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!

RIAA Goes After CNET For Media-Conversion Software

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-you-know-this-pen-could-be-used-in-a-crime? dept.

Piracy 257

First time accepted submitter moj0joj0 writes "Two days after YouTube-MP3.org, a site that converts songs from music videos into MP3 files, was blocked from accessing YouTube, the RIAA has asked CNET to remove software from Download.com that performs a similar function. The RIAA focused its criticism on software found at Download.com called YouTubeDownloader. The organization also pointed out that there are many other similar applications available at the site, 'which can be used to steal content from CBS, which owns Download.com.' CNET's policy is that Download.com is not in any position to determine whether a piece of software is legal or not or whether it can be used for illegal activity." For a sufficiently broad definition of "steal," you could argue that all kinds of software (from word processors to graphics programs to security analysis tools) could be implicated.

cancel ×

257 comments

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

Stream, Download, what's the difference... (5, Interesting)

Bigsquid.1776 (2554998) | more than 2 years ago | (#40404509)

Don't these dorks know there is not much difference between streaming and downloading.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 2 years ago | (#40404627)

The browser will, in fact, cache some of these on the disk so the user can pull them out of there if they want to.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404631)

They know, they just don't care.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#40405683)

Bingo. They've overstepped their jurisdiction, and need to be placed back in their box.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (4, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40404659)

Ads

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405121)

Never saw them to begin with thanks to hosts... been keeping mine up to date since 2001 and never went to youtube until after 2002.
No really, I have never once seen an ad on YouTube...EVER. Unless you count that MyCPC video that I only went to so I could flag it as a scam for misleading text.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40404703)

Probably not. I actually have a non-infringing (I think) use for these tools. My old Mac G5 has no Flash updates anymore - it's not supported. Most of the time it doesn't matter, but every once in a while I have to download the video so that I can view it with VLC.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405139)

I have to download the video so that I can view it with VLC.

I'm fairly confident that VLC can accept a Youtube URL and stream/play the video without downloading as a separate step.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 years ago | (#40405561)

Shhhh...... Don't let the RIAA know that!

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40404775)

I always download songs because I've seen instances where the record company yanked the song off youtube (example: most of Prince's songs). I learned to backup my favorite 70s/80s-era songs so that, if I can no longer access them via youtube, I can still hear them when I like.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (5, Funny)

jimmyfrank (1106681) | about 2 years ago | (#40405393)

You could probably take a shoe box, construction paper, magic markers, and make a mp3 vault. Take some pics, blog about it, and the RIAA would probably think it was real.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#40405557)

I was going to suggest BAN ALL COMPUTERS! but you're probably right, RIAA will go after anything with 'mp3' or 'download' written on it.

Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (1)

kevinadi (191992) | about 2 years ago | (#40405533)

They're dorks. What do you expect?

How to scare your neighbors (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40404511)

Name your wifi network "RIAA Monitor Station"

Re:How to scare your neighbors (2, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | about 2 years ago | (#40404527)

Not many people outside the nerd universe know what the RIAA is.

Re:How to scare your neighbors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404639)

Are you retarded?

Re:How to scare your neighbors (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 2 years ago | (#40405089)

"FBI Surveillance Van" would probably be a better choice.

In Other News... (5, Funny)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 2 years ago | (#40404525)

RIAA has asked Unix vendors to remove the 'cp' command since it can be used to make illegal copies of music software.

Re:In Other News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404603)

In other news contd.. the government has asked a company to remove its products from stores, because it stole family time from an outsourced employee

Re:In Other News... (5, Insightful)

jdastrup (1075795) | about 2 years ago | (#40404691)

The logical next step for the RIAA is to block the use and sale of speakers.

Re:In Other News... (3, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 2 years ago | (#40405109)

Well if you switch that to MPAA they have. It's called DisplayPort.

Re:In Other News... (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#40405623)

I think that wouldn't be legal. But public broadcasting is, so they could impose volume limits!

