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!

YouTube-MP3 Ripper Creator Takes On Google

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the anything-that-can-be-played-can-be-copied dept.

Music 141

judgecorp writes "21-year old computer science student Philip Matesanz is ignoring a 'cease and desist' order from Google over his site YouTube-mp3.org, which rips audio tracks from videos hosted on YouTube. Instead, he has launched a public campaign against Google, arguing that German law allows what he is doing. Matesanz has an online petition."

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

It may be legal in germany... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40551951)

But does he not know that when it involves the internetz American law applies ? :) Just ask that British guy that faces extradition to the US for things that are legal in the UK.

Re:It may be legal in germany... (2)

NettiWelho (1147351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552315)

But does he not know that when it involves the internetz American law applies ? :) Just ask that British guy that faces extradition to the US for things that are legal in the UK.

Indeed, lucky for this guy Germany isn't UK.

Re:It may be legal in germany... (4, Insightful)

camperslo (704715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552449)

I'd think the real problem would be the use of youtube in his site name.

Re:It may be legal in germany... (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555659)

He is fine with the usage, as much as google-sucks.com would be protected.

PS: I don't think Google sucks.

Re:It may be legal in germany... (1)

littlebigbot (2493634) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553023)

It depends on Germany's copyright treaties with the US.

Hire him Google. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40551997)

End of story.

Good grief (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552011)

How is this different from ripzor.com or downloadhelper?

Re:Good grief (4, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552197)

Exnae on the ipperrae itessae!

Re:Good grief (3, Funny)

ichthus (72442) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553605)

Odmae the arentpae up, eh.

Re:Good grief (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40554695)

what? Please enlighten us, stupid people.

Enlightenment (4, Informative)

Zinho (17895) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555167)

You're [wikipedia.org] welcome [wikipedia.org] .

Regardless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552033)

Even if he's correct and it's legal for him to do what he does in Germany, Google can and will block his access to their servers.

Re:Regardless (1)

mat.power (2677517) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552065)

Right, because that would really stop this and other similar services... there's no possible way to get around that /sarcasm

Re:Regardless (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552269)

The only reason Google cares about this is because
a - They need to at least appear to be preventing "Illegal downloads"
b - They are not getting ad revenue from this website

I'll let you think about which of those is the real reason they care. Also, if you think Google cannot make it so that the download site is not working more often than it is, then I don't know what to tell you.

Re:Regardless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552569)

Google previously cancelled the site owner's AdSense account, so actually that is their own fault.

Re:Regardless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552073)

If they do that, I will totally key their cars.

Re:Regardless (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552257)

Record and upload it to YouTube so I can download it later.

Re:Regardless (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552103)

And just how could Google do that? It's not like they can set up some magic database to build profiles and identify people based on their browsing habits. Where would they get all that information? ... oh, wait...

Re:Regardless (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552463)

because 'people' aren't browsing google, HIS site is. It specifically says his infrastructure does the work so all google does is block his servers and then it doesn't work.

Re:Regardless (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552879)

Criminal law has nothing to do with this. Wonderfully shows just how ignorant this guy is. The fact is, its against YouTube's TOS. This makes it a civil tort case and along these same lines, Google is absolutely free to tell this moron to go fuck himself; while disabling access at every opportunity.

This guy is a moron as are those who support him.

Honestly, ripping music from videos is trivially easy. There are lots of tools to do so. Requiring a third party to do it is just dumb anyways.

Re:Regardless (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40553145)

This guy is a moron as are those who support him.

Also, every living creature in the universe is a moron, except for a few geniuses like mozart, the guy who invented hot dogs and myself.

Honestly, writing a constructive comment is trivially easy. There are lots of resource to learn from. Insulting everyone and the kichen sink is just dumb anyways.

Re:Regardless (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553719)

... you idiot.

Potential problem (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552095)

I see some trouble on the horizon, since his converter is using an .org domain. The expert assessments only concern German law, but the site is accessed by an international audience. Google might use this fact against him, but of course there is more danger.

Since the US has de facto already claimed legal jurisdiction over all people and companies whose domains are under US "control", even if the servers are located elsewhere and the sites are used by people from all over the world, he might face accusations for copyright infringement and an extradition request.

