Google Bars Site That Converts YouTube Songs Into MP3s

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Bars Site That Converts YouTube Songs Into MP3s

Posted by timothy on Tuesday June 19, 2012 @03:54AM from the see-previous-article-about-streaming dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google is apparently cracking down on a popular site that converts the music from YouTube videos into MP3s. YouTube-MP3.org has received a letter from Google, YouTube's parent company, notifying the site operators that converting videos this way violates YouTube's terms of service, according to the blog TorrentFreak, which said it has seen the letter. In addition, YouTube apparently has blocked YouTube-MP3.org's servers from accessing the site."

177 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Google blocks leechers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 03:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So what?
How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 03:58 · Score: 3, Informative

It is trivial to extract the audio from a youtube video and convert it to an mp3. There are tools on Windows, Linux, and OSX that can do that without a lot of effort. So, shutting down this site is, IMO, an exercise in futility.
1. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  >
2. Re:How stupid, and useless by houstonbofh · 2012-06-19 04:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  This seems to be an easier tool for the non-technical to use, and therefore would open it up to a wider audience. Costing record companies billions of dollars and funding terrorism, of course.
3. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  Even worse, if it pushes people who previously used the online solutions in to using downloaded tools, it's putting a lot of users in harms way with regards to malware.
4. Re:How stupid, and useless by Instine · 2012-06-19 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  its an exercise in ass covering.
  
  --
  Because you can - or because you should?
5. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Now it's harder to do with my smartphone though.... It was always kind of cool to hear a song, find it on youtube, pass the URL to youtube-mp3 and immediately have it in my phone - all while away from my computer.
6. Re:How stupid, and useless by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-06-19 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It is trivial to extract the audio from a youtube video and convert it to an mp3. There are tools on Windows, Linux, and OSX that can do that without a lot of effort. So, shutting down this site is, IMO, an exercise in futility.
  I suspect that you are underestimating the degree of laziness, technical ignorance, and futzing-with-youtube-on-computers-they-can't-install-stuff-on-because-they-are-at-work/school, at play here.
  
  Obviously, Google knows that you can do whatever you damn well want with the video once you've downloaded it(and, while they receive no further ad revenue, it also doesn't cost them anything further, and they have no way of going after you, so they aren't going to bother).
  
  I suspect, though, that Google takes a dim view of tools, usable even by morons, that eat their bandwidth, throw away any ads they serve, and quite possibly upset the RIAA and friends without any benefit to Google.
7. Re:How stupid, and useless by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-06-19 04:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Linux:
  $ cd /tmp
  $ ffmpeg -i FlashFoO bar.mp3
  Done...
  
  --
  rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
8. Re:How stupid, and useless by VMaN · 2012-06-19 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  They are simply stopping a leecher, they don't care about people doing it for themselves.
9. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is trivial to extract the audio from a youtube video and convert it to an mp3. There are tools on Windows, Linux, and OSX that can do that without a lot of effort. So, shutting down this site is, IMO, an exercise in futility.
  
  True. It's also pretty damn easy to recover the .avi, .mp4, or .flv video and process it client-side. Whether it infringes copyright or not, what you do with ffmpeg on files that reside client-side, etc., is your problem, not Google's.
  Where this website crossed the line is in trying to monetize it by being a wrapper around YouTube.
  Full disclosure: My position on the issue can be summarized as "fuck streaming." Streaming media is the memory hole of 1984. For free/fan-based content that doesn't infringe (e.g. fair use), it's nice to know that you can keep your favorite content, even after your friends deactivate their accounts, or if a lawyer claiming ownership of a 2-second sample in a 3-minute video disagrees with you.
10. Re:How stupid, and useless by SydShamino · 2012-06-19 04:11 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I've only ever bothered to do so with one song: a song that I like from my Pandora station that isn't available for sale anywhere physical or digital (a remix from an old import CD). I found it on a different, legal on-demand streaming music service and captured the audio.
  For anything else, though, $1 is worth far less than the ten minutes it takes to do this process, so I just buy the song.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
11. Re:How stupid, and useless by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-06-19 04:11 · Score: 2
  
  [...] it's putting a lot of users in harms way with regards to malware.
  
