I think the difference is that offline playback and background playback on iOS/Android can be unlocked through YouTube Premium so those apps directly interfere with YouTube's bottom line. YouTube-dl I don't really see as directly competing with that because it's not trivial to download a YouTube video from it to your phone.

And given how unlikely people are in the wider non-technical audience to god-forbid, run a command line program, I guess they really just don't care.

They do take easily accessible apps that use youtube-dl under the hood pretty seriously. I guess it depends on how much of an effort it is for them vs how much of their bottom line ytdl is cutting into.

Yes it does. I go to the page (ad), copy the URL, and youtube-dl.

More critically, Youtube relies on network effects and people using it. Part of the reason we share family videos, educational content, and other things is so it's, well, shared. For me, the reasons to use Youtube-dl are:

1) People in bandwidth-constrained settings. If I post my videos, and colleagues in some countries can't watch them, I'm going elsewhere.

2) Remixing. If I can't make collages of family videos, I'm going elsewhere.

Youtube can serve masters like me, where it's an effective platform for sharing videos I want people to watch, and where the goal is dissemination. It can serve masters like the RIAA and the MPAA, where the goal is monetization and control. It will have a hard time serving both.

I suspect if it tries, people like me will go to someone who caters to us. A YouYesYouNoNotTheRIAAYesYOUTube. If we do, I think there will be enough of a network to start to syphon people off, and eventually, cat videos and Aunt Alice will be on YYYNNTRYYT.com, while corporate video will be on DRMed Youtube.

At that point, we'll have a replay.

Downloaded videos often get remixed into other videos that generate ad revenue. Commentary, reaction videos and compilations are substantial parts of youtube.

How many people downloaded Shake It Off with youtube-dl vs. the people who watched it from the official YouTube app or stock Google Chrome? youtube-dl does not nearly threaten their revenue in any tangible way.

Yes, but is there any indication that they work against youtube-dl in some specific way? Adversarial actions like changing youtube to render youtube-dl non-functional?

Yea ha ha.

They took that poison pill already, I really, really doubt they ever new pop music stops being part of youtube in the future, the audience is too large. It would be like them taking music off of the radio because people could record it on reel-to-reels. They might stomp around a bit and try to use the law to get what they want, but when push comes to shove the big labels will keep their music on youtube.

No they cannot. Music videos that aren't on Youtube don't generate much in the way of traffic anywhere else. Artists have tried it and failed.

They absolutely need eachother and can't afford to be nasty to eachother.

> The only workaround is to login with a browser and copy the cookies from it to youtube-dl.

That's really easy to do with postman.

Why not simply create a youtube-login command that does nothing but launch an electron instance that lets you login into youtube and then returns the cookie?

youtube-dl could then call that command to obtain the cookie.

You can automate fetching Chrome’s cookies. This is generally very useful for scraping.

https://github.com/blackjack4494/yt-dlc is maintained by someone who responds to issues.

Content with a certain age threshold triggers login. The last time I looked at this, embedding these videos was still possible without logging in. So there are definitely ways in accessing the content without authentication.

There's also members-only content on some channels that requires a paid subscription to access.