Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Another YouTube Conversion Site Clipped

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-wall-just-this-thorny-hedge dept.

Google 94

Hodejo1 writes "[Tuesday] morning we learned that Google fired the first volley against YouTube conversion sites by blocking YouTube-MP3.org's servers from accessing its service and sending a letter threatening legal action. It looks like the fast growing Clip.dj also got the letter based on the note posted on the site: 'We're sorry to announce this, but Clip.dj has shut its service down for good.'"

cancel ×

94 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's okay (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385031)

It's okay. I've got a firefox plugin that'll do it for me.

Re:That's okay (4, Informative)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385095)

It's ok, I've got windows sound recorder.. or any other sound recording program to do it for me.

Re:That's okay (4, Insightful)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385247)

Much worse... you'd either be storing raw PCM or you'd be re-encoding.
Better to get the mp3 or aac stream from the .flv or .mp4 file.
ffmpeg -i zomg_justin_bieber_baby_baby.flv -codec copy zomg_justin_bieber_baby_baby.mp3

Re:That's okay (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385761)

ffmpeg -i zomg_justin_bieber_baby_baby.flv -codec copy zomg_justin_bieber_baby_baby.mp3

That's OK, I would rather shoot myself than listen to a Justin Bieber song. Although a compressed version of the song may make it tolerable.

Re:That's okay (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40389673)

As the result of YouTube mp3 rips is either 128kbps cbr mp3 or 112kbps aac I'd say that everybody is pretty much better of without those pests.
Seriously, only a person that thinks a juke box is an app would be ok with that kind of sound.

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385795)

He's making a point, dumbass.

Re:That's okay (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387709)

Yeah, he's making the point that Justin Beaver must die!



Dumbass!

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385411)

It's ok, I have a bash script that does that for me and than extract audio without quality loss. Just feed it a list of URLs or video IDs

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386765)

It's ok, I have wireshark.

Re:That's okay (2)

Frnknstn (663642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387877)

It's okay, I have tcpdump.

Or, It's okay, I have coaxial network cable, a multimeter and a quick eye.

Re:That's okay (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40389701)

I know butterflies!

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40392175)

Or you can use emacs. C-x M-c M-butterfly...

Re:That's okay (1)

a_fuzzyduck (979684) | more than 2 years ago | (#40388917)

CONVERT ALL THE VIDEOS

But YOU are not their target (yet) (0, Redundant)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385449)

Yeah, but you are not their target.

You can indeed already hear the sound, see the video, and record it. Whether you do that by pointing a candybar phone at your screen and recording a dozen mjpeg videos or via a client-side plugin that converts things on-the-fly, doesn't matter.

What they're targeting are 3rd party sites that download the content, convert it, and serve up the converted result (most likely caching things in the interim to save CPU cycles).
You may still be the destination of that download, but you are no longer the sole entity (besides YouTube itself) involved.

Now, if they were to go after the client-side solutions (and I don't mean the add-ons that simply submit to a 3rd party server and serve up the result), that'd be different. Maybe they will after getting rid of the 3rd party servers.

Re:But YOU are not their target (yet) (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387073)

You sum it up pretty nicely - but the point that you don't make is, this: Those conversion sites are monetizing the process, in one fashion or another. While it might be alright for you and I to take advantage of Youtube, or any other site, for our own personal use, it is NOT ALRIGHT for another corporation to horn in on the money to be made.

Those sites might do better if they were using Google ads on their sites, in a manner that didn't violate Google's policies. Might. If Google were making a penny or two at the same time the conversion site made a penny or three, they might get along.

Re:But YOU are not their target (yet) (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40389803)

I don't think they have any real grasp against services like savetu.be [savetu.be] . As long as it's retreiveable by the user I can rip it.
Note, savetu.be is only for videos, since I believe that actively wanting to rip the audio of a youtube video is sadistic mazochism.

Re:But YOU are not their target (yet) (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40391227)

Oh good, search engine company is shutting down websites that are downloading music from the video website they own. I see nothing wrong with that, let me go buy a phone the search engine company makes the OS for because I'm sure they'll never use it against me....

Re:That's okay (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385183)

Why did this get modded down? I came in here to say pretty much exactly the same thing.

