cross-posted from: https://lemmy.org/post/1872634

So, starting now, Google started mandating full JS for YT, effectively breaking all third-party clients and locking the site to their official client.

This reeks of DRM.

UPDATE: Installing Deno and installing yt-dlp through PyPi fixes yt-dlp but the very idea that Google is mandating JS to lock down YT in an attempt at pseudo-DRM is still crappy.

UPDATE #2: inv.nadeko.net is working again for now.

  • ripcord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’ve never had to “include a valid cookie”, though there’s been various problems and they can vary from video to video.

    • Killer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      You don’t need to afaik.

      The only time i’ve had to include cookies is if i was trying to download something that was a premium feature like enhanced bitrate.

    • MehBlah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Any IP on the local ISP requires a google login to work. Very few work without the cookie generated from it.

      • Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        I downloaded this morning with yt-dlp and American rented mullvar servers (seal for android)

        Never have logged in

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Weird. I haven’t downloaded anything for a month or so (other than running into a different issue on somesomething), but I haven’t had to do that for any video for the several years I’ve been downloading.

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Is this maybe much more common on common VPN IPs? Not what I think you meant by “local ISP”, but would make a lot more sense to me.

          • MehBlah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            It wasn’t that way until earlier this year. I switched to a vpn to get around it. I’m using non US VPS in a country that is less tolerant of googles bullshit.

            To be clear the cable IPs are a /20 block that was routed to the cable companies predecessor in 2016. I’m the one who put in the request with ARIN. The new company that acquired this system was bought out by yet another company before the sale went through. I just looked and Cable one has purchased a large stake late last year. All in all it still works okay. Their support though is clueless due to flowchart ignorance. The plant OPs guy stayed the same and he knows how to keep the levels balanced and noise out.

          • T156@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            It is definitely more common on VPN IPs, since Google likely identifies the outgoing address as a datacentre, and gets suspicious. I’ve had multiple issues with the bot sign-in screen when using a VPN for it, whereas not using a VPN doesn’t have those problems.