Host of Youtube-dl Web Site Sued by Major Record Labels (torrentfreak.com) 104
"As part of their growing battle against popular open source software tool youtube-dl, three major music labels are now suing Uberspace, the company that currently hosts the official youtube-dl homepage," reports TorrentFreak:
According to plaintiffs Sony, Universal and Warner, youtube-dl circumvents YouTube's "rolling cipher" technology, something a German court found to be illegal in 2017.... While the RIAA's effort to take down youtube-dl from GitHub grabbed all the headlines, moves had already been underway weeks before that in Germany. Law firm Rasch works with several major music industry players and it was on their behalf that cease-and-desist orders were sent to local hosting service Uberspace. The RIAA complained that the company was hosting the official youtube-dl website although the tool itself was hosted elsewhere.
"The software itself wasn't hosted on our systems anyway so, to be honest, I felt it to be quite ridiculous to involve us in this issue anyway — a lawyer specializing in IT laws should know better," Jonas Pasche from Uberspace said at the time.
In emailed correspondence today Uberspace informed TorrentFreak that, following the cease-and-desist in October 2020, three major music labels are now suing the company in Germany... According to the labels, youtube-dl poses a risk to their business and enables users to download their artists' copyrighted works by circumventing YouTube's technical measures. As a result, Uberspace should not be playing a part in the tool's operations by hosting its website if it does not wish to find itself liable too....
The alleged illegality of youtube-dl is indeed controversial. While YouTube's terms of service generally disallow downloading, in Germany there is the right to make a private copy, with local rights group GEMA collecting fees to compensate for just that. Equally, when users upload content to YouTube under a Creative Commons license, for example, they agree to others in the community making use of that content. "Even if YouTube doesn't provide video download functionality right out of the box, the videos are not provided with copy protection," says former EU MP Julia Reda from the Society for Freedom Rights (GFF) to NetzPolitik. "Not only does YouTube pay license fees for music, we all pay fees for the right to private copying in the form of the device fee, which is levied with every purchase of smartphones or storage media," says Reda.
"Despite this double payment, Sony, Universal and Warner Music want to prevent us from exercising our right to private copying by saving YouTube videos locally on the hard drive."
"The software itself wasn't hosted on our systems anyway so, to be honest, I felt it to be quite ridiculous to involve us in this issue anyway — a lawyer specializing in IT laws should know better," Jonas Pasche from Uberspace said at the time.
In emailed correspondence today Uberspace informed TorrentFreak that, following the cease-and-desist in October 2020, three major music labels are now suing the company in Germany... According to the labels, youtube-dl poses a risk to their business and enables users to download their artists' copyrighted works by circumventing YouTube's technical measures. As a result, Uberspace should not be playing a part in the tool's operations by hosting its website if it does not wish to find itself liable too....
The alleged illegality of youtube-dl is indeed controversial. While YouTube's terms of service generally disallow downloading, in Germany there is the right to make a private copy, with local rights group GEMA collecting fees to compensate for just that. Equally, when users upload content to YouTube under a Creative Commons license, for example, they agree to others in the community making use of that content. "Even if YouTube doesn't provide video download functionality right out of the box, the videos are not provided with copy protection," says former EU MP Julia Reda from the Society for Freedom Rights (GFF) to NetzPolitik. "Not only does YouTube pay license fees for music, we all pay fees for the right to private copying in the form of the device fee, which is levied with every purchase of smartphones or storage media," says Reda.
"Despite this double payment, Sony, Universal and Warner Music want to prevent us from exercising our right to private copying by saving YouTube videos locally on the hard drive."
Re: Why aren't they suing YouTube?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I keep forgetting that men are only æqual in the letter of the law, not the reality thereof, and that rights are the privilege of those with the time and capital to file suit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to sue google and win with their unlimited funds and team of lawyers that get paid $100,000's an hour
Especially when download protection isn't in the term of the contract.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody pays a lawyer $100,000 an hour.
Thank you for saving the day, Captain Pedantic!
Re: Why aren't they suing YouTube?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think Google's team, I did say team of lawyers not a single lawyer, as a group gets that much an hour? I was just assuming it would be that high based on other companies of that size but don't actually know for sure.