Personally, I use Video DownloadHelper because it applies more generally than just to YouTube; But search the FF addons for "YouTube" and you'll see at least a dozen plugins that will let you download whatever the hell you want. Some even transcode it for you on the fly, for those who can't bother with trying to figure out what to do with a FLV or MKV file.

Give it up, Google - If I can see (or hear) it, I already have a copy. I thought you understood that better than the Big Media morons.

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385289)

This issue has nothing to do with what Google wants or feels (a company is a person after all). This has to do with Google's liability in current and future lawsuits. It's OK to grab the content, just don't shove it in Google's face.

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385413)

How is Google liable with regards to what someone does after they have streamed a video from YouTube?

Re:That's okay (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385641)

What is with all these people that have so completely swallowed the Google Koolaid? Google, just like the 'Big Media morons', is a business, existing to make a profit. The way they make a profit is by selling ads. People downloading content off their site means they are visiting their site less often, which means lower ad revenue. Google may not give a crap if you (or they) impact the revenue of content producers, but they sure as hell care if you impact their revenue. You can expect Google to fight just as hard against impacts to their revenue as the 'Big Media morons' fight for theirs.

Re:That's okay (1)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385739)

People downloading content off their site means they are visiting their site less often, which means lower ad revenue.

If I bother to extract the audio from a YouTube video to an MP3, I do so for exactly one reason - To listen to it in my car.

I don't have a live net connection in my car; and even if I did, I couldn't realistically (never mind "safely") surf over to YouTube to pick out the next track I want to hear.

So whether I forgo listening, or rip it to an offline MP3, Google sees exactly the same number of ad hits.

Re:That's okay (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386549)

And I'm sure there's not a single person in the world who would view/listen/whatever to something they downloaded instead of visiting the youtube website. Not a single one, not even once.

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40389847)

Please start torrenting the music you like.
Yours faithfully,
Your ears

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385329)

They do understand it, Google hires very intelligent individuals. They're probably just doing it to appease the said "Big Media morons" so they can say "Hey, we're being proactive protecting your Justin_bieber.mp3".

Re:That's okay (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385433)

I'll bet many of those intelligent individuals realize that once you let someone download your stuff you lose your ability to collect ad revenue for that person's use of your site.

Re:That's okay (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385663)

I don't think that has anything to do with it, aside form the RIAA probably screaming bloody murder.

Being able to download the videos *adds* value to youtube, even if it's not in the form of ad revenue. Which matters more because: Google owns youtube.

Re:That's okay (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385733)

How does it add value, if not in the form of ad revenue? The ad revenue is the only value YouTube has (to Google).

Re:That's okay (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386103)

knowing you can find the video you want on youtube, even if the purpose is to download it = reason to use youtube.
Otherwise people will simply use another video source with which they can download the video from.

Re:That's okay (1)

kurzweilfreak (829276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386105)

Poetmatt forgets that we are not Youtube's customers, we are its product.

Re:That's okay (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386343)

If site A and site B both have videos, but site B lets me download videos as well as stream them, then site B has more value. When I decide to get my next video, where am I going to go to get it, A or B? Where am I going to tell my friends to go, A or B? Which site is going to get more hits, A or B?

Re:That's okay (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387595)

You are assuming that site A and site B are equivalent in every way except for the ability to download videos. In other words, if both sites allowed/disallowed downloads you would decide which to use by flipping a coin. Exactly what site is this other than YouTube?

Even if such an alternate site existed, it must get revenue from somewhere, it costs a whole lot of money to run YouTube. So where is this alternate site getting revenue? If it charges users, then it is no longer equivalent to YouTube. If it is selling ads, it would maybe run in 'download allowed' mode long enough to grab all of YouTube's customers, then once the competition is out of the way it can also switch to the 'no downloads' mode.

Re:That's okay (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386925)

goodwill. It is an asset that is actually on P&L statements. it's kind of a bitbucket for corporate image, brand value, etc. In this case it's value is in the fact that by making the service not user hostile, they are preventing a "nicer" service from displacing them in the market, thus you will visit again, not for the same video, but for different videos, each time you visit they get an ad hit.
Indirectly, yes it is Advertisement Revenue, since that's the only thing Google really monetizes, but it is indirect in this case (banking on future visits is the direct value add).

