We are getting reports of YouTube rolling out an experiment to some accounts where normal videos only have DRM formats available on the tv (TVHTML5) Innertube client.

This is not limited to yt-dlp. Tests have been run with the same account on various official YouTube TV clients (PS3, web browser, apple tv) and they are also only getting DRM formats for videos.

We live in hell-world.

  • BillionsMustSeed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I wanted to archive a few channels, but was stopped by the lack of storage. Guess I’m out of luck as my storage upgrade is a long while away :(

    • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      With yt-dlp you can DL the videos at lower resolution / quality, so that at least you can have one offline working copy in the meantime.

    • azuth@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      They most certainly have this covered in ToS. IP law is not about actual creators’ rights.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      They do own them, though. That’s what happens when you upload content to Youtube. Or virtually any other website, for that matter.

      • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Nope. The person who uploads the video owns the copyright/IP. Seems like they should have say in if theres DRM on their IP.

        • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah but the YT terms explicitly say that you give them a worldwide royalty free license to do whatever the fuck they want.

          Content creators have no say.

  • Majestic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Of course. The YT-DLP team by refusing to support DRM videos gave Google a huge neon sign that said this is the one thing that will shut them down, the line they won’t cross. Google has targeted the big front end instances with rate limits and blocks and this is the next step.

    Our only hope really is that the current YT-DLP team hands the reins over to people in countries that don’t give a shit about copyright and they put back in the ability to download and decrypt DRM protected video.

    • RiQuY@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      My only hope is that Google goes bankrupt and people migrate to other places, but sadly that’s not feasible atm.

      • 0range@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Google going bankrupt would almost certainly mean YouTube disappears. Which can happen, but it’s not a good thing

        • Fitzsimmons@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          In the good timeline, multiple governments and international organizations launch peertube servers.

          Probably not this timeline though.

    • Noxy@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      From yt-dlp’s software license:

      Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.

    • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean, that’s basically how yt-dlp came to be. They took over when yt-download couldn’t keep up anymore. I hate this time, it will take a while until the best successor is found.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Peer to the best f****** amazing, But your average windows user isn’t going to be able to mention the hosting. And your average ISP blocks standard hosting ports. Then it also requires the users to manage their own monetization.

      It’s not undoable but it is kind of a steep slope.

      • RiQuY@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can use an already hosted instance, there is no need to selfhost every service.

      • kat@orbi.camp
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I joined it but the main feed was just a lot of NSFW content… So made it kind of awkward for discovery.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Discovery is a major hurdle. There are plenty of instances that don’t have NSFW you should poke around to find something suitable.