To be fair you said "100,000s an hour". I took that to mean multiples of $100,000. But no, I don't think they're paying that much.
$100,000/hour X 8 hours in a day = $800,000 X 5 days in a week (assuming nobody is doing overtime) = $4M X 52 weeks in a year = $208,000,000.
I don't think they're spending a quarter billion dollars a year in lawyers.
Re: Why aren't they suing YouTube?? (Score:1)
Re:Why aren't they suing YouTube?? (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube dropped the ball here and has a surface/tech that is allowing downloads.
Uh... If you can stream it, you can download it. There's nothing that YouTube can do to stop that. I can't watch the video unless YouTube sends me the frames.
Re: (Score:1)
There have been several inroads into achieving this very thing, it's just considered not profitable to do so. If you have a recent Intel CPU it has a management engine of some kind that is perfectly capable of talking directly to youtube over the onboard NIC and fetching frames encrypted to your machine specific public key and then decrypting and decoding on the on-die GPU into encrypted RAM and then fed over HDCP to your monitor. Bear in mind that HDCP wasn't really broken, they just didn't enforce the key
Re: (Score:3)
.... If you have a recent Intel CPU it has a management engine of some kind that is perfectly capable of talking directly to youtube over the onboard NIC
That is DRM, and it comes with a high price creators don't get that feature and protection option for their content for free. Most content available on Youtube is Not protected by DRM. The exception would be certain movies or vids you Rent or Buy through Google's play store or Youtube's website itself.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a reason Youtube/Google doesn't do that beyond profit.
Literally NOTHING you said beyond that line was true. 100% of the rest of your statement, you pulled directly out of your ass.
Re: Why aren't they suing YouTube?? (Score:2)
Not quite. There is constitutional implementation of copyright in the USA IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. There is constitutional implementation of copyright in the USA IIRC.
True. But almost everything else that person said was straight out of la-la land.
Re: (Score:2)
... If you have a recent Intel CPU it has a management engine of some kind that is perfectly capable of talking directly to youtube over the onboard NIC and fetching frames encrypted to your machine specific public key and then decrypting and decoding on the on-die GPU into encrypted RAM and then fed over HDCP to your monitor. ...
And about a week after this becomes widespread, there'll be things for $27 on AliExpress that sit inside the monitor and sniff the LVDS cable to the panel and recompress the content with h.265 and save it to a USB stick. Then the Content Mafia will be screaming to move the decryption hardware into the chip-on-glass.
Re: Why aren't they suing YouTube?? (Score:2)
Or just video a 4K screen with a pro camera. Job done.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just video a 4K screen with a pro camera. Job done.
Precisely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... If you can stream it, you can download it. There's nothing that YouTube can do to stop that. I can't watch the video unless YouTube sends me the frames.
Great, we should tell Warner and Sony, they haven't heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... If you can stream it, you can download it. There's nothing that YouTube can do to stop that. I can't watch the video unless YouTube sends me the frames.
Great, we should tell Warner and Sony, they haven't heard.
Warner and Sony figure out a way to stop me from pointing a camera at my screen? Yeah, I didn't think so. If I'm streaming a video, it's being downloaded to my computer. Doesn't matter if it's in RAM or not. I can screen capture my entire full-screen interface or I can, as a last resort, point a fucking camcorder at the screen.
Youtube is following the law (Score:2)
They aren't suing YouTube because YouTube isn't doing anything unlawful.
Aside from any licensing agreements YouTube has with Sony, Universal, or BMG, here's what the law expects YouTube to do:
When they receive a complaint, they take the song down unless:
The uploader disputes the complaint, saying it's not a copyright violation.
If the uploader disputes it, it stays up until the complainant sure the uploader in federal court.
So long as YouTube follows that process, they aren't liable. People keep uploading th
Why does Youtube cooperate? (Score:1)
Apparently the claim is not so much the private copy but that circumventing the “rolling cipher”, whatever that is, is apparently illegal. The real issue I wonder is why is this illegal is Youtube apparently cooperates? Surely Youtube can at the very least implement technology so that downloading anything would at least require it's playing time by simply refusing to sen data faster than needed for playback?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely Youtube can at the very least implement technology so that downloading anything would at least require it's playing time by simply refusing to sen data faster than needed for playback?