-nB

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40387219)

It adds value to US, the actual person viewing the video. Whether google gets more revenue or ad views is entirely irrelevant. The site is more valuable to me, purely in that I can save said video/audio to my computer. Any money related to any of this is outside of this equation. The site is more valuable to me with that option, ergo it adds value to the site.

Re:That's okay (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387301)

Uh, no. Being valuable to you means absolutely nothing, unless that 'value' to you translates into more income for them.

Re:That's okay (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386217)

It adds value for the user, but not for the operator. The operator being google.

Re:That's okay (1)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385513)

Google appear to understand it a little better than Big Media, which target the downloaders. Google here appears to be targetting the equivalent of the tracker used by individual torrent users. I'd say Google has become clearly evil when they start taking part in FBI raids to shut down and seize the assets of allegedly infringing sites.

Chrome, Chromium, etc. (3, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385679)

Why did this get modded down? I came in here to say pretty much exactly the same thing.
Personally, I use Video DownloadHelper because it applies more generally than just to YouTube; But search the FF addons for "YouTube" and you'll see at least a dozen plugins that will let you download whatever the hell you want.

And one extension [google.com] to download/convert stuff from Youtube for Google's Chrome browser (and the FOSS Chromium browser it's derived from) is even supplied by Google/Youtube itself.

Re:Chrome, Chromium, etc. (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40395035)

No it isn't. That extension claims to be from Google, but it's not. If it were, it would have a tick before the "from youtube.com" and "G from Google" at the top of the description panel. It doesn't, so the author is fraudulently claiming to be legitimate when it isn't.

Re:That's okay (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386885)

Give it up, Google - If I can see (or hear) it, I already have a copy. I thought you understood that better than the Big Media morons.

Google: Big. Youtube: Media.

Are you sure that Google isn't Big Media?

Re:That's okay (2)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387755)

Give it up, Google - If I can see (or hear) it, I already have a copy. I thought you understood that better than the Big Media morons.

Google understands that. They also understand that just because you can make a copy doesn't mean you are legally allowed to make a copy.

Re:That's okay (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40388219)

I thought you understood that better than the Big Media morons.

I think you'll find that Big Media morons and Big Data morons are both mostly morons at the end of the day. Look past the age and the sneakers and you'll find no meaningful difference. Spineless is spineless, shallow is shallow, greed is greed.

Re:That's okay (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385883)

It's okay. I've got a firefox plugin that'll do it for me.

Do you really think they don't know this? Do you really think they don't know of the alternatives?

They have to do their due diligence. These sites make the process of ripping music from videos TOO easy. Pretty much any other method requires at minimum installation of third-party software.

So these sites do three things that require Google to take action. They cut into the bottom line, they violate the Terms of Service, and they potentially put Google at legal risk.

For example search Billy Joels - We Didnt Start The Fire and you will see that you can listen to the song for the price of a simple 15-30 second commercial. What you can also see is under the video are several links to Apple, Amazon, and Google music store that allow you to purchase the song. I would say its a safe bet that Google makes a % on the sale of the song based on the link referral. So these sites pretty much nullify this feature.

As for the terms of service. From my understanding these sites are putting a wrapper around the video which goes against the terms of service.

As for the legal ramifications. The studios definitely have contracts with Google to put their music videos online. These contracts probably have clauses that state Google needs to fight off potential piracy with due diligence. So by taking these sites down Google is complying with those clauses.

So can they totally stop it? No. Can they make it so you have to go though several hoops to rip the sound out of their video? Yes.

Re:That's okay (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385897)

And if that plugin gets popular enough, they will request it to be taken down too! Google aren't stupid -- they are perfectly capable of protecting their content if their lawyers want it. For example, it is basically impossible to automate search queries because Google really hates it when you using their search engine but are not exposed to their sponsored results. They have very sophisticated means of determining when it is likey that a user is a bot and will then serve up an annoying captcha. They will do the same thing with youtube. The difference is that, while search engine results are "theirs" and copying them can be seen as plagiarizing, taking the audio of youtube videos cannot because the videos aren't Googles property, they are owned by the youtubers who created them.

According to the law it is probably alright for them to do what the hell they want with the content users uploads, but from a moral standpoint I think what they are doing is highly unethical. Google has gained enormously on everyone who uploads videos, whether it is original stuff, remixes of other material or dvd rips of popular tv shows. I think they should return the kindness and allow as unrestricted usage of the content on youtube as possible.