  AND funding terrorism...
  You forgot to add that. FTFY :-D
  
  --
  rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
12. Re:How stupid, and useless by hawguy · 2012-06-19 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  It is trivial to extract the audio from a youtube video and convert it to an mp3. There are tools on Windows, Linux, and OSX that can do that without a lot of effort. So, shutting down this site is, IMO, an exercise in futility.
  It's only futile if Google's goal is to prevent people from transcoding audio from a video into an MP3 (afterall, so far, there's no DRM that can keep someone from plugging the analog audio-out cable from their computer into their sound card though I'm sure some day RIAA and MPAA will make sure we have analog fingerprints on all of our outputs that would close this analog hole). However, if Google's goal is to appease the RIAA and make it appear as though they are helping to protected RIAA's rights, then perhaps it's not so futile afterall.
13. Re:How stupid, and useless by Arancaytar · 2012-06-19 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  If you're already on Linux and using ffmpeg, why not encode it as .ogg? Unless you have to accomodate a poor portable media player, but even most of those support it now.
14. Re:How stupid, and useless by hawguy · 2012-06-19 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Even worse, if it pushes people who previously used the online solutions in to using downloaded tools, it's putting a lot of users in harms way with regards to malware.
  There's got to be a better solution to malware than making everyone use cloud-based services for everything.
15. Re:How stupid, and useless by TeknoHog · 2012-06-19 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  If you're already on Linux and using ffmpeg, why not encode it as .ogg?
  Because it is already an mp3 stream, and re-encoding into another lossy format would make the quality even worse.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
16. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, Windows 8 and its treacherous computing will fix the problem, citizen!
17. Re:How stupid, and useless by azalin · 2012-06-19 04:21 · Score: 2
  
  I would presume that Google wants to prevent the RIAA throwing another fit. They do this by going for an obvious leecher that probably started to cost them money bandwidth wise, infringes their trademark and would become bothersome if it became too popular.
  I'm pretty sure they know that is impossible to stop the not completely tech challenged user from doing this himself, but those are a) a minority b) are mostly indistinguishable from normal users so theyy probably don't care.
18. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  My iPod classic is pretty far from a "poor" portable media player, and it still doesn't do .ogg files
19. Re:How stupid, and useless by JBMcB · 2012-06-19 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why even re-encode it? Usually it's straight MP4, or an MP4 wrapped in an FLV container. Suck out the aac, put it back in an audio-only MP4 - nearly anything can play it.
  
  --
  My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
20. Re:How stupid, and useless by bazorg · 2012-06-19 04:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That last part of your comment might be the key. If Google were to neglect this kind of infringement, the music and film industries associations could find grounds to claim that Google is damaging their businesses.
21. Re:How stupid, and useless by mrops · 2012-06-19 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  and what about the children... ohhh think of the children.
22. Re:How stupid, and useless by lexman098 · 2012-06-19 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you just have low standards.
23. Re:How stupid, and useless by ZorinLynx · 2012-06-19 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is why I save EVERYTHING that I really like. You can't count on anything online still being there tomorrow, much less ten years down the road.
  Especially if it's something not many people care about. This is why people like Jason Scott (from textfiles.org) are my heroes.
24. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Because it is already an mp3 stream, and re-encoding into another lossy format would make the quality even worse.
  It's not actually, half of the flv s and mp4s it's an AAC stream or something, and the webms seem to be mostly Ogg Vorbis, so you get white noise garbage if you try to extract and re-encode using a "one size fits all" solution. .
  .. erhm .. or so I've heard from someone on the internets ...
  
  Besides, everyone knows the audio quality is shite, it's more as a reminder to one day buy that song because it's a nice song.
  I even suspect some bands upload their songs with deliberate scratches in it (e.g. Mechanic Manyeruke (Ndofara), Loituma (Ievan Polkka)), so you'll be reminded to buy the hi-fi version from them, and shamed if your friends find out you were so cheap as to play them a song ripped from Youtube.
  It's all good.
  
  P.S. mr. Manyeruke, people from Loituma: I promise I'll buy your music one day.
  
  AC because of slight feeling of guilt.
25. Re:How stupid, and useless by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-06-19 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  <quote><p>If you're already on Linux and using ffmpeg, why not encode it as .ogg?</p></quote>
  
  <p>
  Because it is already an mp3 stream, and re-encoding into another lossy format would make the quality even worse.
  </p></quote>
  
  Besides the technicalities (on which parent is right), I have an old MP3 player too. It can contain about 1 cd in mp3 format. nothing else. I am happy with it, because it is enough for me.
  