Next time you check, your audio system only gets to 4 instead of the highest 10 volume level! ;-)

Re:In Other News... (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 2 years ago | (#40404705)

You can get my ffmpeg when you pry it from my cold, cheetoes encrusted hands.

Cheetoes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404799)

In a strange turn of events, it turns out that slashdot user "Mordok-DestroyerOfWo" is actually Dan Quayle.

Re:In Other News... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404823)

You can get my ffmpeg when you pry it from my cold, cheetoes encrusted hands.

Yes, Malfunctioning Inbound Currency Conduit #1000167, we are aware of this. This is why our food subsidiaries and partnerships with same continue to pump out cheap snack foods designed to increase your blood pressure and why we continue to make stress-inducing press releases such as these. How's your health these days, Mr. or Mrs. Mordok-DestroyerOfWo? Oh, please, don't worry about it for our sake. I'm certain that's treatable. Nothing to worry about at all.

Your friendly neighborhood Recording Industry Association of America(TM) Human-Simulacrum Representative

Re:In Other News... (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40405305)

What's an ffmpeg [libav.org] ?

Re:In Other News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404949)

They already implemented this, the company is called "Apple"

Re:In Other News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405103)

Or vagina.

Draw me a line (5, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#40404539)

I'd like to know where the RIAA/MPAA draw the line. Does skipping ads on radio and TV count as theft? How about just channel surfing during the ad-break, or getting up and making some coffee? Or just hitting "mute"?

Does remembering a song in my head count as ripping them off if I don't also own the CD? If I go to a friend's house is it wrong to listen to or borrow their CDs and DVDs, or watch their cable TV?

I can buy a portable DVD player and take my discs with me. How is it any different if I rip the discs to watch on my phone or laptop. If I own a DVD but can't be bothered to rip it to my phone is it okay to download a .torrent version? The MPAA's members put all sorts of DRM crap on the disc to make ripping harder, making the download more attractive.

If I buy a DRM locked song and the seller turns off their DRM servers so I can't play it any more is downloading an MP3 from The Pirate Bay morally acceptable?

Re:Draw me a line (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40404583)

I'd like to know where the RIAA/MPAA draw the line

Multiply the total amount of money in circulation by 5, and if the profit is less than that figure, it is a problem for the **AA.

Re:Draw me a line (4, Insightful)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#40404745)

it's a trick question. drawing any kind of line would be a declaration of their limits, and therefore an expression of some kind of ethics. clearly they have none, limits or ethics.

Re:Draw me a line (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#40404593)

Easy answer: if they could they would label all of these activities you listed as "theft".

Re:Draw me a line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404637)

Does skipping ads on radio and TV count as theft?

Yes.

How about just channel surfing during the ad-break, or getting up and making some coffee? Or just hitting "mute"?

No, No, and Yes.

I can buy a portable DVD player and take my discs with me.

no you can't

If I own a DVD but can't be bothered to rip it to my phone is it okay to download a .torrent version?

No.

Does remembering a song in my head count as ripping them off if I don't also own the CD?

Yes

If I buy a DRM locked song and the seller turns off their DRM servers so I can't play it any more is downloading an MP3 from The Pirate Bay morally acceptable?

NO!

Re:Draw me a line (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#40404787)

If I buy a DRM locked song and the seller turns off their DRM servers so I can't play it any more is that theft of my DRM locked song? YES!

Re:Draw me a line (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404757)

They can't and won't draw you a line. Drawing a line would state that, at some point in history, nothing beyond the current technology could do us more or less harm. That is exactly what they don't to have happen. By keeping their position grey, and constantly venting that new tech. is further depriving them profits, they can't be held to any single position of appeasement.

With this new found argument of 'site scripts' for conversion or 'track grabbing', they might as well say wget and the entire TCP/IP stack should be illegal as well.

