[1]: https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/tree/master/youtube_dl/ext...
[1]: https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/tree/master/youtube_dl/ext...
As I recall, it was originally written by one person (Ricardo Garcia) in 2008 and worked only on YouTube using (by later standards) relatively simple heuristics to find the URL to extract the video. But it's catalyzed an explosion of interest in every aspect of the problem: tracking changes to the HTML of the video sites, adding support for more video sites, figuring out indirection and parsing through multiple pages and HTML objects, making the tool much more multiplatform and easier to install and update...
It's attracted hundreds of contributors (many of them motivated by a personal desire to be able to use the tool on a different site, or to fix a bug that was preventing them from downloading video in a particular rare case) and maintained an incredibly rapid pace of development.
"it's not unlike an anti-capitalist punk rocker STEALING her clothes at H&M".
That said:
First, I fail to see the contradiction from being an "anti-copyright freedom fighter" and "downloading stuff from YouTube".
Someone somehow convinced you than anti-copyright people only like copyleft works? The very idea of being anti-copyright is wanting to abolish all copyright.
Second, what's witht the "anti-copyright freedom fighter" strawman? As if someone needs to be that to want to download stuff off of YouTube?
It's the opposite of what you've stated.
Authors, composers and publishers needed protection against cheap printing presses that would just print anything that was popular and flog it in the marketplaces.
The limitations I mention are the difficulties and cost of the printing itself.
What authors wanted was to restrict who can print their work -- but it's not true that authors "needed protection" because printing presses started appearing.
That makes it sound like authors were paid for the work until those "cheap printer" pirates appeared. But on the contrary it was the invention of the printing presses themselves that gave authors an industry in the first place -- for millenia authors just wrote for free.
Yes; a good read is "The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World" [1] which I think is from Karl Fogel, the author of the (Free, Libre, CC-BY-SA) book "Producing Open Source Software" [2]
[1] http://questioncopyright.org/promise [2] http://producingoss.com
Might as well have written "like it or not, the South's engine is slavery" in 1850...
The one place I can see where this breaks down is in advertisements, but I consider that to fall into the incidental results. (Although Youtube-dl does have a --include-ads option)
You have opportunity, that's not the same as a right. The content supplier is under no obligation to provide content to you, ergo no "right to see" that content.
That said, personal time-shifting and format-shifting should IMO be a normally allowed part of the copyright deal.
This kind of project that requires a lot of fairly laborious work to create support for many different information sources is a particularly good candidate for an open source project.
Porn has the need (the mainstream providers generally delete porn) and the sheer resources to do it.
I've just done the config file setting you mentioned.
[0] http://bugs.python.org/issue1739468 [1] https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/blob/640743233389714dda8a3...
youtube-dl: youtube_dl/*.py youtube_dl/*/*.py
zip --quiet youtube-dl youtube_dl/*.py youtube_dl/*/*.py
zip --quiet --junk-paths youtube-dl youtube_dl/__main__.py
echo '#!$(PYTHON)' > youtube-dl
cat youtube-dl.zip >> youtube-dl
rm youtube-dl.zip
chmod a+x youtube-dl
Might be less confusing if you append '.zip' in the first two commands: zip --quiet youtube-dl.zip youtube_dl/*.py youtube_dl/*/*.py
zip --quiet --junk-paths youtube-dl.zip youtube_dl/__main__.py
When you echo the shebang overwriting the file, I was thrown off. I'm thinking,
"Why did you just zip all those contents into the file to just throw them out?"
Then I see the `cat` line, and it makes sense that the `zip` command appends
the .zip to the end of the file.