  --
  rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
26. Re:How stupid, and useless by cpu6502 · 2012-06-19 04:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  >>>Because it is already an mp3 stream
  Usually it's an MPEG4 codec, like AAC or AACplusSBR. Converting to mp3 is a downgrade.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
27. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  Hell yeah! Ballmer will see to it that no hippy download free ware sees the light of day in the windows store.
28. Re:How stupid, and useless by oakgrove · 2012-06-19 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  There is no solution to malware. That's what's so great about it. Give that some thought.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
29. Re:How stupid, and useless by micheas · 2012-06-19 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  They have had a google chrome extension for a long time (a couple years?) that has been hosted by google, So, I think this is due to some recent event of some sort with regards to Google.
  
  --
  Work bio at MMWD
30. Re:How stupid, and useless by TheRealMindChild · 2012-06-19 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  You must be young. Too many of us ripped our cd's to ogg, only to find that no sub-$100 mp3 player seems to play them. Then you have the fun of re-ripping your multitudes of cds, or transcoding them all to mp3, losing even more quality.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
31. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  My iPod classic is pretty far from a "poor" portable media player, and it still doesn't do .ogg files
  Poor portable media player doesn't mean price, it refers to quality, therefore it is indeed a poor portable media player.
32. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Or, more likely, nobody cares about or uses .ogg
33. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I'm sure that is it. I mean, it must be, right? There is no way that this is connected to the fact that Google makes all of it's money selling ads, and some 'service' that offers their content without their ads deprives them of income. That can't be it, nope. Gotta be the RIAA.
34. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  How much ad revenue do you suppose Google gets from stuff that people have downloaded? Zero. See a problem?
35. Re:How stupid, and useless by a+whoabot · 2012-06-19 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  "you can do whatever you damn well want with the video once you've downloaded it"
  To supplement your point: When you say something like this to most people, they respond: "But I don't download YouTube videos -- I just watch them on the website!"
36. Re:How stupid, and useless by djh2400 · 2012-06-19 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I save EVERYTHING that I really like. You can't count on anything online still being there tomorrow, much less ten years down the road.
  Your statement is interesting, considering the previous article. For the record, I agree with you.
37. Re:How stupid, and useless by LordLimecat · 2012-06-19 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  THat its trivial to do is irrelevant. They are fully within their rights to block this usage, since..
  A) its basically a ticking legal timebomb
  B) it gets them 0 revenue (the automated servers skip the ads
  C) it costs them money (the servers are downloading the videos)
38. Re:How stupid, and useless by butalearner · 2012-06-19 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Linux:
  $ cd /tmp
  $ ffmpeg -i FlashFoO bar.mp3
  Done...
  If I recall correctly, newer versions of Flash player no longer put stuff in /tmp and you have to dig through /proc instead. But I agree with one of your responses above that you should probably just make it output AAC since that's usually the format it's in (it goes way faster that way, too).
39. Re:How stupid, and useless by Translation+Error · 2012-06-19 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's good thinking. I'd also suggest, when it's possible (and I realize for many things, it isn't), buying things you really like, so the creator is willing/able to create more.
  
  --
  When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
40. Re:How stupid, and useless by Carnivore · 2012-06-19 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's still in /tmp, but it's immediately unlinked so the file still exists while the flash instance is running. Here's a command line I found to do the /proc digging and relink the files in /tmp for you. (obviously you must run this before closing the flash player that is holding the file in existence):
  for h in `find /proc/*/fd -ilname "/tmp/Flash*" 2>/dev/null`; do ln -s "$h" `readlink "$h" | cut -d' ' -f1`; done
  Source: http://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/view/7991/recover-tmp-flash-videos-deleted-immediately-by-the-browser-plugin
  The files are .mp4s, so mplayer, VLC, etc will just play them with no transcoding necessary.
41. Re:How stupid, and useless by ganjadude · 2012-06-19 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  As if "cloud based" services are any better. You know damn well there is some malware writer out there right now figuring out how to inject a distribution tool into the "cloud" you use. The more people using said "cloud" the bigger the threat
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
42. Re:How stupid, and useless by ganjadude · 2012-06-19 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  or, you just bookmark the youtube web link, and its always on your phone?
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
43. Re:How stupid, and useless by Dogtanian · 2012-06-19 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  You must be young. Too many of us ripped our cd's to ogg, only to find that no sub-$100 mp3 player seems to play them. Then you have the fun of re-ripping your multitudes of cds, or transcoding them all to mp3, losing even more quality.
  "Only to find"?
  