Re:Potential problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552137)

So the guy is totally in order with German laws, but since he got a .org domain, he might face an extradition request?
idontwanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg

Re:Potential problem (2)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552895)

I doubt Germany would extradite over this. The UK is the US' lapdog, Germany less so. I am not saying they couldn't be persuaded, but it is unlikely.

Re:Potential problem (2, Informative)

Sentrion (964745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554797)

As long as the US still has military bases in Germany it would be a relatively simple operation to pick him up off the street, throw him in a van with diplomatic plates, put him in a crate marked "diplomatic cargo", and fly him to one of many secret US prisons around the world (there's probably one on Rammstein, so he wouldn't even have to leave Germany). Since he's not a US citizen, he has no rights under the US Constitution, and America doesn't give a crap about the sovereignty of other "so called" nations that it defeated in WWII.

All Google has to do is suggest that this young "hacker" is a "cyber terrorist" acting against the interests of American corporations, which doesn't seem like much of a challenge given how our government always goes along with anything a corporate lobbyist tells them.

Re:Potential problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552147)

Change domain, problem solved, NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Potential problem (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552605)

If he's a German citizen, he can't be extradited to the US. At least not by Germany. If he travels abroad, that's another question.

Re:Potential problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40554143)

Germany doesn't extradite.

Service? We don' need no steenking service (2)

SlithyMagister (822218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552125)

This is sofa king lame.

You don't need a service to extract the audio.from a YouTube stream

While I have no objection to anyone doing this themselves for the convenience etc, I DO object to someone trying to extract $$$ from something that is not his

.

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service (5, Interesting)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552491)

This is sofa king lame.

You don't need a service to extract the audio.from a YouTube stream

While I have no objection to anyone doing this themselves for the convenience etc, I DO object to someone trying to extract $$$ from something that is not his .

You mean like Google making advertisement money off of songs being uploaded to Youtube as "movies" that are single static images, usually with the intent for Youtube MP3 Ripper sites to rip said songs to MP3 format?

I agree, totally unethical behavior and I object wholeheartedly.

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552519)

I think you left out the part where google has paid the actual content owners for the right to make advertising money off of those songs.

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552657)

ever see the ads that play before a video? The content owner gets a cut of that money. This probably isn't for just anybody that uploads to youtube though, you have to actually be popular. See youtube partnership program. Note that the poor victim here is collecting ad money from AdChoices all over the site.

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552723)

Which ads?

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service (3)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553099)

You have to disable Adblock.

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552665)

I think google left that part out also.

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553553)

Yes, that is right, it is not as if this is some Kim Dotcom making advertising off of other people's IP, this is google making advertising money off of other people's IP!!! How dare he rip off their rip off!!!

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552829)

I DO object to someone trying to extract $$$ from something that is not his

They're selling copies of videos? I thought they had advertisements...

When you want something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552149)

and you don't want to pay for it!

The TLD is under the jurisdiction of the USA (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552205)

As I understand, .com, .net, .org, .edu, .gov, etc., are TLDs under the jurisdiction of the USA. Therefore, he must follow the laws of the USA, even if his host is located in Germany. If he wants to claim that it's legal in Germany, then he needs to put his site on the .de TLD.

Even if his site was on the .de TLD, and it was legal in Germany, the fact that he is an individual taking on a Fortune 100 company means he will lose. GOOG probably has more lawyers on its payroll than the number of lawyers in all of Germany. In a Western country, its money that decides who will win in the courts.

As an aside, I snicker at the naivete of youth. An online petition, really? He might as well write his wish on a piece of paper, tie it to a balloon, and release it into the sky.

Re:The TLD is under the jurisdiction of the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552551)

As I understand, .com, .net, .org, .edu, .gov, etc., are TLDs under the jurisdiction of the USA.

That argument is always idiotic. The domain name isn't what is under attack. The content of the website is. The domain name is not the content of the website. The domain name probably does follow US law.