There will never be a withdrawal of attack from the likes of the **AA's and everyone here knows it. If they had their way, you'd have to pay for every time you heard a song, whether intended or not, and every time you saw a movie or movie clip. And likely, if you commented on either online, you'd have to pay them to have it ok'd to be put on the web. That is the absurd length they would go to, to protect their outdated business model, despite hollywood accouting, and artist royalty strong-arming. To add insult to injury, they'd also want an ISP tax in place in so that even if people don't copyright content, they'd still get a cushioned share on the chance that they can't catch you.

In short, FUCK THE RIAA and MPAA! From now, till forever!

Re:Draw me a line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404779)

To be actually seriously honest? They count it theft if you have never even done any of those.

They are greedy, they don't know "nobody has never heard of our stuff or consumed it ever".
If you aren't buying their stuff all the time, you are a criminal in their eyes and they will do everything in their power to destroy you when they have enough power.
Note that I say when because it is looking like that every month now.

Re:Draw me a line (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 2 years ago | (#40404873)

No one NEEDS the content that the RIAA is trying to protect. A few months boycott and they would be gone for good (and we'd all have a lot more free time on our hands). They have annoyed almost their entire customer base - if only there were a way to leverage this into collective action.

Re:Draw me a line (4, Insightful)

whargoul (932206) | about 2 years ago | (#40405127)

The problem with boycotting is you have to get a vast majority of consumers to go along with it and most people just don't care enough to go through with it. I do, you do and most of /. prolly does but talk to Joe Plumber or Nacho Roofer about DRM and they'll think you're talking about some sort of VD...nevermind the teenagers (RIAA's ever-so-loyal fanbase) who would look at you like you're stupid and continue to buy anyways.

Re:Draw me a line (1)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#40404875)

... getting up and making some coffee?

The next generation of TVs will have a government-mandated camera in them - to protect children from hearing curses. This will be used to monitor viewers during commercial breaks. If anyone is absent during an ad, the show will not resume.

Re:Draw me a line (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#40405597)

Some of what you say here will become true, someday.

Re:Draw me a line (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 2 years ago | (#40405129)

You are expecting them to possess a line which if no one crosses that they'll be satisfied and back off? You are misunderstanding what is going on here.

Re:Draw me a line (2)

melikamp (631205) | about 2 years ago | (#40405273)

MAFIAA is not interested in drawing any lines. Their business is racket: they use the obscene statutory damages in the broken copyright law to shake down everyone, from industry giants to single moms. Frivolous litigation or even fear of litigation is often enough to produce a settlement. This has nothing to do with art, artists, or even the meaning of copyright: their only wish to crush anyone who dares to compete.

Re:Draw me a line (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#40405645)

Does remembering a song in my head count as ripping them off if I don't also own the CD?

Judging by their action, I assume most of them already had a lobotomy. So very likely they thought that would be the case.

Invalid or valid argument? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40404551)

"CNET's policy is that Download.com is not in any position to determine whether a piece of software is legal or not or whether it can be used for illegal activity." --- It seems pretty obvious that a program designed to download youtube videos is infringing on copyright. Though I guess you could argue said program is no different than a VCR (which the SCOTUS ruled can legally capture video and store it).

Re:Invalid or valid argument? (4, Insightful)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 2 years ago | (#40404671)

And if you wanted to download the video of some guy making his cat do tricks?

Re:Invalid or valid argument? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40404833)

User videos are copyrighted at the moment of creation.
Not that I care..... I download a ton of stuff from youtube so I can play it back at 2x speed in VLC Player (mostly news programs and lectures).

Re:Invalid or valid argument? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404709)

I don't think it's that obvious. I'm happy to let whoever wants to rip the audio out of my own YouTube video's. Obviously not everything, and maybe not even a majority of things, on YouTube is some commercial creation that shouldn't have audio pulled from it.

Re:Invalid or valid argument? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40404739)

Is it fair use for me to download a Flash video so that I can view it with VLC on my non-Flash equipped computer or device? I certainly think it is.

