| Eek, you are responding to my comment as if it was a freestanding response about archival copy and law enforcement work, when it was specifically in response to someone saying he was using it for neither. It's not surprising it makes you cringe, but please consider in context. > the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio. Are you trying to preserve quality or prove something? My response was in context for "gathering evidence" but not police work, and not archival quality. Would such a copy cause your problem to prove libel, copyright infringement, illegitimate disclosure, etc? > performance; must be done in real-time, cannot queue up multiple sources Can most definitely queue up multiple sources. Just make a youtube playlist and record it. Yes, it takes "real time latency", you'll take 10 hours to download 10 hours of video in general -- that's not an issue for evidence or gathering in a non law-enforcement context. > metadata, organizing, indexing; likely hand-typed separately, prone to error, prone to not knowing if you've done that video already. Again - consider the context of my answer, NOT archival quality anything. The "cc" stream GP mentioned, which can be searchable etc - has also seen many revisions for many files when the Google STT algorithms are revised, and with corrections. > Chain of custody; grabbing the original video allows you to prove two identical copies match (using file hashes or other comparisons) screen recording makes that difficult to impossible to confirm--maybe with fancy AI you'd have to run by the courts? You have no chain of custody. You can prove two downloads are the same, but YouTube does not guarantee they keep the file the same (indeed, they've modified files several times, changing formats and even remastering old '80s videos). If a file is later pulled (which is what GP was talking about), what are you going to compare it to? Chain of custody is law enforcement business. They'll get the files from YouTube directly, with affidavits and statements about it and any modifications, if they need it in court. You are going to civil court, and youtube-dl is not making your evidence more valid than a screen recording. |
Did I expect anyone, ever, to propose that? Let's just say, 2020 is full of surprises. I want off this wild ride.