Not the video content is a particular issue here, but HOW you get it.

If you guys insists to not understand that is wrong to subvert the intent of software running on the Youtube servers, I bet that Youtube will go full DRM, and everybody (including me) will watch those videos ONLY using DRM-aware web-browsers and a full HDCP stack, up and ending with the display.

And of course, your beloved youtube-dl will not work anymore...

We ain't doing this either. So nothing illegal coming from our slackware users.

The *tube-dl is not part of Slackware, and this is way off topic.
This tool is in the SBo repository right next to LOIC and some other questionable tools.
I've read the entire thread though, and still don't understand how this affects Slackware, or folks who don't care about youtube.

I'm sorry i made that suggestion in my previous post; I thought it would help. Honestly I don't understand the moaning whether this thread should be or not. It is, it is allowed to be, that's enough.
Behind those complaints seems to be the idea that we should not discuss this tool at all because some people think it's the wrong way to watch YT video.
Let me tell you how I use it:

• My browser (Firefox) is set up with a few addons to request resources and allow scripts only sparingly. This is a problem with youtube in general, which relies _completely_ on javascript and many, many 3rd-prty requests.
• Additionally, I have recently been getting popups whenever I do YT searches, making it impossible to even see the results.
• For youtube itself, I use youtube-dl solely to view videos others have posted on various threads, i.e. with mpv.

Additionally, many people try to continue using old hardware; in such situations, viewing YT video becomes impossible through the browser interface.

My thoughts, not that anyone cares.

I'm in the camp of this is out of topic for Slackware.

Is there an issue building this in Slackware? No.

Is this a Slackware provided package? No.

Does this effect Slackware in any way? No.

There are other forums within LinuxQuestions.org this could have been posted in? Yes.

Sure it affects some Slackware users, but how is the relevant? So does the US elections, definitely not appropriate to post in the Slackware Forum on that topic LOL.

Well, plasma5 is not part of Slackware, so let's move or delete all plasma5-related threads then. Not to mention all threads relating to SBo scripts which per definition are not part of Slackware.

+1 on this being OT for Slackware.

The only thing this OT post needs is attention from moderators to move it, or a new mirror outside the US for a few k of the script until the maintainer sorts himself out.

WOW. Just WOW. That is all I'm gonna say on this one.

He is making the point (not well, I give you that) that just because the specific issue is not slackware specific does not mean it does not involve, interest, or inconvenience slackware users. I agree that there MIGHT have been a better place for this where more interested people would have seen it, BUT it was posted by someone who uses slackware and considered the issues involved as being important to the slackware community. That is hard to argue against.

I work in two environments. One is totally immersed in technology and the internet. The other is almost totally isolated FROM the internet. Sometimes I like to review videos that pertain to what I am doing or that I find entertaining in both. The ONLY way to do that in an isolated environment is to record or download the content to it is available offline. That does not cost the IP anything, because #1 I have reviewed it in streaming first, #2 it is released under the CC license or is in the public domain (but nothing restricts me to ONLY downloading that content, it just happens to be the content I need and want). Mine is only ONE example of a use that may infringe google software intent, but should not really concern the RIAA.

Clearly my use is not the use that concerns the RIAA lawyers, but they would act to restrict it anyway. The reason is that they are committed to closing down anything that COULD impact their IP if they can find any legal grounds to do so. Viewing the problem as a whole, that seems a limited and restrictive view of the problems, but they are lawyers and only concerned with that restricted legal part of the problem.

Pot meet Kettle! Google are subverting the intent of browser cookies in order to track our browsing across the web, and by your argument Google's web-crawlers are subverting the intent of other peoples servers when searching for content to add to the search database. Both on a massive scale.

I find it hard to care that a statistically insignificant percentage of users are using a convenience-tool like youtube-dl given that google aren't exactly standing on the moral high-ground here.

Checkmate!!!!

Indeed youtube-dl is not part of slackware, but is relevant to its users and I find no problem in discussing it in here.

And to all those "holier than thou" posters out there, I'm willing to bet that most (if not all) probably used (or still use) VLC and yet don't call it a "hacking tool" for some reason.
Yes, you can use VLC to "download" videos from youtube... it is just less convenient than youtube-dl.

What is being discussed here is github taking down an opensource project at the request of the RIAA just because it may be used for something COMPLETELY unrelated to the RIAA (ie: using youtube servers in an "unsupported" manner).

Checkmate to a childish response, seriously.

I will concede this. I do see relevance to Slackware in the fact that you try to access the source tarball from SBo it takes you to that take down notice; which does affect those Slackware users that use SBo. Had the OP began his post with this fact instead of with a general news item about the this DMCA take down perhaps none of this nonsense would started.

I should clear my memory after watching. Remaining in memory is always keeping illegal copy. Just three or four electrical shots in head.

Standard disclaimer that if you like a musician, group, whatever to buy their merch and go to their shows. Those sales do support the musicians, and very few make any money off of recordings. The RIAA does diddly to support artists, instead they support the large conglomerate recording companies. They do exactly jack squat to protect the copyright of small, independent artists such as myself or the other Slackware users who do music. Most artists have patreons, too.