Re:The TLD is under the jurisdiction of the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552981)

Nobody said the domain name was the problem. The domain name defines whose jurisdiction the site resides within, and therefore, which laws it must follow. The .org TLD is the jurisdiction of the USA, which means the content of his site must follow the laws of the USA.

Re:The TLD is under the jurisdiction of the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40553071)

No one can honestly say laws are being broken in the US. Anyone (including the law, if that is the law) who says otherwise is arguing for something absolutely absurd. Them using your little strings of text doesn't mean the entire website is under US jurisdiction.

Another way for the US to try to become the world police...

Re:The TLD is under the jurisdiction of the USA (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554861)

In the USA, its money that decides who will win in the courts.

Fixed that for you.

Why should Google care... (5, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552229)

Why would it matter to Youtube if somebody rips the sound track from a video? If it's an issue of unauthorized copies, then shouldn't the video with the unauthorized soundtrack on itin the first place be taken down?

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I read the article and I really don't see what difference it should make to Google, since they have *NO* ability to even *know* whether or not a user might be ripping the sound track from a video in the first place.

Re:Why should Google care... (4, Informative)

mat.power (2677517) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552319)

There are videos with copyrighted material on YouTube which is allowed to be on YouTube (many artists/labels put music up themselves). That doesn't mean anyone is free to turn it into an mp3. Though, I'm not sure why Google would go after a site like this, rather than the music industry... perhaps someone else can explain that :)

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552341)

I'm sure it has to do with the licensing agreement that Google has with the studios that allows the music to be on YouTube in the first place.

Re:Why should Google care... (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552871)

There are videos with copyrighted material on YouTube which is allowed to be on YouTube (many artists/labels put music up themselves). That doesn't mean anyone is free to turn it into an mp3.

Bullshit. For example:

Aerosmith decides to play a show in a public park down the street from my house. Since I can hear the entire show from my back porch, I have every right in the world to place a tape recorder on my own property and record the public performance. Granted, it is likely still illegal to profit from said recording, but making it is decidedly not criminal.

The key phrase here, of course, is "public performance." Once you put something out on the public airwaves, where every Tom, Dick, and Harry has access, you effectively surrender your control over its distribution.

Re:Why should Google care... (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553635)

Your "example" doesn't disprove the post you replied to - you are free to record the public performance, you cannot distribute it tho as the performer still holds the copyright for the performance. You own the recording, but you can't do much with it.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555005)

I can listen to it.

I can also give copies away at my own expense.

If I really wanted to be a dick about it, I could claim that my recording was individual art in of itself, and publicly distribute it.


Of course, that's all non sequitur to the point, as this particular discussion is in regards to the legality of making the recording itself.

To that end, as Youtube has no membership or payment requirement to view videos, uploading to Youtube is essentially creating a public performance. If the performance is public, than anyone within earshot/sight range has the legal right to create a recording for their own personal use, from their own property.



The day that recording a public performance becomes illegal, is the day "public" ceases to exist.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555009)

I can also give copies away at my own expense.

Meant to qualify this as hard copies, i.e. CD's, hand delivered.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40554017)

Right. Making a copy for yourself isn't unlawful. But making copies for other people on your ad-supported website...

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555165)

They're simply using a tool (in this case, a website) to give a copy of something to someone. If the website didn't exist, they'd likely use other means. The video has to be downloaded to view it, after all.

I don't see what ads have to do with anything, either. You can't have ads simply because some of the content on your website (temporary or not) might be copyrighted? That seems rather absurd.

Re:Why should Google care... (2)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555821)

Aerosmith decides to play a show in a public park down the street from my house. Since I can hear the entire show from my back porch, I have every right in the world to place a tape recorder on my own property and record the public performance. Granted, it is likely still illegal to profit from said recording, but making it is decidedly not criminal.

If you're in the US, it is illegal. Section 106 of Section 17 (i.e. copyright law) gives them exclusive rights "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords" unless you have a valid fair use reason for said recording. "Because I wanted to listen to it later" isn't a valid reason.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555987)

Aerosmith decides to play a show in a public park down the street from my house. Since I can hear the entire show from my back porch, I have every right in the world to place a tape recorder on my own property and record the public performance. Granted, it is likely still illegal to profit from said recording, but making it is decidedly not criminal.