Re:Invalid or valid argument? (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#40404791)

Though I guess you could argue said program is no different than a VCR (which the SCOTUS ruled can legally capture video and store it).

...which is likely why the RIAA is asking and whining, instead of issuing takedown notices and sending official threats of litigation.

The absolute last thing they'd ever want is for a case like this to end up making video/audio ripping off a stream the equivalent of using a VCR to tape a show.

Re:Invalid or valid argument? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405203)

And what about me? I use a S-Video out to VCR to record YouTube so I am totally legit? Ripping the stream gives the same result, I now have a copy on my own media.

Re:Invalid or valid argument? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#40404881)

It seems pretty obvious that a program designed to download youtube videos is infringing on copyright.

Some of the content on youtube you are explicitly permitted to use. Some videos are in the public domain, others are licensed for use with creative commons.

Though I guess you could argue said program is no different than a VCR

You could rightly argue that also.

Re:Invalid or valid argument? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404893)

Many videos on YouTube are licensed in such a way that downloading is legal, or even encouraged (e.g., Creative Commons). Saying that you cannot distribute software that has a legal and legitimate purpose but that can also be used for illegal purposes is akin to saying you can't sell cars because people can drive them after drinking, steak knives because people can use them in muggings, etc.

common denominator (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404557)

Hey! RIAA - go after the OS that most of those nasty conversion program users have installed - Windows!
Yup, go after Microsoft. Line your coffers just like Oracle and SCO have done with their brainstorms.

"can be used for illegal activity" (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404559)

Holy shit. How much software can NOT be used for illegal activity?

$ ls /usr/bin /bin /usr/local/bin | wc -l
2695

Betting all of that could be "used for illegal activity". Never mind that there are maybe half a dozen media format conversion tools in that list, but check THIS out - there's a tool called g++. With it, I can CREATE tools that could be used for illegal activity, such as media format conversion. It's a meta-illegal tool. Man... posting anonymously, so they don't come after me.

Interesting, what is next? (1)

deniea (257313) | about 2 years ago | (#40404579)

- CD/DVD writers could be used to burn copyrighted content?
- USB stick could house copyrighted content?

Or to make it broader, supplying tools to do unlawful actions..
- Gun can kill people! Outlaw guns? (That could be good)
- Cars can kill people
- Baseballbats can kill people, lets forbid those tools too!

Right?

good thing we have the 2th amendment (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#40404717)

You can take it from my cold dead hands

Re:good thing we have the 2th amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405075)

eventually they will.

Re:good thing we have the 2th amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405445)

Then what good will it have done? What good is it now? If you really believe that, 'use it or lose it' starts now. And I don't mean ownership.

If the end of gun ownership is something less than inevitable, do shut the fuck up with the FUD.

if cnet doesn't care, why should the riaa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404587)

cnet is owned by cbs.. a significant *content producer* and distributor. cbs obviously doesn't care... they surely know what kind of articles and applications are posted to cnet.. they've left it alone all this time, so, riaa.. WTF?

Dear RIAA (4, Informative)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 2 years ago | (#40404649)

Fuck You.

Re:Dear RIAA (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40404969)

If I ever get a "Pay us $5000 or else" extortion letter from them, that's exactly the response they will get.
On second thought..... I don't want to waste 50 cents.

Re:Dear RIAA (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#40405505)

I had a couple of these. My reply was as follows:

Sirs,
I refer you to the response of Private Eye Magazine in Arkell -v- Pressdram (1971):

Fuck off.

Sincerely, ..

any programming language thanks to the OS (1)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#40404673)

Any program language that can be used to drive TCP traffic is capable of this.

The functionality is provided by the libraries that come with the OS. So they should ban the OS's.

will these assclowns ever fuck off? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404687)

never ever do anything that can make the riaa or mpaa money, just don't do it.

Copyright infringement is not theft (5, Interesting)

Openstandards.net (614258) | about 2 years ago | (#40404693)

You can argue however you want that it is right or wrong. But, it is not theft. That is, you do not deprive another person of access to their possession.