Re:That's okay (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392789)

By "very sophisticated" you mean "designed to minimize false negatives, but false positives are okay". Sheesh, Google, I'm not a bot, already!

Re:That's okay (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392821)

I do believe I just failed to make any sense. D'oh.

What I actually meant was, "Google is good at finding bots, but doesn't mind flagging people as bots." Certainly it thinks I'm a bot sometimes, and others I know have had the same experience.

Next time, I'll wait a bit longer and read what i wrote before hitting submit ;-)

Re:That's okay (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40436457)

Yes that is true. But if you are able to improve upon their bot filtering algorithm, I'm sure Google would love to have a talk with you. ;)

Re:That's okay (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386407)

I just watch it on youtube then hum it to myself thereafter...Google claimed they sent my brain a letter but my brain claims it never read it

Re:That's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40388023)

...but why the hell would you want to? From YouTube of all places?

Did this really warrant a new story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385087)

We all pretty much saw it coming in the last story.

BREAKING NEWS: Third site may already be blocked! Fourth soon to follow?!

Fuck everything. We're reporting 5 sites. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40387429)

That's right. We're not waiting. FIVE sites will be blocked. You can count on it.

When are they going to learn? (4, Interesting)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385153)

If they allow us to see their content, they have to send us the bits in some form. If they send us the bits in any form, we can capture them and convert them to another form. Shut down all conversion sites today and more will be up in a week. Or we will start using browser plugins, or local apps. It is not technically possible to share something digitally without it being able to be captured digitally. It's like using a flashlight and then complaining that the person you're shining it on is using the light to read by, when you only meant to use the light to see them.

Re:When are they going to learn? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385309)

What you say is true TODAY, and may continue be true for a while. But don't make the mistake of thinking that it will always be true. When it's only possible to boot cryptographically signed "secure" OSs, and only for a few "trusted" OSs that will not allow you to run such software, it will no longer be possible without hardware mods to your computer that most people are not able to do. They ARE working on a whole "trusted path" through the entire OS to your display device, with the final decryption being done in the display device itself.

Make no mistake that is the direction of the industry for a long time, it just takes a long time to get there because there was so much inertia around open platforms. Sure, you could point a video camera at your screen but the quality will suck. Sure, a tiny number of hackers will figure out a way around the "trusted content path", but not enough to matter. As long as they close out 99.99% of everyone, that's all that matters. Even without such a trusted content path, on the most open OS out there (Linux), how many people are succesfully playing BluRay discs on Linux machines? A handful sure, but it's just not accessible for the majority - and again that's on an OPEN OS. Think how it can be on one that's cryptographically secured down to the hardware.

Every little step is only a little step. Every little step can be circumvented. But the walls ARE closing in and have been for decades. Don't think it won't continue, and get harder and harder.

Captcha: Shaken

Re:When are they going to learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385357)

I'd be up in arms about it, but we only have ourselves to blame. I, for one, welcome our new cryptographically signed overlords.

Re:When are they going to learn? (2)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385447)

how many people are succesfully playing BluRay discs on Linux machines?

Practically no one. However, if you ask how many play downloaded or sneaker-net-shared BluRay rips, that is a much higher number. Content protection is pretty much worthless as long as mass file sharing is easy.

Every little step is only a little step. Every little step can be circumvented. But the walls ARE closing in and have been for decades. Don't think it won't continue, and get harder and harder.

You are completely right.

Re:When are they going to learn? (2)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385957)

personally i don't bother with blueray in any form. Most people these days have a dvd drive on a computer but how may have a blueray drive? I think its more a financial than technical barrier.

Honestly who needs blueray when dvd is more than good enough and when it is on a computer even dvd quality is just icing. youtube is successful not for its high fidelity but its range of stuff available on most subjects.

I'm old enough to have recorded the chart show in mono on a radio cassette. Sure there was a bit of hiss and the tapes wore and got chewed up but it was good enough for my purposes back then.

These days it is hard to record anything below good enough quality. We would prefer the first edition hardback but the yellowing paperback is what most of us can afford these days with paycuts increased taxation and rocketing fuel bills.

maybe if we were not getting austerity measures forced upon us and had a bit more cash to spend on our little luxurys we would go back to the premium product but that seems to still be some time away.

