The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

What “downloading” means and DRM limits

  • Several comments argue that all streaming is technically downloading: data must be received and stored locally, then usually deleted or hidden.
  • Others distinguish colloquially between transient streaming and retaining a complete local file.
  • Extensive debate on DRM:
    • One side: if you can watch it, it’s decrypted somewhere, so bit‑perfect rips (even of DRM’d content like UHD Blu‑ray, DCP, Netflix) are ultimately possible. The “analog hole” or intercepting digital links (HDCP strippers, panel taps) always remains.
    • The other side: modern schemes (Widevine L1, AACS updates, potential FHE) significantly raise the bar; in practice only a tiny fraction of users can bypass them, so DRM “works” in a commercial sense.
  • Quality loss from re‑encoding vs extracting original compressed streams is a key concern for archivists.

Does Google “need” YouTube downloaders?

  • The article’s claim that Google tacitly needs downloaders draws skepticism.
  • Multiple commenters point to YouTube’s constant protocol changes, obfuscation, nsig tricks, device checks, rate limits, and bans (especially around yt-dlp) as evidence Google actively fights downloaders.
  • Counterpoint: if Google truly wanted to kill them, it could mandate Encrypted Media Extensions/Widevine for all content; the fact it hasn’t suggests trade‑offs: device compatibility, performance, Creative Commons licensing constraints, and not alienating creators or viewers.
  • Many reject the notion that organizations would leave YouTube if downloads were impossible; they use it for free hosting, reach, and convenience, not flexibility.

Ethics and legality

  • Some treat personal downloading as equivalent to historic time‑shifting (VHS, radio taping).
  • Others note U.S. copyright and anti‑circumvention law: copying and DRM bypass can be illegal irrespective of YouTube’s EULA.
  • Distinction is drawn between private archiving and redistribution, though legal lines are described as unclear.

Tools and workflows

  • yt-dlp is widely praised as the de facto standard; many GUIs and wrappers build on it (Stacher, Seal, YTDLnis, Varia, Media Downloader, FreeTube).
  • Android suggestions: NewPipe, Tubular, PipePipe, Seal, SmartTube; iOS: yt-dlp via terminal apps plus VLC.
  • Archival setups: TubeArchivist, Youtarr, RSS‑based scripts, and Arr‑style automation.

Preservation and platform risk

  • Strong concern about YouTube’s ephemerality: removed videos lose all visible metadata, breaking playlists and personal archives.
  • Some users attempt to mirror everything they watch, then abandon this due to bandwidth, storage, and maintenance burdens.
  • Suggestions include ArchiveBox, archive.org, and custom caches, alongside a broader worry that web media can silently disappear.

Views on Google’s power

  • Comments criticize Google’s historic AdSense pressure on outlets covering downloaders and its growing technical gatekeeping (Chrome‑only headers, potential DRM expansion).
  • A recurring theme is YouTube’s monopoly: enough leverage to erode user control while keeping just enough of a gray zone for power users.