I've always hated theft. It is one of the 10 commandments. I grew up learning to hate it because people stole from me. When someone steals your bike, your wallet, or other personal possessions, it hurts. You are now deprived of it, while someone else is selling it for $10 of crack. Stealing hurts innocent people. I continue to hate stealing.

But, if I paint my bike blue, and my next door neighbor, seeing that, paints his bike blue, he didn't steal my bike. I can call him a "copy cat". But, I still get to ride my bike. I just won't be the only one on the block with a blue bike.

Yes, we all know the theory of lost sales. But, we all know that copying information does not mean that the person would of purchased that copy of that information if they had not of copied it against the will of someone claiming ownership of that information.

Thus, I lose respect for anyone who tries to insist that copying information is a violation of the 10 commands along with "though shall not kill" and "though shell not commit adultery". Our laws do not support that claim, and we should do more to discredit those who make it.

Don't get me wrong. I do not advocate copyright infringement. I am just tired of hearing people try to confuse people into thinking that copying information is hurting people like stealing real physical property does and is a violation of one of the 10 commandments.

Re:Copyright infringement is not theft (1)

kevinadi (191992) | about 2 years ago | (#40405513)

Their use of the word "steal" is, unfortunately, deliberately done. Sounds better than "copyright infringement", to which people would say "meh". "Steal" is such a strong word, people now start using "Steal" for pretty much everything nowadays.

Hell, if they can somehow use the word "rape", "murder", etc, they will. For example: "downloading is raping the artists (digitally)", "by downloading, you are indirectly murdering the artist's children by depraving them of basic necessity".

I find it quite funny when they accuse people of "stealing", when they're using creative accounting to literally steal from the artists.

Sound recording? (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | about 2 years ago | (#40404697)

RIAA, would you like to sue Microsoft for having software that ships in Windows that can record audio-out and save it to a wav/mp3 file? And how about Apple, for my iPhone having the same feature (even if the sound is more difficult to get off the device). And pretty much anyone else with a digital audio recorder. Because right now, I can record your songs right off the radio, in fairly OK quality! What if I hum your new hit single? What if I type some of the lyrics? Just curious here. The MPAA failed miserably in this battle against VCRs, what makes you think you're going to succeed with music?

Oh and, why is Google going along with this? This is implementing a DRM by effectively disallowing access to YouTube to anyone who saves its content. What next, you'll ban me from YouTube if I re-enact something I see on YouTube as well? The only logical step to follow this action is to ban all users who put up videos that are clearly exercising Fair Use of content posted on YouTube, because clearly they had to download copyrighted content to do it!

When is this nonsense going to end?

Re:Sound recording? (4, Funny)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#40404825)

>RIAA, would you like to sue Microsoft for having software that ships in Windows that can record audio-out and save it to a wav/mp3 file?

The RIAA will not be satisfied until they successfully make illegal 3.5mm stereo patch cords that can go from audio-out to audio-in.

--
BMO

Re:Sound recording? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404911)

disallowing access to YouTube to anyone who saves its content.

Which is doubly questionable since youtube does not CREATE the content. The content is uploaded by everyone and his dog - people making videos of their cat chasing things and their kid playing the guitar and whatever. The content is NOT originated by youtube, so it's very unclear that that they have any moral authority to restrict its distribution.

Re:Sound recording? (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 years ago | (#40405721)

The content is NOT originated by youtube, so it's very unclear that that they have any moral authority to restrict its distribution.

The content is distributed through their servers and they most certainly do have moral authority to restrict access to those servers. Moreso, they are in no way restricting distribution, you can distribute your content through any number of other channels.

Re:Sound recording? (1)

sound+vision (884283) | about 2 years ago | (#40405407)

Funny thing - the ability to directly (digitally) record "Wav out" or "What U Hear" was actually removed after Windows XP. I'm guessing you haven't tried to do it in Vista or 7. These options would appear alongside "Line in" and "Mic" and your other inputs, in audio programs. I'm guessing it was due to some kind of lobbying on the RIAA's part.