How do you think video servers ensure a smooth playback experience to users when network quality can have minor changes and interruptions mid-program?
Re: (Score:1)
They buffer to some degree, but there is no need to buffer as far ahead as they do.
Re:Why does Youtube cooperate? (Score:4, Informative)
If there is no subtitle present, one can perform live transcription of the audio data to make the contents of the video searchable or accessible to those with hearing loss.
Those same transcription features also allow for metadata extraction such as speaker identification, letting the viewer enable subtitles for individual speakers or their non-native language.
That is in addition to enabling functionality like “what did she just say?” Which will look for the start of the last line said before the assistant button activation.
Further, not all videos are expected to be watched completely. Sometimes you legitimately want to skip ahead, to re-play a previous segment, or to speed up or slow down playback. Enforcing linear, start to finish play in it’s entirety harms user engagement.
Re: (Score:1)
They buffer to some degree, but there is no need to buffer as far ahead as they do.
The ever popular "it doesn't apply to me, so it can't apply to anyone else" argument.
YouTube, obviously, disagrees with you. If they didn't NEED to buffer so far ahead, they wouldn't. Why the hell would they wastefully send packets that they don't think they need to? When your data-rates are measured in terabits per second you don't send out data, that doesn't improve the quality/user-experience of your service, for no reason at all.
That's not some POS service slapped together by window-lickers. Ever
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube, obviously, disagrees with you. If they didn't NEED to buffer so far ahead, they wouldn't.
There was a time when youtube limited buffering and throughput and they stopped doing that. I couldn't tell you the reason they had, but it was clear that for a short time they'd feed you wire speed to get the video started then bitrate*n for as long as the video was playing. At first I thought my ISP was throttling, but I could force a "burst" of packets by seeking so it had to be youtube servers. My thinking is that they realised it was better to have short lived connections that they could dump large buf
Re: (Score:2)
There is if you have dial-up speeds. You have to buffer the whole video, essentially. So all one has to do is simulate dial-up speeds to "need" that much read-ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
You never know where the client might want to seek to, and it's ideal if you make it as likely as possible that a seek is instantaneous.
Re: Why does Youtube cooperate? (Score:2)
There is a need. Do you think the public is just going to sit still when their cat video hangs in mid-stream as they drive through a tunnel?
Welcome to 5G.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely Youtube can at the very least implement technology so that downloading anything would at least require it's playing time by simply refusing to send data faster than needed for playback?
Some sites do just that, and downloading software throttles itself to avoid tripping that. The amount downloaded per unit time is reduced, but that wouldn't make the labels and such happy because the nature of the downloads is still the same, and can, for example, do a whole lot while you sleep or do anything else other than watch the content. Copyright infringement was quite common even as it would take 3-4x longer to download than the media would playback.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still puzzling over how my making a copy of the audio from a music video somehow irreparably harms Youtube or the artists.
I'm never going to buy the music and I'd just do without it if there was no way to rip the audio out of a video.
No one is losing any of that precious money because, as I said, I'm never going to buy the music. It's just not that important to me.
So, really, who is being harmed? No one that I can see.
Re: Why does Youtube cooperate? (Score:1)
Because you can play it back as often as you want with no revenue generating adverts. Also you might be tempted to buy a small percentage of the music you download for free if it wasn't trivial to make a perfect copy.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can play it back as often as you want with no revenue generating adverts.
I still don't see the problem. It sounds like a "them" problem, not a "me" problem. Now, if they can force me to generate ad revenue for them, then so be it, but I'm not obligated to support their business model.
Also you might be tempted to buy a small percentage of the music you download for free if it wasn't trivial to make a perfect copy.
Speaking only for myself, that's unlikely. If I can't copy it, then I won't listen to it or watch it.
hurry, sale must end soon! (Score:2)
Re:hurry, sale must end soon! (Score:4, Informative)
UBlock Origin blocks ads on YouTube for me.