  Are you saying that you ripped all your files to OGG expecting to be able to do that *before* you checked?
  
  I've nothing against the Ogg audio format- I think it's a good idea, and probably technically better than MP3. However, I ripped all my music files to MP3 because I knew that- though it was far from the best codec around- it was as near universally supported as makes no difference.
  
  Ogg has *never* been as widely supported as MP3, and primarily used by tech-savvy users who ought to know that anyway. If you- and the many others you imply were caught out when you say "us"- rushed into choosing the format without doing your homework, that was your mistake.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
44. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  I must admit, I used this site quite a bit on my phone, especially when building playlists of new music while on highway trips. Sometimes I just can't find a torrent for new releases.
  Does anyone know a good Android ripper?
45. Re:How stupid, and useless by markg11cdn · 2012-06-19 07:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Especially if it's something not many people care about. This is why people like Jason Scott (from textfiles.org) are my heroes.
  Err, I think you mean textfiles.com. Unless you meant to point at the domain squatter instead...
46. Re:How stupid, and useless by allo · 2012-06-19 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  and reencoding from mp3 to mp3 is better? what about dumping the stream part?
47. Re:How stupid, and useless by formfeed · 2012-06-19 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  You must be young. Too many of us ripped our cd's to ogg, only to find that no sub-$100 mp3 player seems to play them.
  
  Re-furb sansa $25 + rockbox
48. Re:How stupid, and useless by davidshewitt · 2012-06-19 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  A year or so ago, I was able to see all of the downloaded flash videos in /tmp, and it was so convenient! Then flashplayer was updated and I can't find them anymore. Do you know how to get them into /tmp again? I'm running Firefox 13 and Debian Squeeze (if that info is useful).
49. Re:How stupid, and useless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the game is afoot. I'll take anal bum cover for 7,000.
50. Re:How stupid, and useless by mattack2 · 2012-06-19 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Not even eBay, or purchasing the import CD used some other way?
51. Re:How stupid, and useless by blackest_k · 2012-06-19 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  The nice thing about that site was google song copy link download done in around 10 seconds or so.
  Sure you can do it for yourself but it is slower a lot slower. On the negative side sometimes its a poor version of the song you wanted plus the sound quality is never that good. Doing it yourself it is just as crappy but it takes longer.
  The other good thing was for your typical house party there is always someone with a desire for some song you don't have and wouldn't want in your collection you could just pay it on youtube but at some point it is going to be buffering coz there is 40 meg of video streaming when all you really want is 4 meg of audio ((and who gets blamed for that) so if you can queue it up and keep the people happy and nobody really cares about the clipping or it being recorded too quiet.
  sometimes low-fi is good enough.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
52. Re:How stupid, and useless by dunezone · 2012-06-19 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  If Google were to neglect this kind of infringement, the music and film industries associations could find grounds to claim that Google is damaging their businesses.
  Or they could use it as grounds to pull their music videos and Google loses out on the 15-30 seconds of a commercial they show before them.
53. Re:How stupid, and useless by SydShamino · 2012-06-20 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Man I tried. Could not find it in a year of looking. I was contemplating trying to capture Pandora for hours at a time so I could grab the song when it happened to play, then I found it on one of the newer sites where you can request specific songs.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
54. Re:How stupid, and useless by God+Of+Atheism · 2012-06-20 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  For sansa you don't even need rockbox
55. Re:How stupid, and useless by ZorinLynx · 2012-06-21 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, my bad!
I agree.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:01 · Score: 1

...people can do better than Mp3.
blocked? by ruf10 · 2012-06-19 04:02 · Score: 0

"YouTube apparently has blocked YouTube-MP3.org's servers from accessing the site."
Works for me ...and has very nice piece under the example link
1. Re:blocked? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  They're lucky Google didn't go for a trademark infringement suit.
Because there arent already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:02 · Score: 0

Because there arent already hundreds of programs that can already do that.
What about the Garden of Your Mind? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:02 · Score: 0

The Mister Rogers remix is a catchy tune. If they put it in iTunes, I'd buy it. I like listening to it as audio only.
So what? by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-06-19 04:03 · Score: 1