Of course, this doesn't actually stop me from recording stuff. It just means i've got to plug in a cable running from my line-out to the line-in on the back of my case.

Re:Sound recording? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405679)

No. It was never removed from Windows XP nor Windows Vista or Seven.

Try blaming your sound card drivers or manufacturer. Consider replacing your soundcard, if it's an onboard sound, disable it and buy a seperate sound card.

Time for rewrite rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404737)

Could the editors change all future references from the RIAA to theft to copyright infringement. Just a little tired of the ongoing misrepresentation.

RIAA is tax avoiders in time of war! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404741)

The members of the RIAA and MPAA are organized and systematic tax avoiders in time of war.

With tricks like the Double Dutch Sandwich and the Double Irish Arrangement they willfully and purposely have avoided paying taxes to the US government for decades.

Their assets should be seized for the public domain and their employees should be thrown in prison.

But I WANT people to download and share my Youtube (5, Interesting)

vik (17857) | about 2 years ago | (#40404781)

I'm a Youtube content creator. I want people to download and share my Youtube content. Does this mean my right to share stuff should be trumped by a vague notion of piracy?

Re:But I WANT people to download and share my Yout (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404991)

Sorry mate, you lost all rights to your content the moment you uploaded it to Youtube. It's now Youtube's content so whatever you want is irrelevant.

Re:But I WANT people to download and share my Yout (1)

TemplePilot (2035400) | about 2 years ago | (#40404995)

sumbum gona bitch to youtoob dat u copied dem, den sumbum else guna tryna shake ur tree for moar monies dey dun care if you done it yourself for realz dey guna make a play for your moneiez. Dey all lie say belong to dem n tryna sue U and U can't win no moar. It all fight fight fight last dood standing git all ur moneiz. U think riaa care bout you?

Re:But I WANT people to download and share my Yout (1)

linatux (63153) | about 2 years ago | (#40404999)

You probably gave up your rights when you uploaded the content. Doesn't matter what you want (sadly).

Re:But I WANT people to download and share my Yout (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#40405169)

You probably gave up your rights when you uploaded the content. Doesn't matter what you want (sadly).

Au contraire...

http://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons [youtube.com]

let CNET burn (2)

dirtaddshp (1188189) | about 2 years ago | (#40404837)

let CNET burn, im tired of them bundling in malware in their "download managers/installers".

Video downloaders, etc. (2)

Freddybear (1805256) | about 2 years ago | (#40404907)

There must be a dozen or more Firefox plugins that enable downloading of flash videos. There are even plugins that enable batch downloading of entire Youtube playlists. They are very convenient for watching hi-res versions of videos when you don't have the bandwidth to reliably stream them.

Re:Video downloaders, etc. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404989)

There must be a dozen or more Firefox plugins that enable downloading of flash videos. There are even plugins that enable batch downloading of entire Youtube playlists. They are very convenient for watching hi-res versions of videos when you don't have the bandwidth to reliably stream them.

When all the world's a .exe (or in this case, a .xpi) stored locally on your hard drive, life's good.

When all the world's an app (or in this case, you go to Fx's website to install the plug-in, and it can/will auto-update itself, even if the last "upgrade" is a RIAA-ordered kill-switch), life sucks.

Boy, it's a good thing the industry's moving away from client applications where users download code that they run on their own hardware and upgrade at their personal discretion, and moving towards the cloud/SaaS model, "so you can always have the most recent version".

The RIAA is presumably anti-gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404935)

Guns are a tool that can be used to kill people. If the RIAA is against the availability of tools that can (among other uses) be used for criminal purposes, is it also anti-gun? Sounds pretty un-American to me.

Hello Pot (4, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 2 years ago | (#40404939)

Hello Pot, meet Barbra Streisand.