Re: hurry, sale must end soon! (Score:2)
Re: hurry, sale must end soon! (Score:1)
Pi-hole
Re: hurry, sale must end soon! (Score:2)
Won't work. The app versions of YouTube tunnel the entire thing through a TLS session to google's servers, and they only trust certain certificates, so you can't MITM it with a TLS proxy either. The only way you'll realistically block ads is if you crack the app.
Re: hurry, sale must end soon! (Score:2)
But YouTube works just fine in the browser if you uninstall the app.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they have that (Vanced).
How does this go, again? (Score:3)
1. Put a video on YouTube, whose computers will provide a copy to anyone who asks
2. Get mad when people ask for copies
3. ???
4. Lawsuit?
Re:How does this go, again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse. Did you catch the last line of the summary?
"Despite this double payment, Sony, Universal and Warner Music want to prevent us from exercising our right to private copying by saving YouTube videos locally on the hard drive."
Does nobody know how computers actually work? Unless something has changed, I don't think youtube videos are exclusively stored in ram and are never cached.
This is akin to them saying that I'm not allowed to copy files from one part of my hard drive to another. Sorry, when they land on my disk, they are mine. If you don't want them there, don't offer them on the internet.
Re: How does this go, again? (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe the last line in the summary is referring to the legal right to make private copies of copyrighted material in Germany, because devices and storage media has been levied and that money they have paid has been given to the studios.
They should have sued in a different country.
Re: How does this go, again? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they shot themselves in their own foot by demanding the copyright compensation fees directly in the law. By trying to force themselves to always get a cut of the pie, they set the size of their piece of the pie in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
In firefox, use the "Web developer tools", select "Network", then choose "Media"
You can watch the GET requests in real-time.
Watching a YT video, there are a *LOT* of GETs, for small parcels of the media.
In short, your video is delivered in small packets, and it's unlikely they ever hit your hard drive. GET a packet, start displaying it, pre-emptively GET the next packet, and so on.
And "no-cache" directives are a thing.
So yes, things *have* changed, and YT has managed to avoid having its content cached on yo
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, things *have* changed, and YT has managed to avoid having its content cached on your computer.
Not at all. The caching is up to your browser - "No-Cache" is advisory; You can force saving everything to disk or pass your Browser's connections through a Proxy service configured to log and story every item and Ignore No-Cache.
The chopping up the distribution of media into multiple GET requests is a performance tweak and a technical method of providing flow control and error recovery that HTTPS canno
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL does not take away your right to include the GPL'd program in your proprietary software.
Only if you give the combined software to someone else, does the GPL require you to do so under the GPL-
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're not. If I download a GPL'd program, then "as soon as the bits land on my drive they're mine" and I can include them in my proprietary software? I think not.
Of course you can, you just can't distribute that proprietary software. Similarly, I can copy a copyrighted movie off YouTube, but if I start sharing that on a torrent my action might become illegal. Sure, that means anyone else would be better off ripping the movie off YouTube than off a torrent, too, but the studios have decided to give YouTube permission to distribute them over the internet. This is no different than using a VHS to copy things off of cable. That's legal. When you start selling the copies
Re: (Score:2)
Not that we should look at the GPL as the gold standard for justification. The GPL restricts freedom using the tricks of copyright and contract law. Permissive licenses promote freedom.
The GPL restricts your freedom of taking away other's freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
No, they're not. If I download a GPL'd program, then "as soon as the bits land on my drive they're mine" and I can include them in my proprietary software? I think not.
Of course you can, you just can't distribute that proprietary software. Similarly, I can copy a copyrighted movie off YouTube, but if I start sharing that on a torrent my action might become illegal. Sure, that means anyone else would be better off ripping the movie off YouTube than off a torrent, too, but the studios have decided to give YouTube permission to distribute them over the internet. This is no different than using a VHS to copy things off of cable. That's legal. When you start selling the copies on the street corner it becomes illegal.
Not that we should look at the GPL as the gold standard for justification. The GPL restricts freedom using the tricks of copyright and contract law. Permissive licenses promote freedom.
