'
| \; #alias ffmpeg-webm=find . -type f -iname
| "*.webm" -exec bash -c 'FILE="$1"; ffmpeg -i "${FILE}" -vn
| -ab 128k -ar 44100 -y "${FILE%.webm}.mp3";' _ '{}' \;
| #alias ffmpeg-mp3=find . -type f -iname "*.mp4" -exec bash -c
| 'FILE="$1"; ffmpeg -i "${FILE}" -vn -y "${FILE%.mp4}.mp3";' _
| '{}' \;
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I've switched very recently, but searching "youtube-dlp" still
| got me the answer I was looking for. I will admit I've typed
| "you [tab]" and gotten confused why it wasn't working almost
| every time so far, but I imagine that'll change in under a
| week.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Honestly, I think they should've fully changed the name while
| at it. youtube-dl is such an antiquated name that doesn't even
| fit the tool anymore, as it now supports thousands of sources.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-27 23:02 UTC)