If you're in the US, it is illegal. Section 106 of Section 17 (i.e. copyright law) gives them exclusive rights "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords" unless you have a valid fair use reason for said recording. "Because I wanted to listen to it later" isn't a valid reason.

The sound waves trespassed on my property. Are you saying it's illegal to record the sound waves that enter my private property?

Got any legal precedent to back that?

Re:Why should Google care... (4, Insightful)

fatphil (181876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552927)

I don't see how "you can have the bytes that encode the audio track and the bytes that encode the video track" can be true whilst "you can have the bytes that encode the audio track" is false.

Fair use rights and precedent imply that I should be able to store what I download to play when is most convenient for me.

This guy's just making what ought to be legal easy? That shouldn't be illegal.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

SirFatty (1940968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553065)

Way to repeat, you boner-nose.

Re:Why should Google care... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552349)

Google does not get ad revenue if you don't view the video on Youtube

Google gets even less ad revenue if you download the song using a third party download service (who also gets ad money) and then listen to it on your PC at your leisure.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554335)

Google gets even less ad revenue if you download the song using a third party download service (who also gets ad money) and then listen to it on your PC at your leisure.

They also have links under the video to where you can buy the music through a legitimate distributor. Google most likely takes in a certain % of each sale through that link referral.

Re:Why should Google care... (2)

Antipater (2053064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552383)

Not all Youtube videos with soundtracks are unauthorized. There are videos that have paid the royalties, or are uploaded by the copyright holders themselves. This guy is enabling people (so the argument goes) to make unauthorized copies of the music from, say, the newest Lady Gaga music video, and he's making a profit off of it.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552515)

But what amazes me is that this has always been possible and always will be. If there is sound coming out of your speakers, there is a way to record it.

I guess the auto-ripper website makes it so easy as to make Google nervous. But when they manage to stamp out all of those websites, they'll next have to come for the thousands of different audio software that record whatever your computer is playing. Then they'll have to go for the manufacturers of headphone plugs, because if nothing else you can always wire your headphone outlet to your speaker input. Then they'll have to go after handheld audio recorders...

It's just silly. Anything put on Youtube can and will be endlessly copied. For Google to act otherwise is...I dunno, maybe 'security through assuming people are stupid'.

Re:Why should Google care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552751)

It has also always been possible to invite a friend over and let him/her play your new video game (that they didn't buy!), or listen to your new record. This is different than uploading a copy and sharing it with a few million people.

Yes, you can still rip the music from videos YOU want the music from. This site allows you to instead of sharing a youtube link share the youtube-mp3 link. Which is sorta like you putting a MP3 on a web site and sharing the link with everyone. This isn't a one step download only service. They are making available MP3's of which they do not have the owners permission to make available. If you want the MP3's of content, ask the content owner to make them available.

Re:Why should Google care... (2)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552529)

In other news, the sale of stereo cables will be banned because they can be connected from the speaker port to the microphone port for the piracy of music from youtube.

Re:Why should Google care... (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552659)

I'll see your banning of stereo cables and raise with mandatory lobotomies so that people can't retain any "unauthorized non-digital copies" in their brains.

Re:Why should Google care... (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553055)

Why would it matter to Youtube if somebody rips the sound track from a video? If it's an issue of unauthorized copies, then shouldn't the video with the unauthorized soundtrack on itin the first place be taken down?

Probably not if YOU do it. But if someone else does it, it's a Big Deal.

If you haven't noticed, YouTube has ads - they have ads that play before the video plays (if only they could determine if I'm watching a 1 minute video, to NOT show me a 3 minute ad...). They also have pop up ads that show about 10 seconds in (the yellow line in the bar gives it away).

Google's revenue source is ads. Basically a site like this means Google's serving up video (for free) without making it back as an eyeball in ad revenue. And for YouTube original content, those ad views also go back to the creator, so it's possible Google even loses money on that - paying the creator for a view that never happened.

If it wasn't so expensive to host, you could bet that MP3 rippers would be a fairly minor issue - there would be sites that let you view YouTube videos ad-free.