There are more than another dozen viable options to download Youtube videos
Browser Extensions by SJHillman · 2012-06-19 04:03 · Score: 4, Informative

What about sites that host browser extensions/add-ons/plug-ins? Opera, Chrome and Firefox all have extensions that will do this right from the YouTube page with a single click.
1. Re:Browser Extensions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:08 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Most of those actually use an interim server like the one in the article to make the conversion, so could be blocked. Even those that don't frequently have problems. Youtube keeps adjusting the way it streams the media files to try and optimize overall bandwidth use and performance, and every time they make a change it breaks the plugins for a few days. That said, I don't think they can outright block them without blocking the media itself; a browser that allowed websites to query every plugin installed would be a serious security threat.
2. Re:Browser Extensions by The+MAZZTer · 2012-06-19 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome Web Store forbids extensions that download YouTube videos. The one I use has a special Web Store version that cuts out that feature but the site where you can get the "Full" edition of the extension is listed IIRC.
  That tool just figures out the url of the media files backing the YouTube video though, you still have to do all the conversion work yourself if you want it in a different format or just want the audio from it.
  Of course I only use it to save perfectly legal bits of sound bites and so forth. Yup.
3. Re:Browser Extensions by Formorian · 2012-06-19 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, AFAIK the extension for MP3's sends you to a website (or 2) that auto puts in the URL for you. At least the chrome one. Now it will still let you DL the direct mp4/flv in various formats.
  TBH I've written a playon script that will pull the direct file, which creates a better viewing experience in playon from youtube. So maybe this keeps my wife from easily converting video's to MP3's, but all I have to do is create another script that will pull it and convert it. Granted my linux servers are in the basement, and I know it's very easy on linux, but can't be that difficult on windows either once you get the physical mp4/flv file.
4. Re:Browser Extensions by tlhIngan · 2012-06-19 04:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Most of those actually use an interim server like the one in the article to make the conversion, so could be blocked. Even those that don't frequently have problems. Youtube keeps adjusting the way it streams the media files to try and optimize overall bandwidth use and performance, and every time they make a change it breaks the plugins for a few days. That said, I don't think they can outright block them without blocking the media itself; a browser that allowed websites to query every plugin installed would be a serious security threat.
  Actually, it's really easy to do it yourself, and it works extremely well in Firefox. It'll work with most sites and is unblockable basically. The sites it won't work with are sites that do exclusive streaming (no caching and play/pause/rewind/etc requires are handled by the server which changes its bitstream) and sites that break the video into tiny segments and the player dynamically changes the quality.
  What you need is a firefox extension called "Live HTTP Headers" that lets you see HTTP headers as they scroll by, and something like Flashblock or NoScript that prevents running of flash (HTML5 video isn't that prevalent yet and only big ones like YouTube, Vimeo and Dailymotion support it while everyone else still uses flash).
  The method is to load the page up, then open the Live HTTP Header window. Click the flash player and let it load and start the video. One of the things Live HTTP Headers will have captured is... the URL for the media (look for MIME type video/flv or video/mp4). Copy that URL and paste it in a browser tab (which also gives you cookies). If you don't have a handler, it'll ask to download. If you do, block the site temporarily and use NoScript to right-click and download it.
  This method works because it relies on the fact that most video sites retrieve video via HTTP or HTTPS (could be a Flash limitation) rather than streaming the video (which requires server work) and using HTTP/HTTPS makes it more CDN-friendly since it's a static file.
5. Re:Browser Extensions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  For most users, that's not something that would be called 'easy'. There's still the extraction of the audio file (and possibly conversion) so that it can be used in other software or on you DAP of choice as well.
  You have to remember that Slashdotters tend to be more technically literate than the average user. Sure, *We* can do something, that doesn't mean everyone else can.
6. Re:Browser Extensions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the valid url changes every few seconds, so much beyond right there, that exact url is useless.
7. Re:Browser Extensions by makomk · 2012-06-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that some of the video downloader plugins for Firefox already work this way.
8. Re:Browser Extensions by antdude · 2012-06-19 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  And also programs like Orbit Downloader, clive, cclive, etc. :)
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Funny block... by houstonbofh · 2012-06-19 04:04 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Funny block... https://www.google.com/search?q=YouTube-MP3.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs
1. Re:Funny block... by Mia'cova · 2012-06-19 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They're blocking their servers from downloading the videos. They aren't removing it from their search results. That's exactly what I'd do in their case. They'll simply feed it URLs, see who connects to download the video, block the IP, and repeat.
  This seems like a complete non-story to me. But then, I've never heard of that site before. If it is actually popular, I can see why that alone would make it news-worthy. As a technical person, I'd look for a browser plugin to download the video, then a desktop app to rip the audio. Searching for a website which automates the process wouldn't have even occurred to me. It's funny how being technical can cause you to miss the boat on some trends just because the problem addressed was just never a problem for you in the first place..
2. Re:Funny block... by Runaway1956 · 2012-06-19 04:45 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Anyone who can't figure out how to download the video for himself, then rip an MP3 from the video, doesn't deserve to listen to the music. Geez, Louise - you don't even have to be a Linux guru to figure this stuff out!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
3. Re:Funny block... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  ...a desktop app to rip the audio...
  No excuse for mousey-clicky, simply type into the command line:
  ffmpeg -i my_video_file.avi extracted_audio.mp3
  mplayer -dumpaudio my_video_file.avi -dumpfile extracted_audio.mp3
4. Re:Funny block... by TheRealMindChild · 2012-06-19 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I use(d) these sites when a family member says "can you get me this song on my mp3 player?". I felt, honestly, since the service was out there, especially for so long, that they had some sort of deal worked out and this was a legitimate way to grab popular music (figuring advertising kickback).
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
5. Re:Funny block... by TheRealMindChild · 2012-06-19 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Why should I "figure it out" when I can just copy and paste a URL, then click the "download mp3" link?
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
6. Re:Funny block... by PIBM · 2012-06-19 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, that part is easy. Now, from the command line, can you provide something to extract the music from all the video listed at http://www.youtube.com/music, skipping ads ?
7. Re:Funny block... by gman003 · 2012-06-19 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed.
  Previously, I have done as the GGP described. Lost the plugin and converter in a reformat (curse you, Windows!), and you know what? It was less of a hassle to just use a website to convert it on those rare occasions that I actually *did* want to download a Youtube video as an MP3, than it would have been to reinstall and configure the special software to do it. I don't do it that often, so I don't need the sort of instant capabilities of a browser plugin.
8. Re:Funny block... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  cclive or clive $URL, then the commands above?
9. Re:Funny block... by PIBM · 2012-06-19 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  I though it was abandonned, thanks for pointing out it was alive again :)
10. Re:Funny block... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  You don't even need to figure out how to download the video, flash does this for you, it doesn't actually stream, it'll leave copies of the files it "streamed" sitting in the temp folder while the player is still visible.
11. Re:Funny block... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, that part is easy. Now, from the command line, can you provide something to extract the music from all the video listed at http://www.youtube.com/music, skipping ads ?
  
