On Jdownloader2 which uses YT-DLP, not only are the bot detection algorithms blocking people who download too many youtube videos who aren't signed in, now if you are signed in you are restricted to only downloading 360p. Apparently this is due to YT gradually rolling out SABR, which YT-DLP can't properly download from, and this has only rolled out to certain accounts.I was also told by the developers of Jdownloader that soon youtube will use impossible to crack DRM code that will render the ability to download youtube videos impossible in the future. So download all that you can because the era of downloading youtube videos is coming to an end full stop soon.
then use obs and screen grab at whatever rate you want, nigger we use to dcc download shaky camcorder cams of movies off irc and we were happy
>>106767640That's a cop out and you know it.
>>106767675say something nice about your jeet platform ruler
>>106767640Also you do realise that Netflix and Amazon can block screen recording like OBS right? And you're then gonna suggest "JUST RECORD WITH A CAMERA" like that would make it worth while and not tedious as it would require watching the entire thing.
>>106767625>On Jdownloader2 which uses YT-DLPNo, it doesn't.
>>106767946they can't block hardware recording through a capture card though
>>106769010They can
>>106767675The correct term is "Old School"You want something bad enough, then you'll figure out how to get it.
>>106769023so all you get is a black screen? it's not feasible without blocking signals in the gpu, it would never fly.
>>106769051Without certified gpu, certified hdmi cable and certified monitor you are not going to play youtube videos, good luck goy
>impossible to crack DRMIt's laughable that you think this when widevine TV shows and movies get dumped onto the internet every day
>>106769074well imagine if you want to download a regular youtube video, it won't be as easy as it used to be. >>106769039But no one would do it nowadays unless it's a special circumstance.
>>106768980What does it use then?
>>106769241their own shit, read the source
>>106769307I swore it used YT-DLP as a part of the software.
>>106767625>impossible to crack DRM codeThe thing is the browser has to play the video either way.If push comes to shove, the solution might be to hook directly into the browser to output the video stream to a file rather than (or in addition to) rendering it on-screen. And it will almost always be possible to just emulate the right components of the browser, running a gutted headless type of browser that's sufficient to run the DRM javascript and spoof the checks it's making. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the future of yt-dl(p); it already executes javascript, doesn't it?The only way to truly prevent downloading would be by using remote attestation so that only official browser builds can watch it, somehow. Even that sounds difficult to pull off. If google really wants to kill off downloading, the simplest method by far will be to make videos watchable only when logged in, and aggressively ban accounts when tampering attempts are detected. If a single fuckup by yt-dlp causes your account to be banned and then you need a new burner phone number to try again, that's when downloading will truly become impractical.
>>106769557>The only way to truly prevent downloading would be by using remote attestation so that only official browser builds can watch it, somehow.Been there, tried that:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
>>106767625>impossible to crack DRM codeDoubt. It's not going to play in mainstream browsers unless it uses busted shit like Widevine L3.
>>106767625There is no way they can block video downloading while keeping compatibility with open source browsers in non hardware attested platforms, except through plain rate limiting.You can always have a kernel module that reads the browsers memory and saves the video chunks to disk.
>>106769653Anyway I said this before and I'll say it again. Here's the logical thing for Google to do here.Put Widevine L3 on YouTube videos. yt-dlp is irreparably broken. "Free YouTube download" sites cannot continue to exist without breaking the DRM, thus opening themselves to legal action. New replacements for yt-dlp will not provide you with what you need, a CDM (easy to find) to be exact, to decrypt the videos but will have everything else you need to do it.
>>106767946>Netflix and Amazon can block screen recordingI can use a HDCP remover splitter and capture the screen with audio, same tech as capturing the gameplay from a PS3
>>106769698>while keeping compatibility with open source browsers in non hardware attested platformsThe only open source browser is Firefox and its market share is already insignificant, and still cratering. It was on life support from google's sponsorship deal as controlled opposition, google is apparently pulling out of this and they can probably just kill it off for good if they care to.Everything else is Chrome, Edge, chink forks like Opera. The only other competitor is Safari but, while Apple isn't the best of friends with Google, I doubt they'd fight a war over enabling third-party downloaders for youtube; "hey we're blocking non-attested clients, so here, implement this DRM so users can continue watching youtube on safari" should be a relatively easy sell.The percentage of people using open-source Chromium in some shape or form is far more insignificant than even Firefox.
>>106767946>Also you do realise that Netflix and Amazon can block screen recording like OBS right?Has this blocked every single thing that is released on both platforms from being released onto the internet with the DRM stripped minutes after it comes out? Blocking screen recording does nothing if you have the keys.
>>106767625>I was also told by the developers of Jdownloader that soon youtube will use impossible to crack DRM code that will render the ability to download youtube videos impossible in the futureThey can't do that or at least now as they support old """smart""" tv's and third worlders watching their stuff on feature phones or some crappy old android. if one day they decide that the maintenance for these platforms isn't profitable you're fucked
>>106769908I think it's most likely that they would restrict these devices to lower resolutions. I doubt they will block 1080p to L3s though. Even 4K to L1 would be quite a jump, that would cut off basically all browser users.
>>106769065Okay they can but it'd block people being able to use the service at all on like 95% of devices
>>106769811Mmm no, chromium is open source as well.
>>106769946Chrome is not. They're different browsers. Not by much, but the chrome that people run from google is a different branch than chromium.
>>106769946Re-read the last sentence of my post.Chromium is open source but if 99.9% of the planet uses Chrome/Edge/Opera, and google ads closed source DRM to Chrome that's required to play youtube, the fact that you can run and download Chromium won't help you at all.However, I did forget about Brave; I think it's open source too (for now). Google could always just... stop updating Chromium, though, and switch Chrome to a proprietary closed fork of it.
YouTube is about to die anyways.Nobody makes quality content anymore and it's filling up with AI slop absolutely nobody wants to watch.
>>106767625just use vlc bro
>>106769975The DRM is in Firefox too. Sure it's closed source but I can get the keys and use open source tools to download and decrypt the videos.
>>106769934>I think it's most likely that they would restrict these devices to lower resolutions.that of course could be another possibility
>>106767625I don't even watch that much yt anymore, and 90% of the stuff that I do is through yt-dlp + mpv. If this won't work anymore then I guess I just won't watch any yt.