What Google did is perfectly consistent and doesn't matter about the source material, the RIAA, MPAA, whatever. They will ensure they get their ad views.

Hell, I'm surprised Google didn't just sign up a bunch of audio ads and insert them in the audio stream when it detects the site.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554749)

If they really want to ensure that their ad gets views, then they should be horrified at the notion that the player which plays back the video actually runs on the client, and can, with some amount of technical skill, be modified by the client to save the entire video to a person's hard drive in the same definition that it is being viewed.

Is having the skill to accomplish this task illegal?

If not, then what about teaching others how to do it?

In other words, at what point does the mere *KNOWLEDGE* of something like that become illegal? And when did copyright law start governing what information other people are allowed to know?

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553875)

If it's an issue of unauthorized copies, then shouldn't the video with the unauthorized soundtrack on it in the first place be taken down?

No. Just because I put my audio online does not mean that it becomes public domain.
So they get an autorised copy and making copies of those is not allowed by current laws.
If a writer writes a book, a publisher has the right to copy and distribute the work for e.g. 100 copies (or a gazilion if it contains sparkling people). That does not mean you can make a copy of that copy.

Re:Why should Google care... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554579)

I'm not saying that everything online is or should be public domain. I'm suggesting that absolutely ANYONE who watches a video is, inherently, downloading a copy of that video, and that there is absolutely no means that the provider can detect whether the recipient might be saving a copy of any part or parts of that work for their own personal and private use. If it's really not just for their own use, then I can see *THAT* activity being discouraged, but then they should go after them for *THAT* activity, not for simply copying stuff they download from Youtube.

I just registered youtube-mp3.de (2, Funny)

acidfast7 (551610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552285)

problem solved.

Re:I just registered youtube-mp3.de (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552409)

So you're trying to grab the videos from a German domain?

Let me know how that works for you when it comes to any file with any kind of potentially copyrighted sound on it. HINT: This video is not available in your country because GEMA has not granted the respective rights.

Re:I just registered youtube-mp3.de (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555025)

You can't grab videos from a domain. A domain is just a name you give to some IP. The physical machine can be everywhere from Germany to Cambodia.

WWOT fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552293)

On slashdot.org rivalry. While won't be shoutinG by BSDI who sell

It's not Google, it's the copyright holders (5, Informative)

billlava (1270394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552417)

It's long been a well-known secret among technologically capable people (like you, dear reader) that it's very easy to download the video files for youtube videos. Extracting the audio is just another simple step away from that. Google has ignored such services in the past because they really don't care if people download these videos or the music on them. Sure, it might eat in to their revenues a little bit, but not much, since most people will just keep coming back to the site anyway.

The real issue here is that copyright holders (those big evil RIAA members) never realized how easy stripping music from youtube videos actually was. That's the only reason they let all their music go up on the site (albeit slathered with advertising and overlays.) Anytime someone draws attention to how easy getting the audio (or video) actually is, it makes copyright holders skittish. They think that this guy has somehow discovered some sort of technological loophole that allows him to download the files in a way others can't (he hasn't.) Google is probably under tremendous pressure to shut this guy down, and they'll do it just so that nobody starts asking questions about why it's so easy to do what he's doing anyway.

Better that one man takes the fall (and just shuts down his site) than that the whole world suffers losing unfettered access to youtube source files.

Re:It's not Google, it's the copyright holders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552697)

Better that one man takes the fall (and just shuts down his site) than that the whole world suffers losing unfettered access to youtube source files.

Ah yes, better to throw one guy under the train rather than the rest of us having a minor convenience.

Re:It's not Google, it's the copyright holders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552929)

Ah yes, better to throw one guy under the train rather than the rest of us having a minor convenience.

How about, let that guy host the files on his own server, that he controls and pays for, rather than use google's?

Re:It's not Google, it's the copyright holders (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552975)

So... They'll be going after Microsoft next, for including an audio recording program with their OS? Yea, didn't think so.

Better that one man takes the fall (and just shuts down his site) than that the whole world suffers losing unfettered access to youtube source files.

Unless that's you volunteering to be that one man, STFU.

