[jraph]

I do wonder why YouTube does not try harder to make it difficult to do this computation meant to prove you are a legit YouTube web client. Providing an easy-to-find, simple JS function interpretable with 900 lines of Python is like they don't try at all. They might as well do nothing.

Or is their goal just to make youtube-dl not 100% reliable? Or to be able to say "look, you are running our code in a way we did not intend, you can't do this because you are breaking the EULA"?

[zuminator]

I'd guess that their efforts to make it harder are limited by the fact that they want YouTube to be able to play on thousands of different low powered set top boxes and cheap phones. So whatever obfuscated code they use has to be simple enough to be run and periodically updated by all these different devices, and that same simplicity makes it emulable.

[Arnavion]

They do make it harder from time to time. In fact yt-dlp's interpreter has been broken for a month or so now and the devs finally gave up and told users to just install PhantomJS (which itself hasn't been updated since 2016 and probably has bugs / vulns of its own, but whatever).

https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/issues/4635#issuecomment-12...

[whywhywhywhy]

I mean if this is the direction it’s heading it makes more sense to port yt-dlp to node. It’s already dependent on a scripting language, it may as well be the one YouTube speaks.

[Cthulhu_]

I'm guessing the amount of people using it is low enough to not bother with mitigation. Then again, there's a LOT of YT videos that take clips from other videos (which in most cases falls under fair use), which I can imagine would use this tool.