Yes, smarty, except that if you want to be cleverly nitpicking, "proprietary software" is, by definition, software distributed under a proprietary licence, so there is no such thing as "proprietary software that can't be distributed", that's called "in house software" or "private software". And I'm disputing the OP's logic of "bits are on my hard disk so they're MINEEEE and I can do whatever I please with them", so your VHS example doesn't apply here, since the bits evidently aren't "MINEEE" if I can't sell
Re: (Score:2)
since the bits evidently aren't "MINEEE" if I can't sell them on a street corner.
Yes they are. In some states it's legal to grow and posses marijuana but illegal to sell it. A restriction on trade is not necessarily a restriction on ownership. The OP never said the "I can do whatever I please with them" part that is so crucial to your argument. Ownership isn't commonly understood to be as abstract and unconditional as you make it out to be.
I find your accusation of pedantry oddly hypocritical. You can argue the details regarding proprietary/private software and while you may be correct
Re: (Score:3)
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, the fact that something is "made available" doesn't negate copyright protection. TV stations broadcast their programming to millions of people, but still enjoy copyright protection.
I think the rules are different in Germany, you are legally allowed to make private copies. In the UK you are technically not allowed to tape TV shows or movies off broadcasts, but it's not enforced and everyone does it.
Re: (Score:2)
TV stations broadcast their programming to millions of people, but still enjoy copyright protection.
Indeed, and youtube-dl is analogous to a VCR. The "Betamax Case" established VCR as fair game (in the US) though unfortunately DMCA did it's best to undo all of that.
Re: (Score:2)
It is more like BetaMax or is it more like ABC v Aereo [wikipedia.org]. That decision distinguished a firm that re-transmitted a work from betamax and that distinction is rather relevant here.
I don't much like the precedent, but unless it's reversed the analogy (at least as far as US law) is not gonna fly.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how it's more like Aereo. Aereo used their equipment to record and let users download from Aereo owned and operated equipment. This is what the supreme court latched onto, that this arrangement was what cable companies did and cable companies were required to have consent for retransmission per a 1992 law.
youtube-dl is software you can use to download from youtube, it is not a site that re-hosts youtube content or even serves as a proxy between youtube and the user. All the equipment and the in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see anything that suggested that copyright protection was being negated. Copyright protections are usually concerned with protecting the distribution of copies, and I don't believe that youtube-dl is performing any distribution. As far as I can tell, it is a client that downloads the content from YouTube, in a similar manner to a web browser, but in a way that allows it to be stored to a drive.
Re: (Score:2)
if any, the biggest profit loser is Google, since downloading the video will allow you to replay said video without ads...
Re: (Score:2)
if any, the biggest profit loser is Google, since downloading the video will allow you to replay said video without ads...
Downloading videos simply to avoid ads is an inefficient time waster. Install uBlock and watch YT videos free of ads directly in your browser. I never get ads on YouTube - if I did I simply wouldn't be watching videos there.
I do use youtube-dl and yt-dlp for videos I want to re-watch, especially those that look as though they might become NLA at some point. I also use them to get music that I can't find elsewhere. But most of my video consumption on YT is ad-free in real time.
major music labels want to get paid X3 artists 0 (Score:2)
major music labels want to get paid X3 and artists get 0
Universal previously sued Sony.. (Score:2)
..over a device Sony manufactured which could be used to save videos for later viewing. It was called Betamax [wikipedia.org]. It's a shame Sony has no sense of irony. It's also a shame the motion picture industry hasn't yet caught up with the RIAA and realized the futility of DRM. It doesn't stop pirates and is an annoyance to your customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Crap. Should've read TFS a bit more closely. This is the music industry, which dropped DRM years ago from their audio products, whining about how DRM on music videos is trivial to circumvent. You'd think they'd put two and two together here. facepalm.gif
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. Should've read TFS a bit more closely. This is the music industry, which dropped DRM years ago from their audio products, whining about how DRM on music videos is trivial to circumvent. You'd think they'd put two and two together here. facepalm.gif
My understanding is that they only dropped DRM after Apple developed enough leverage with iTunes to force them to.