Re:It's not Google, it's the copyright holders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40554083)

Microsoft deliberately crippled and hid the built-in audio recorder in windows. And "taking the fall" in this case means "stop profiting from helping people evade our ads".

Re:It's not Google, it's the copyright holders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40553059)

Google under pressure? With all the money they make? Not possible, sorry.

and here come the google shills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40554565)

mod parent -1 shill. no sane person can think that a giant corporation like google cant just say FU to the MAFIAA

Trademarks (1)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552509)

I think his real problem is having youtube in the domain. YouTube doesn't own the copyrights to any audio, except for the videos they author. But, I'm sure that they've trademarked their name in all jurisdictions possible.

ffmpeg -i input.flv output.mp3 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40552965)

TSIA

Re:ffmpeg -i input.flv output.mp3 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40553755)

Audio Hijack Pro (http://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijackpro/) does a cracking job in OSX - it insinuates itself in the audio chain and anything meant to play out the speakers can be captured and edited.

I guess we're outlawing earphone jacks too then? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40552995)

I usually just plug the earphone jack into the mic jack and record. Will radio shack cease to manufacture wires with male jacks at both ends? Just trying to be prepared over here.

Re:I guess we're outlawing earphone jacks too then (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554645)

Radio Shack probably will, given their ever decreasing hobbyist electronics section.

Rights (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40553051)

I have the right to record a song off the radio.. I have the right to record a tv show off of TV...
Why do I not have the right to record a show, or song off youtube?

Re:Rights (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554701)

I have the right to record a song off the radio.. I have the right to record a tv show off of TV...
Why do I not have the right to record a show, or song off youtube?

YOU may have a right to do that (IANAL), but does *someone else or a service* have the right to do it FOR you?

It's not the same as operating your own tape recorder.

Again, IANAL...

Re:Rights (2)

mpricop (2604347) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555271)

You have that right. What you don't have is the right to re-broadcast your recordings for profit.

Crowdmilking (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553123)

This is another instance where crowdsourcing is applied (people upload material to youtube), and one party (Google) takes all the profit.
I hereby coin the term "crowdmilking" for this practice.

Re:Crowdmilking (1)

nigelo (30096) | more than 2 years ago | (#40555307)

And if the party has been convicted of offenses, would the practice then be 'StripedCrowdMilking'?

I think we should be told.

What the RIAA is actually doing to combat this (4, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553525)

In case everyone hasn't noticed, what the RIAA is doing about this is having random "youtube version only" breaks in music videos by big name artists so you'd have to be a top notch audio editor to cut out those parts and assemble the entire track back together. Like for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtvQgC5vM_k [youtube.com] approx 45 seconds in.
LMFAO did it, Iwrestledabearonce did it, as well as at least 30 others I saw. Unfortunately, since my dad is a mobile DJ, that's a problem because the same version goes straight to itunes and we play music videos on a rear projection screen during dances. So some idiotic pause in the music really ruins that. Just another example of them screwing over their prime customers to implement antipiracy.

Google is covering its own arse for later disputes (4, Insightful)

ClassicASP (1791116) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553535)

Google's people aren't retarded; they know that people are going to find ways to record audio from YouTube one way or another. They're just sending the cease-and-desist order so later on, when copyright holders try to take Google to court, they can claim that they didn't just sit by idly and let it happen. They'll be able to say that they at least they took at least some course of action. The person who sent the cease and desist letter was probably just as disgusted about having to send it as the rest of the world is because they knew its really all stupid and pointless.

Let the takedown happen. (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553669)

Let the takedown happen. It would be better if only smart people knew how to build their MP3 collection from YouTube, using youtube-dl and similar tools. The presence of web sites that allow anyone to do it makes the RIAA upset, and they'll hyperbribe government officials to outlaw computers that don't UEFI Secure Boot to a Trusted(tm) Microsoft(R) Operating System that only allows BingMusic(tm) to be played through TrustedEverything(tm) audio and video channels.

