at least there is a cloneable repo indeed, but this is a loss.

If you wish to reintroduce this functionality, then revert the change in your personal repo. Unfortunately as per the DMCA this code cannot be hosted on github without attracting legal issues. It's not an optimal solution but it's better than not having it online at all.

Decision reversed!
https://github.blog/2020-11-16-standing-up-for-developers-youtube-dl-is-back/

LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOO!

This is why I don't write tests.

Does this change affect downloading videos (e.g. vlogs, music tutorials, reviews, and even piano recitals; see https://youtu.be/CEQQ6zkuc2U) which are heavily claimed by Content ID?

@reinhart1010 I'll be reverting this commit in favor of one similar to what's in the base fork, so the rolling cipher is restored.
Truthfully I don't know the impact of removing the rolling cipher, as this fork was primarily made to fix sites like NicoNicoDouga that the maintainers of the main ytdl-org fork refuse to accept any sort of pull request for, for a reason they always fail to mention (and lock issues/PR threads over).

@reinhart1010
If you're interested in finding out which videos have a signature attached, i'm pretty sure all you have to do is enable --verbose and check for a signature length line being printed. It'll show for encrypted signatures, however for unencrypted signatures you might have to add some extra logging around here.

@M-i-k-o-t-o
Thanks, I have actually talked about getting some of the NND changes ported over to youtube-dlc in the old youtube-dlc fork that's still currently down due to DMCA (not the newer yt-dlc one). The bare minimum to get the site working again has already been proposed again in blackjack4494/yt-dlc#86.
I'd be interested in porting the other features i've added over too, however some may not work due to technical constraints (such as the NND livestream extractor requiring websockets, which in turn requires at least python 3.7)
I remember discussing this with blackjack4494 but I don't remember what his response was

The fact that they were forced to change their code to prevent the download of certain videos shows that this isn't a win at all. The DMCA needs to be abolished completely.

The original repository has this part of the code that was removed here. It was not necessary to remove it

Reverted in 09e24fd

@Demicro Please read the history of this thread. This change was made before GitHub / the EFF decided this was okay to keep in the code

The DMCA needs to be abolished completely.

That would hardly make any difference. Just another mafia organization would take its place.

The DMCA needs to be abolished completely.

That would hardly make any difference. Just another mafia organization would take its place.

DMCA is not an organization.

I'm sorry, I actually misread it for RIAA...

There is of course a way to destroy both the RIAA and MPAA: stop consuming their content. What was widely reported as halting the RIAA's failed campaign of filesharing lawsuits was the tens of millions of people who never bought another CD after hearing about one of those lawsuits. Some torrented, others simply stopped consuming new music at all, declaring their libraries complete. The latter is totally legal, as no copyright law anywhere in the world gives a "content creator" the right to make consuming their content compulsory.

The recording industry makes a very small percentage of musicians filthy rich at the expense of all other musicians.
I speak of this from personal experience when I had a band in the early 1990's. Before the Internet this industry was a notorious gatekeeper, confining the output of almost all musicians to at most the corner bar if not their own homes. Now anyone who can play music can find distribution, particularily hobby musicians (some of whom are as good as ANYONE) who were never in it for money and need not concern themselves with monetization schemes.

The same is true for everything from books to some kinds of movies (notably porn where amateurs have greately reduced the footprint of corporate producers), to the news industry.

I speak as one who produces news videos distributed without any intent of monetization-and as one who was unable to distribute the music I wrote in 1991-1993 because torrent sites et all did not exist and Hollywood's gatekeeper status was almost absolute. RIAA requirements for bars and clubs to be licensed by them if any band ever played covers crimped the live show scene by raising costs and excluding ALL live music from some clubs for fear that some band would play a cover.

There is a way to ensure that there is never another DCMA takedown from the RIAA or any of its constituent publishers: don't feed the beast, don't buy content from any corporation that is a member. If you don't want to violate their copyrights, reject the content outright. If you are a musician, distribute your content under one of the CC licenses so the record companies can't try to claim a cover of it as their own.