I use youtube-dl to download porn (Score:2)
Major labels can fuck right off.
Re: I use youtube-dl to download porn (Score:2)
Maybe if the major labels would fuck you then you might not need much porn?
Re: (Score:1)
I didn/t know (Score:3)
I didn't know this tool existed
so where can I get it?
Re: (Score:2)
youtube-dl [youtube-dl.org]
yt-dlp [github.com] probably the most popular fork, although I haven't used it. Supposedly gets around the throttling, has plugins for shit like flagging embedded video ads and encoding downloads around them, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
sudo apt install yt-dlp
or
sudo snap install yt-dlp
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget ALLTUBE, which makes this process so easy Grandma can do it with a nice web front end.
https://alltubedownload.net/ [alltubedownload.net] [alltubedownload.net]
Also, you can get host one on your local linux box.
Does it circumvent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their problem is that to allow the user to watch or listen it has to be open format. As soon as its open format, it becomes possible to write fairly simple software to enable the user to record it. And once written, it will proliferate.
For instance, the package is probably in the repositories of all the usual distributions. Who knows where they are hosted, all over the world probably in lots of different jurisdictions. Are they going to sue them all, one at a time?
There is really no way around this, eith
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - this is the whole screwdrivers should be illegal argument. Screwdrivers are only a tool and the fact that they can be used to do illegal things is irrelevant to whether they should exist.
Re: (Score:2)
But does it really circumvent encryption
It doesn't circumvent squat. It's a Bad-Faith argument by the RIAA which haven't been adequately contested that they historically managed to get a german judge to sign off on.
Because the "rolling cipher" is not intended to be DRM in the first place - Youtube's website provides the Javascript code in cleartext used to select the video quality and encode the URL to get the videos, and Yt-DL
just parses and runs the code Youtube provides [ycombinator.com] to get the URL.
Youtube'
No. (Score:2)
As usual, they're lying sacks of shit. YT separates the video and audio into separate files. Youtube-dl downloads the two parts and merges them with ffmpeg [ffmpeg.org] and it has a ton of options.
They're just trying to get free money by lying to judges who don't understand the technology - you know, the same shit they've been doing for many decades.
Re: (Score:2)
YT separates the video and audio into separate files.
Just like the blank CD fee (Score:2)
There's a hidden tax on blank CDs to cover the license fee for recording copyrighted music on them. But the music industry still cried about being robbed despite getting paid.
The music industry is organized crime with a lot of lawyers.
Deal with it? (Score:2)
Standing? (Score:2)
How can Warner media sue a company that accesses another company's service? I would have suspected they have no standing in this case...
And when will Shopowners sue⦠(Score:1)
sellers of hammers, because these very hammers can be used to smash windows and break into their shops?
Re: (Score:2)
sellers of hammers, because these very hammers can be used to smash windows and break into their shops?
I'm only surprised that there isn't a tax imposed for every nail you hit with aforesaid hammer. Like a "usage fee".
Notice who they AREN'T suing. (Score:2)
Google is already throttling youtube-dl downloads, but hasn't completely cut them off. Meanwhile, the code has already been forked in to a bunch of other projects.
Google could simply not allow these fuckbags to have videos on YT at all, they also have more money than all the RIAA combined, and could definitely fight in court. So, let's go after some hosting company instead, they're easier to intimidate.
The GEMA Issue is an extra prime reason ... (Score:2)
... that Sony and the Music Industry in general are engaged in flat-out illegal fraudulent activity in Germany, more or less actively supported by the authorities. The problem being, that politicians making the laws and the judges required to follow them have little clue to absolutely no clue about what the actual problem is and why German Creator Protection laws directly contradict fundamental property rights. The Chancellor Schroeder Government passed the first instance of this sort of law along with the
The solution is simple as can be... (Score:2)
There Are Legitimate Uses For youtube-dl (Score:2)
Also, there are many royalty-free videos distributed on YouTube and youtube-dl offers a nice
Music industry scumbags (Score:2)
I wish they would fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
> "There are only two "web browsers" left: Chrome and Firefox"
Three. Chromium (with skins and extra functionality), Firefox (and variants) and Safari.