You don't even need to be poorly paid when living expenses are outpacing your salary , If your buying your own house you still have to make the payments which are now a bigger proportion of your income than you expected them to be 5 or 10 years into paying for your now devalued home.

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387197)

Honestly who needs blueray when dvd is more than good enough and when it is on a computer even dvd quality is just icing.

I could not disagree more. The low quality of DVD distracts from watching the movie. The resolution itself is bad enough, but the encoding artifacts are extra annoying.

With an analog TV you have a bit of noise to hide the problems, but there is no such "luck" on modern TV sets.

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387803)

got to admit i dislike encoding artifacts but i've only really seen it on sky broadcasts as they are too cheap to apply a decent bitrate.

I'm not saying there is no difference in quality, there most certainly is but most people accept some defects and if you think DVD can be bad did you ever watch VHS? that is a huge difference but people still collected their video cassettes as it was the best available option. People did transfer to DVD preferring to buy in that format while tapes got old and wouldn't play properly. Blueray is top end and still expensive hardware and still expensive disks.

Blueray can not turn a mediocre film into a good or excellent one. An excellent film will grab you and the recording medium comes a distant second.

for a car analogy , you might prefer to only travel in new cars and refuse to travel in an older car, for me it is the older car or walk. I have no doubt your new car feels great to drive and feels sharp and clean like a new suit. But you cut your cloth to what you can afford.
 

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40405153)

What sort of artifacts do you typically observe on DVDs?

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40409491)

Banding, in areas with subtle colour changes, the compression only assigns a few colours, and so what should be a smooth sky with shades of blue becomes a bunch of areas with specific blue colours. The same thing also happens with explosions, because a DVD just cannot deliver the instantaneous bandwidth that a good explosion requires, even for a few seconds (the DVD production company cannot assume that the DVD reader can read at x2 or higher).

"Sticky pixels" where the compression algorithm turns an area with a bit of noise into a fixed pattern. This is probably the worst problem.

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387007)

I rip all movies I own. I simply prefer the experience of not having to watch trailers, FBI warnings, etc.
The last time my wife rented a movie and popped it into the DVD player, she was shocked that she had to watch trailers and crap...
I thought it was funny. She didn't want to wait for me to rip it but to be honest by the time the movie actually started I could have finished ripping it.
-nB

Re:When are they going to learn? (2)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386951)

Cory Doctorow had it right. They want computers to be appliances like toasters or TVs, that you can do ONE approved thing with. The War on General Computation [youtube.com]

Re:When are they going to learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385323)

Making a token attempt to tell/make these ripping sites to stop doing what they do will stop the average person from getting it (at least for a short time).

Advanced users probably only used sites like these to make things easy, not because they had no other way of getting what they want.

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385361)

I think it's more a question of how many walls have to go up before people give up. I know a few people who started to buy via iTunes once their P2P services got shut down. Not that YouTube is making a legitimate service for what these sites are doing but it will throw some people into buying legitimate copies of works that they were using these sites for if a legitimate copy is available.
 
Again, throw up enough walls and people will see spending a buck a track as being worth it.

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385637)

An additional part of this argument: if they allow us to see/hear their content, they have to send either sound waves and/or light waves to our eyes and ears. Which means they have to put those sounds and light in meatspace, where they can be recorded by readily available sound recorders and cameras.

They're fighting a battle they cannot win without breaking the laws of physics or rewiring everybody's brain.

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

TwentyCharsIsNotEnou (1255582) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386035)

Wow, I thought cam-recordings of movies were crap, now you're talking about camera recordings of Youtube!

Even Youtube is better quality than that!

Re:When are they going to learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40387023)

If they allow us to see their content, they have to send us the bits in some form. If they send us the bits in any form, we can capture them and convert them to another form.

Not necessarily. This is the whole concern for Trusted Computing. They want total encryption of media from source to hardware in hardware. If your hardware isn't signed, you can't play the media. MS are big on this, and have already made efforts in several fronts.

To overcome this you need to break the encryption, which is now illegal in the US, even if you own both the hardware and media.

Re:When are they going to learn? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387493)

If they allow us to see their content, they have to send us the bits in some form. If they send us the bits in any form, we can capture them and convert them to another form.

Do you really think Google doesn't get this? I'd look a little harder to understand the reasoning.

