To be fair, I do pay for subscriptions for a few YouTubers. Wintergatan in particular is excellent. Of course, many creatives are using Patreon and other external revenue sources and frankly that's wise, given YouTube's track record with unusual copyright strikes and other platform nonsense.
Even if I were to pay for Youtube Red, this application has a feature that I cannot get with the official app: a lack of dependence on the Google Play store and services. Since I run a build of Android that does not include those services, this app is wonderful to bridge the gap, as it performs much better than playing the videos directly in Firefox. That it happens to include a bunch of extra features the official app does not is just a bonus really.
This is actually the situation I'm in. Google Play Services are disabled on my device so I cannot use any YouTube premium features anyways.
If there was a way to pay for YouTube premium and make the money go to the creators I watch while using a FOSS client like NewPipe, I'd be willing to pay several more times the current price of YouTube premium for that.
The youtube-dl script has been available for what, a decade already? Has that not been long term enough for you? Newpipe is just an Android UI around the same functionality as youtube-dl.
I wonder why this is being downvoted - Google asks for subscription for features that this app hacks for free. In any other context this would be deemed unethical (or even piracy). E.g. think of an application that streams Apple Music without paying Apple or distributors of cracked apps with enabled in-app purchase features.
And yet the HN community happily endorses such apps when it comes to Google. I also wonder why moderators think that this is acceptable in terms of YouTube.
That's not piracy. Youtube is sending you packets, out of their own choice. It's my own right to save those packets(without re-distributing) them and watch them in any form I like.
Playing in the background is not a "feature", it's a basic device capability, the fact that YouTube went out of their way to prevent it does not make it right, imagine if the browser client had stopped playing when you went out of focus - that'd be completely unacceptable. The fact that somehow this is accepted on smartphones probably says more about consumers lack of technological competence and awareness (and maybe historical reasons, as earlier versions of Android/iOS didn't have proper multi-tasking)
In most cases (my experience comes from working in broadcast industry but not specifically YouTube), those restrictions are there due to creators wanting to be paid for background playback (this is in 99% cases for music, where not adding this restriction would essentially make creators and the might copyright holders unpaid).
So bypassing the wishes of copyright holder / creator and getting the content for free is pretty much textbook definition of piracy.
Now, we can debate whether piracy is ethical in some cases (and I think it is in many cases, especially due to how cancerous the copyright lobby is these days). But let's not pretend that having a service provider say "hey, pay us 10$ a month for this feature" and then making an app that gives that paid feature for free is some kind of right.
With Android, I believe you could always run anything you wanted in the background, provided you had enough memory. Starting with versions 5-6, restrictions have been put in to prevent abuses and battery draining with the user unaware of it. The two OSs converged towards a mean point from opposite directions in this case.
They're inconsistent. On Firefox Android you can't play in the background using the mobile site but if you switch to the desktop site all of a sudden background play starts working.
That's because Google deliberately prevents background playback on mobile devices, bringing mobile browsers down to the same level of the YouTube app using shady JavaScript APIs. This add-on should fix it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-backgro...
That's not what piracy means, and that's not how the law works. If I state that the terms of service of reading this comment are that you must hop on one leg for the rest of your life, and you continue to walk on two, you won't be violating any laws.
I didn't say you're violating laws (but you may well be violating DMCA sections), I said you're violating terms of service. The expectation could be that they halt your use of the service, block access to their other service, and may disable your account.
OP claimed, "It's my own right to save those packets(without re-distributing) them and watch them in any form I like." That is not accurate. He doesn't magically GAIN COPYRIGHT over content, just because he downloaded it. His use MAY be covered by Fair Use Laws, but it may also still be a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service.
Google is willfully sending the data. If they want stricter access controls it's their job to implement them. TOS isn't a binding contract since one side never gets a chance to negotiate terms.
Yes, and if they start identifying Google accounts that share the IP of a device violating YouTube TOS and disabling those accounts, some people will be very sad.
They should at least consider the possibility. Go in with open eyes, so to say.
> Yes, and if they start identifying Google accounts that share the IP of a device violating YouTube TOS and disabling those accounts, some people will be very sad.
If this happens, even more people will take their eggs out of Google's basket. I've already migrated my email to another provider and use Searx[1] for search.
If you do use it, please don't violate the TOS, because it increases the chances you'll screw it up for everyone else (me). People who violate TOS are why we can't have nice things.
Nowhere did I imply that I'd gain copyright over the content.
What's the difference between downloading and streaming a video? It's OK for the bytes to stay in main memory/network cache, but not in HDD? Would taking a memory dump of the RAM break their TOS?
