
Ask HN: Why does YouTube not offer a download button? - zeptomu
Obviously there are many ways to do it (third party web services, plugins, etc.), but I guess the outcome is a bigger attack vector for users that download questionable stuff to do it anyway.
======
jeabo
If someone downloads a video, they won't go back to YouTube to re watch it,
thus not seeing more ads.

------
thewavelength
Ads, most probably.

------
wingerlang
They allow download of videos in their apps in selected countries. I don't
think you can share the actual files though. But the feature is great.

------
Yaa101
And licenses, and lawsuits, and headaches and...

------
Digory
Because musicians still get paid by the sale or play (like radio).

It was far cheaper to treat streaming like radio, so YouTube scans uploads for
music and pays money to musicians for each play.

If youtube encouraged downloading, there would be no easy way to count the
number of plays of music or pay musicians, which would lead to lawsuits
galore.

------
grover_hartmann
Just use youtube-dl, mpv even integrates with it nicely.

------
quickthrower2
Because you wouldn't need to visit the site, view ads, etc.

------
michalpt
As others said, there would be no need to go back to Youtube.

------
hsuresh
It does, in countries that have poor internet connections.I did have the
option to download videos, when in India.

------
borplk
They want to monetise your eye balls.

------
tantalor
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en)

 _Download videos and playlists to watch offline for up to 30 days when you
aren’t connected to the internet._

~~~
DrScump
... for _Red_ (paying) members only.

------
krapp
Youtube is constantly on the knife-edge of being sued en masse by large media
owners, as they were by Viacom. It's why their copyright strike system seems
"broken," when it's really operating as intended, giving copyright holders
arbitrary power to remove content they feel is infringing (without regards to
fair use) because anything less would probably lead to those companies to
simply prefer to sue Youtube into oblivion.

Technically speaking, of course Youtube could have a download button, but if
they did, as far as the Viacoms of the world are concerned, they're just
enabling piracy, and taking control away from content owners.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
YouTube might be owned by someone that could keep them from being sued to
oblivion though.

~~~
krapp
But it worth the money for Google to alienate media companies and potentially
lose revenue from licensed content to give non-paying[0] users a slightly more
convenient way to do something they could already do?

[0] As mentioned elsewhere, Youtube Red subscribers get the option to download
content for 30 days.

------
ralmeida
Aside from what is already mentioned in other posts, there would be logistic
concerns to enable downloading in a large scale.

By assuming the content will be watched by a human, they can throttle
buffering to transfer only what's needed for human consumption, thus spreading
out the network load.

~~~
stouset
That's much more easily done client-side. And having downloaded videos from
them at full speed, this appears to be how it's implemented as well.

~~~
ralmeida
The throttling is done client-side, yes. But it's a numbers game - if you
enable "official" direct unthrottled downloading, this would bypass the client
throttling, effectively increasing network requirements.

Of course, this is just a side point - the strongest reason is likely to be
either that YT has a strong incentive to keep users in the site/apps for ad
display and engagement (related videos, etc), or that they are unable to do so
due to some sort of business deal.

My opinion is that - even if they're not bound by any deal that would forbid
them to do so - they would not officially support (much less encourage at any
level) direct downloading, because the ads/engagement reason alone is strong
enough.