No snarky subject line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385179)

Ok, so a site I hadn't heard of before Tuesday is now down, and so is another site I had not heard of before 2 minutes ago.

Majorgeeks has plenty of programs to grab the flash encoded video off youtube, and plenty of converters. I think they've even got some chromium based browsers on there that explicitly advertise that you can choose to download flash objects with a simple right-click or menu command.

I get that this is an attack on casual downloading off the Google-tubes, but it seems silly, ineffective, and that it might alienate some potential ad-clickers.

Re:No snarky subject line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385249)

It's not an attack on casual downloading, it's an attack on sites that try to profit by violating Youtube terms of service.

A Good Thing â (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385223)

These sites are using content they do not own and did not produce to make money (whether through gullible fools paying membership fees or through advertising). They need to die, just like "private" torrent sites need to die. Free stuff is great. Selling stolen stuff (or selling tickets to the stolen market) - not so much.

Oh you ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386263)

These sites are using content they do not own and did not produce to make money

Sounds exactly like Youtube.com

Google Probably doesn't care....But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385257)

Has to show some "good faith" in their attempts to stop people from recording music from their site. I'd be willing to bet that this is only a CYA move (sucks that they have to do so, but thats the world we live in)

Also watch out for some of the plugins that DL mp3s from youtube, my g/f had one that kept on delivering ads that were giving her computer mal-ware (or the plugin itself was installing it... but w/e)

Re:Google Probably doesn't care....But... (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385341)

I'd be willing to bet it has a whole lot more to do with the fact that Google gets no ad revenue once you have recorded it.

Re:Google Probably doesn't care....But... (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387233)

I'd be willing to bet it has a whole lot more to do with the fact that Google gets no ad revenue while you are downloading it.

FTFY.

If they were giving Google free ad space on their sites, they would probably still be up. Instead, they're getting paid to host ads while giving people access to Google's stuff. Google doesn't care about the brower plugins, because most people go to the youtube page to use the plugin.

Just my .02.

Re:Google Probably doesn't care....But... (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40388259)

Has to show some "good faith" in their attempts to stop people from recording music from their site. I'd be willing to bet that this is only a CYA move (sucks that they have to do so, but thats the world we live in)

Also watch out for some of the plugins that DL mp3s from youtube, my g/f had one that kept on delivering ads that were giving her computer mal-ware (or the plugin itself was installing it... but w/e)

Eh, plugins aren't needed. I showed my teen and tween nieces and nephews how to record Youtube videos into Audacity using their sound cards' What-U-Hear feature (seems to be a feature of Creative cards, not sure about other brands), and save them as mp3 files.

They learned fast, and have since passed that information on to their friends, who will probably pass it on to their friends, and so on, and so on, and so on.

I also showed them the UnPlug plugin for Firefox for when they want to save the videos in their original flv or mp4 form locally.

Re:Google Probably doesn't care....But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40392505)

You've shown 'em a quick way to get crappy mp3's. Well done!

Re:Google Probably doesn't care....But... (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392959)

Note that MP3 degrades very quickly when you tandem encode.

The basic idea behind MP3 is to add noise where most or all of it will fall below masking thresholds, so either you can't hear the degradation, or you can't hear it very much. When you tandem encode (feed that through a decoder and back into an encoder), you're adding noise again, most likely pushing it well past the masking thresholds. The resulting file, all else equal, will sound quite a bit more than twice as bad as encoding only once.

(This is ignoring other artifacts you're introducing, e.g. most likely a bunch of added digital clipping and the resulting aliasing if the original was anywhere near 0dBFS.)

Short version: if you're going to tandem encode, which you shouldn't, you might as well set the coder to 320kbit to minimize the damage.

Tell it to someone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385367)

... who gives a damn.

End of the new Napster :-( (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385599)

I was enjoying YouTube secretly being the new Napster, but it looks like the cat's out of the bag now. It was better than torrents for finding obscure music. Of course there are still ways to use it as before, but I'll continue to keep them quiet.

Re:End of the new Napster :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385745)

You could find obscure music, but the quality **sucked**. I mean, not just minor suckage, but massive heaps of audio horror. It was OK to preview a song, but to play it for real, from a youtube rip? Only workable if you don't care a bit about audio quality.