Assuming this is true(that there's a clause against viewing YouTube with a third party client), then they're free to ban users like me from their service(and suffer the PR backlash),
that doesn't mean that breaking that clause is unethical or illegal(I'm not from the US, we don't have draconian internet laws here)
Under the heading, "Permissions and Restrictions":
> The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:
> 1. access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;
> 2. circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
> 3. access the Service using any automated means (such as robots, botnets or scrapers) except (a) in the case of public search engines, in accordance with YouTube’s robots.txt file; or (b) with YouTube’s prior written permission;
The users using 3rd party apps don't violate any of these terms (I'm sure you could argue it both ways depending on the specific legal terms depending on the context; IANAL). The app itself is probably violating some of these terms, but for the end users, they are not doing any of the things described, they are just using the app.
I think this is just one of those cases where copyright/IP law moves too slowly compared to the technology it tries to cover.
> They are "accessing ... part of the Service or Content [without being] expressly authorized."
Are they though? AFAIK, law is very pedantic, and technically speaking, a human is physically incapable of accessing Youtube; we use tools to do so. We use some kind of software to access youtube.com, in this case, we are using an app that accesses youtube.com and relays the content on that page back to us. Similar to say, using Chrome or Firefox to access youtube.com and relay the contents on the page back to us.
Note, the APP accesses youtube.com, not the user. The app is (potentially) in violation, the user using the app is not. In fact, the user may not even know that the app is actually accessing youtube. Again, IANAL and I'm sure this is argued both ways, but I'm just saying this is an interpretation of the terms.
I mean hey the NRA has argued this successfully about guns (or maybe their money argued it successfully) so why not? Lets start a rock lobby to allow more rock freedom
I'd like to focus on a single point here: background playback. If anything, it's Google that's stepping over the boundaries in this situation, trespassing the typical boundaries of an app and breaking the natural interaction model. How I consume (or not) the output of an app should be none of its business. I expect to be able to switch windows, minimize, look away, turn off the screen or mute the volume without the app knowing and acting differently. Forbidding me to do so is an artificial anti-feature and doesn't bring me any sympathy towards Google and their paid offering.
I would keep using NewPipe along with the official app even if it showed ads (which I consider tolerable in YouTube's case) for sanity-restoring features like this one.
I don't think it is that simple. When it comes to not playing the ads, I agree that is a problem. When it comes to the features, I think it is different.
One of the features is background playback of audio from videos. On the desktop, that's a feature that exists thanks to your window manager. Is that unethical?
It isn't stealing to use another method to get a feature someone is selling you, any more than using a third party DVR is stealing from a company offering you one as part of a more expensive package.
They have implemented the feature independently, and are providing it as a way of doing the same thing as something YouTube is selling you, I don't see that as a problem.
(NewPipe also has features that YouTube's app just doesn't support at all, like higher speed playback than 2x).
The big thing is that pirates would most likely not pay for the thing they are pirating if it was not available legally. This isn't by any means universal but take video games for example.
Developers have long since abandoned the concept of providing demos to "try the game" before you buy it. If I am thinking about buying a game but can't be convinced that I'll get my money's worth, I'll pirate the game. If I end up liking the game, I might as well buy it so that I can use online features, receive updates, and not have to worry with the crack causing weird bugs. In these cases, piracy has filled in the roll of demo software and provides a net positive for companies because any converts to paying customers would likely have never purchased the game had they not pirated it.
Alternatively, look at something like the anime fansub scene. Fansubs often have far better quality than anything you'll see coming from legitimate anime streaming services. I pay for anime streaming subscriptions but I can't count the number of times I've refused to watch something on the service due to how bad the subtitles were, torrented an actually good fansub, and then supported the series (not the streaming platform) through alternative means.
You also have the digital preservation aspect. Piracy is the reason most early console games are playable nowadays. Emulators aren't really legal and all of the published ROMs are very much pirated content but if they didn't exist, how many games would be either extraordinarily rare or lost to time by now. Same goes for music. What.cd was an incredible archive of music and it preserved tonnes of tracks from small now defunct bands throughout the start of the millennium. This is all content that would otherwise be lost to time if pirates hadn't preserved them due to their own motivations.
There's more on this out on the web. I read a really cool article about it a while back but I can't find it atm.
The difference here is that you’re not downloading a copy of a video from one private user to another. You’re downloading the video from Google, using Google’s bandwidth and their servers.
From google's perspective, I would assume that it is much like MS allowing software pirating: It doesn't matter if you watch the ads as long as you don't watch the ads on youtube.
Google needs your preferences more than they need to show you an ad immediately. They can also show you an ad on their search space or any of the sides that use the Google ad network. It actually might be cheaper for them to show you the ad elsewhere when they don't have to pay the youtube content creator as I would assume that the creators don't get any money if their audience doesn't watch the immediate ads in the video.
