RIAA Takes Down Popular Open Source YouTube-DL Software

[msplsh]

Do we need a decentralized method for hosting code that wont be affected by dcma takedowns,
would be interesting if something like bittorrent could be used utilized

They're called mirrors... in different countries. With different laws and jurisdictions.

Seriously, this is not a hard problem to solve. See what the VLC people do. People are like "omg it's like DeCSS again" but that STILL isn't usually hosted in the USA, so it's not as much "again" as it is that in the USA this problem hasn't gone away.

 

[msplsh]

I don't know and that's the whole point. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. It's safe to say that nobody knows!

I think it's safe to say that somebody knows. Several of them, even. There's no precedent for FreeBSD turning over the central repo entirely to a third party service, so I think this question is a little ridiculous.

 

[getopt]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nrjcagZXSM


"Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold". (David Walter Runciman)

 

[drhowarddrfine]

Do they? From what i've seen at least with musicians it seems the artists themselves more often than not couldn't care less what happens to their main product

Yes. They do. I don't know how you got that impression.

 

[ekvz]

Yes. They do. I don't know how you got that impression.

Well, i don't really see where one would get the opposite impression. It's always the same tiny amount of people who are complaining about their profit margins being hurt by unauthorized distribution and such and even then it's usually the lobby groups and not individual artists. Once you move beyond the major labels that stuff really isn't a topic. Being noticed in a market that's flooded because there is practically no entry barrier to distributing music anymore on the other hand is. You can get music for free at literally every corner and not because it's pirated or anything but because the owners chose to distribute it this way.

1000000 plays on YT are probably like what? 600$ (with maybe about 10% of it ending up with the artist)? This is not a viable business model for the average musician. This is a promotion tool.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

ekvz I don't know how that works for the artists who actually make a living producing CDs and going on tour. The major ones always gave away some songs for free in order to get you to buy their CDs but, yes, times are different now but, again, I only worked in music radio decades ago where I (indirectly) dealt with music producers. The labels, and any kind of producer of entertainment, always make more money than the artist. They also do a lot of the work to generate that money, too. Things an individual artist could not do on their own and, without the label, would remain in obscurity among those same millions on YouTube who wouldn't exist without it.

My main concern, however, is film/video/theatre.

 

[NapoleonWils0n]

Poormans youtube-dl with vlc and ffmpeg

ffmpeg command: ffmpeg -i 'url goes here' -c copy outfile.mkv

 

[getopt]

I only worked in music radio decades ago where I (indirectly) dealt with music producers.

For a better understanding of "decades ago" when actually was this?

My main concern, however, is film/video/theatre.

What kind of "concern" is it?

 

[ekvz]

ekvz I don't know how that works for the artists who actually make a living producing CDs and going on tour.

My guess would be that for the major part of musicians it simply won't work (as in being able to quit their day job). I don't have any real numbers but i imagine that at best like <1% are actually going to get rich for even wealthy from their music (including related income like merchandise, tours, ...) and another 20-30% end up somewhere between decent income and somewhat being able to scrape by cutting a lot of corners. Even that might still be overly optimistic.

The labels, and any kind of producer of entertainment, always make more money than the artist. They also do a lot of the work to generate that money, too. Things an individual artist could not do on their own and, without the label, would remain in obscurity among those same millions on YouTube who wouldn't exist without it.

Sure even if self promotion and/or getting decent exposure on an independent label is becoming more and more easy there is artists that would likely be virtually unknown if it wasn't for one of the major labels but then there is also those that managed to build a following without such support. It all depends what you are looking for (on various levels). Of course if you just look for those <1% the second group is likely mostly non existent but beyond that the playing field is a lot more open. When i see bands touring pretty much non stop i guess it's safe to assume they are making enough to survive.

My main concern, however, is film/video/theatre.

I see. That's a very different topic obviously.