I used it to find music I liked, and then tried to buy the tracks directly from the artist (non-RIAA artists.... RIAA artists, I couldn't give a shit).

Re:End of the new Napster :-( (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40385793)

The secret is to buy iTunes match. Put in sucky quality suck, match it, delete it, then download Apple's high quality version. Is it lossless? No, but it's better. And it's only $25, and you can keep everything you download after the year is up.

Re:End of the new Napster :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386585)

Why would I want to do that over just buying the music directly from the artist? That way the artist gets to keep all the money I give them, and no money at all goes to the evil that is Apple. Win/Win.

Re:End of the new Napster :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393121)

Most music arts don't receive direct monetary payments, and this was a discussion about how to effectively pirate YouTube music.

VLC (1)

equex (747231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386243)

VLC->Media->Convert/Save. Done.

Re:VLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40391631)

Not quite. After Convert/Save, you have to point it at the URL, change the caching to suit your machine/connection, select a save location, set the encoder options, click Save, and wait for it to finish encoding.

THEN you're done.

It's a process that isn't quite simple enough for most people, sadly.

YouTube is dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386403)

Disable Flash and enable their HTML5 option.

You'll see 95% "This video cannot be displayed" messages.

Message to Google: WebM is DEAD, get with the damn program already.

All part of the problem a lack of balance. (3, Insightful)

davonshire (94424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386435)

Everyone complains that DRM is keeping them from having what they want. And Those producing what people want, would like to be paid for what they produce.
And companies find they can use some GPL code to keep from having to develop their own bit of code, while people decry that that company isn't giving the source of their product back like the GPL requires etc. etc.

In the end it really comes down to some very basic things that are weakening in the 'moral' spirit of humans. People don't really question any more if they can do something, should they do it?

I can convert any video I choose into a file I can play anywhere any time on a number of machines, but if a friend wants to see it, why shouldn't I offer it to them as well? Or am I a dick for saying. Sorry man, I'll send you the dvd if you like?

Companies try to heap more intrenched DRM into things because they don't see anything working. Media assholes spout nonsense numbers about how much money they are losing, when if you did the math there is no possible way they could have made that much. etc etc.

Politicians pile crap into bills for their own good and when it fall apart they blame someone else for it not going through.

In every case, it's people who think because they are in a position to do something that they want to do, that they can simply do it without there being any consequences.

And we have this idea that's given to us through Hollywood and oodles of books that just one person can make a difference. Almost always that's applied to improving things. Freeing the slaves, ending a war or slaying a Sith. In movies where one person does something really wrong that messes things up for everyone. like destroying the world or creating a new world order, they are considered evil and the bad guy. But it's really just an amplification of the result of when many people decide to do a small bad thing instead of the right thing.

The thing is if you look at say the analysis of the Stock market crash of a few years ago, you will see time and again, the magic plan that made so many so much money worked just fine, till everyone started doing the same thing. Every win requires a loss, it's the order of balance in the world.

I could run on this for days but that's not what posting to something like this is about. I do hope someday people will start to realize that everyone can't have everything, and just because you don't have something, doesn't mean you're not going to have a worth while life.

Cheers.

DS.

Re:All part of the problem a lack of balance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40387725)

I do hope someday people will start to realize that everyone can't have everything, and just because you don't have something, doesn't mean you're not going to have a worth while life.

Truer words have never been said on /. :) Well done, mate.

And the problem is? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386637)

When you look at many videos on YouTube they are often compressed to a lower quality than the original so ripping them seems to me a way to get VHS quality from something that originally was DVD quality.

I'm sorry Google. Honestly, I am. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40387551)

But the only internet available at my house is 3G with a five gigabyte limit. Or satellite. I can't even get dial-up. Often I can't even watch a video without downloading it first because the entire video doesn't buffer any more.

So yeah, I am honestly sorry that I can't support the websites that I love the way that I would like to. Start pushing high-speed access out to the rural US and then I'll gladly sit in front of your ads all day long. Until then though, I have to be a thief. :(

these sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40387717)

i've never even heard of these sites. i just use keepvid. not anymore because after mentioning them they will get a letter too. oops.

Re:these sites? (1, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40387759)

Fucking dipshit this is the one I use.
Why would you mention it?
FUCK

You can (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40409299)

sudo aptitude install youtube-dl
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>