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
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day 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 :(

  • Majestic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days 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.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours 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
          5
          ·
          8 hours 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.

    • azuth@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

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

  • adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    2 days ago

    i’ve been half-expecting them to roll-out drm for everything including cat videos and shit for awhile now.

  • cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Screw them! We’ll build our own peertube, with blackjack, and hookers

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Peertube is f****** amazing, But your average windows user isn’t going to be able to manage 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.

      • kat@orbi.camp
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day 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
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Everyone doesn’t have to host their own instance.

          They don’t, but how long do you think a free instance is going to last when it starts seeing serious volume. Video storage in the cloud is expensive AF.

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

            Yeah, video storage is what prevents corporations from creating YouTube competitors, and it also prevents decentralized users from competing

            • rumba@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              and it also prevents decentralized users from competing

              It doesn’t have to. PT is just using webtorrent. Make a desktop client that links into existing PT instances for discovery and indexing, but have the DHT pull the files right off the person’s home box. Every content creator makes a buddy, they pin each other’s content. Every content creator stores their own stuff + 1 person.

      • RiQuY@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

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

        • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think they were maybe speaking to the peer-to-peer “hosting” part of peertube. If not enough people are contributing to bandwidth, then more falls back to the server, increasing the cost to run it.

          • rumba@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            Mainly storage. The only reason these free hosted sites can stand up is because they have low traffic. If 0.01% of YouTubers started dumping all their video over there, they’d quickly run the free services out of town.

            Realistically, If it were easy enough for everyone to host locally (torrent style) and people paired up with hosting partners for backups, peertube could be an amazing Youtube alternative.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Paying for bandwidth and cloud storage rates for video hosting is pretty much worst case. I’d argue that if you were going to self host anything video would be the most important