Official Chrome Extension by YouTube does the same (3, Interesting)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553701)

I don't think Google objects to MP3 rips of the soundtracks of their videos - after all, YouTube offers an official Chrome extension that does the same:

YouTube Downloader: MP3 / HD Video Download [google.com] (Note that the developer of the extension is youtube.com)

I think they have a problem because the external service drives people away from the YouTube website. In any case, I can't see why Google would not have the right to simply stop serving Videos to the IP addresses of the servers of the download service. So in some sense, they were nice to send a letter asking him to stop.

Re:Official Chrome Extension by YouTube does the s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40554925)

I just downloaded that for Chromium. No worky. :(

Nothing New Here (1)

Prototerm (762512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40553707)

When I was a teenager, I made copies of streaming audio all the time ... using a reel-to-reel tape recorder and a pair of alligator clips attached to the speakers of a table radio -- all to capture the latest "top 40" pop tunes in glorious monophonic sound. That was back in the sixties, and the music world didn't come to an end because I didn't spend money I didn't have in the first place, nor did the huge multinational music companies crash and burn in bankruptcy. However, later on, when I *did* have money to spend I collected thousands of record albums and 45's. Even later, I re-purchased everything on CD's.

Tell me again why this sort of recording activity is *costing* companies money? Seems to me that it's more of an investment in the future.

Re:Nothing New Here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40553965)

... an investment in the future.

Therein lies the problem. Businesses are not out to make money tomorrow. They're trying to make money today. When a CEO has to answer for the latest quarterly finance report, he's not going to think about how to make money 10-20 years down the road, when a kid grows up. He won't have a job by then. Even if he could have kept it, he would have willingly switched companies a couple of times by then. These big companies aren't run by a man who built it from the ground up, working out of his garage, some 10 or 20 years ago. The CEOs of these companies have no true sense of ownership, and no desire to see this "baby" of theirs flourish when they're long gone.

Re:Nothing New Here (1)

Sentrion (964745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554929)

Thank you for your confession. Your IP address has been logged and your confession has been added to the file that we've been keeping on you. Please send us $10,000.00 per infraction within the next 30 days to avoid any future litigation. Please also provide receipts to prove that the 45's and CD's are legitimate. Failure to comply immediately could result in a police raid to confiscate all of your recording and computing hardware. The cost of such a raid and any other investigative activities will be added to the amount you owe us.

Your friend,

The RIAA.

Stay out of the UK (1)

tapspace (2368622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554477)

Let's hope he doesn't go to London or they'll ship his ass to the States for a fair* trial.

I download from YouTube (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554657)

There. I said it.

I have indeed downloaded a few things from YouTube. But only as a last resort, after exhausting all legitimate ways of obtaining the content. Some stuff just doesn't seem to exist anywhere else, like this energetic ditty [youtube.com] which I downloaded, peeled the soundtrack off, and added it to my workout playlist. It just doesn't seem to exist anywhere else. I like Kim Wilde, and I'd happily pay for a legit copy.

I used to use FileJuicer [echoone.com] , but the live streaming YouTube now uses makes it less useful. For audio I guess I'll hook up some cables. People will always circumvent stuff like this.

Me? Yes, I have some silly videos [youtube.com] on YouTube. As always, if anybody can make money from what I'm giving away for free, they are welcome to do so.

...laura

Probably not going anywhere (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#40554867)

The problem here is that Google probably has the legal muscle to enforce what it believes is its copyright. As the guy behind youtube-mp3 points out, practically they cannot stop such software, although they can make it harder to find.

Now, one thing that clearly is something that is going to interest a lot of people is the idea that a streaming service can be defeated by software to provide the recipient of the stream with a whole copy of the work. This would have an immediate and very, very negative result on Netflix and a bunch of other such streaming services. It doesn't even matter that someone has a service or program to do this with Netflix - just that Google loses out on this. What that would do is clearly put things in the perspective of viewers having the ability - and maybe the right - to retain copies of anything streamed to them.

The result would be that Netflix would have to at least renegotiate every deal they have and probably a lot of them would just disappear. Most other streaming services would just pull the plug as well. It is not the intent of the content owners to provide permanent copies of their media to viewers via a streaming service.

Sure, it is possible. It may even be in some cases convenient and simple to do. But if it is done you will see streaming ended as we have come to know it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?