So the should ban Office as well (1)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about 2 years ago | (#40404961)

I can copy and paste a copyrighted story, picture, etc.. from a website into Word. Does that make it blacklisted program also ? BTW: I use to use youtube downloader all the time (before FF plugins). We had satellite internet as the only option in our rural area, it had small daily download limits, so I would save videos at work and bring them home to watch.

Simple enough then (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40404973)

The RIAA members should stop uploading of any content to YouTube which they do not wish to be copied.

Re:Simple enough then (1)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about 2 years ago | (#40405761)

When will this "moronic morass" end? When I was a kid, we would record songs off FM radio onto tape and make "party tapes". I guess I'm a CRIMINAL!!!!

Shhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405021)

Better nobody tell the RIAA you can just record from the OS's stereo mixer.

Different issue (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 years ago | (#40405081)

A private company can limit access to their servers which is what YouTube is doing. This is very different than conversion software which translates files on a person's computer to another format for use in another program. I believe that courts have already ruled that format shifting is legal and maybe even fair use.

Thanks (1)

chicago_scott (458445) | about 2 years ago | (#40405225)

Thanks MPAA, I hadn't heard of this software, so I just grabbed a copy. Works great!

Posting it to my server now.

Ouroboros (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405257)

It's the snake eating it's own tail.
Better start telling them NO soon.

From the FA (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | about 2 years ago | (#40405281)

"CNET's policy is that Download.com is not in any position to determine whether a piece of software is legal or not, or whether it can be used for illegal activity. As I understand it, plenty of the software at issue has significant non-infringing uses. As for removing illegal software, CNET has a record of doing that. When the RIAA made a request to pull LimeWire, the once popular file-sharing software, CNET managers declined until a federal district judge ruled in 2010 that the service indeed violated copyright law. "

Good for you, CNET. Please, also add that they may kiss your collective ass for asking.

Fight the power (1)

KaLeVR1 (34637) | about 2 years ago | (#40405343)

I don't even have a need for copying content but every time the RIAA opens the bung hole they call a mouth it makes me want to do it any way.

Cannibalizing themselves (1)

ReverendDG (1627147) | about 2 years ago | (#40405479)

so now since the RIAA is failing at stopping copyright infringement on the user end, they are going to start on the acquisition of the software the user uses.

funny thing considering that members of the RIAA own those sites, so now they are just going to attack themselves.
irony at its finest.
     

Hands illegal (1)

xs650 (741277) | about 2 years ago | (#40405483)

If the people in the RIAA were running a brick and morter store association, they would be demanding legislation declaring hands illegal because hands can be used to steal merchandise from stores.

FTRIAA and the horse it rode in on.

Let's apply these same justifications elsewhere... (1)

CyberKender (135686) | about 2 years ago | (#40405493)

Guns can be used to commit crimes, therefore they must all be banned!

Cars can be used to kill people or destroy property. They've got to go as well!

Screwdrivers can be used to break into cars and houses. We need to ban those too!

Airplanes, ships, and trucks can be used to transport counterfeit goods across borders. Away with them!

DCMA RIAA (1)

jonfr (888673) | about 2 years ago | (#40405499)

Someone needs to DCMA RIAA for once. Find a copyright violation on RIAA and release legal DMCA hell that they did order by demanding laws. That can be used against RIAA and MPAA. As they are using them against people today.

Waiting for the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405579)

The RIAA is eventually going to go after and piss off the wrong entity. When that happens, look out.

Surely most Youtube content authors accept the ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40405643)

of uses people make of their uploaded content even if it is outside Google's terms. Everyone understands that Google terms server it's own selfish goals of making ad revenue and are not an anti-circumvention device. Many Youtube users do not need agree to Google's terms. The popularity of these tools just goes to demonstrate this. This is a matter between Google and its users, or between content authors and Google.

all software od illegal now (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40405765)

Any software Can be used for an illegal purpose. It's up to the user to constrain his own activities to what's legal.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?