Re: [GNU-linux-libre] youtube-dl might be running non-free software from

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

Agree.

Archive.org + any GNU MediaGoblin is the best combination. ;)

Only thing left for Archive.org is an answer to this:
<https://archive.org/post/1073163/please-free-the-javascript-being-forced-to-average-visitors>.

"J.B. Nicholson" <address@hidden> writes:

>
> This is another reason to promote the use of the Internet Archive at
> https://archive.org/. archive.org imposes no DRM, no obfuscation, and
> no barriers to downloading copies of works. archive.org (unlike
> youtube.com) will distribute the exact file(s) you upload as well as
> its own site-made derivatives. YouTube always distributes resampled
> copies of audiovisual material. And I don't think YouTube has any
> facility to distribute anything but audiovisual works; no other kinds
> of documents are distributable (as far as I know), so archive.org
> offers a compelling advantage here as there's no limit to the kinds of
> data on can distribute with archive.org.
>
> This is all great news for people using their own means (such as their
> own blog, forum/mailing list posts, etc.) to distribute copies of
> digital works.
>
> The vast majority of YouTube users aren't looking to make money from
> the site, they want a place to upload stuff to share with
> others. archive.org offers this. And for the minority who want to make
> money by distributing new videos, one can host the videos on their own
> site (perhaps with a GNU MediaGoblin instance on a domain of their
> choice hosted on one of a large number of hosters) and charge for
> early access to the new stuff, run ads there, or offer
> subscription-only access there. Nothing about hosting with archive.org
> prevents making money with one's uploads. Nobody needs archive.org
> membership to download from them, and anyone can host discussions
> anywhere they like (it doesn't have to be hosted at archive.org
> although they will host that too).
>
>