  http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/documentation.html
12. Re:Funny block... by ccguy · 2012-06-19 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Anyone who can't figure out how to download the video for himself, then rip an MP3 from the video, doesn't deserve to listen to the music
  That's like saying anyone who can't figure out how to install a tap doesn't deserve water.
  
  This kind of attitude LOWERS the value of technical people. You are basically saying that this is the standard that separate the normal people from the retards.
13. Re:Funny block... by Runaway1956 · 2012-06-19 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  "You are basically saying that this is the standard that separate the normal people from the retards."
  Welllllll - let's just say that a lot of elementary school age children can figure it out for themselves. One of whom is closely related to me. I walked in his room, looked over his shoulder, and asked, "What you doing, Son?" "Oh, I like this song, so I'm piping it through VLC and saving the audio so that I can play it back on my iPod."
  My answer? "Son, you have poor taste in music. Who the hell is this Nickel Back dude? And, why does he sound like he's been smoking raw hemp? Why don't you look for some Foreigner, or Boston, or some other real music?" Of course, this was a few years ago - the boy is out of school now.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
14. Re:Funny block... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Someone who rips an mp3 from a youtube video, is not a technical person. Someone who replaces their linux kernel scheduler with an out of tree one, is.
15. Re:Funny block... by AnyoneEB · 2012-06-19 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Posting to remove accidental negative moderation.
  I agree. Computer users should not need to know the inner details of how everything works on their computer in order to use it. Also, this goes back to my sig: having (effectively) a single video sharing website on the internet is bad because it can unilaterally do things like this.
  
  --
  Centralization breaks the internet.
16. Re:Funny block... by xevioso · 2012-06-19 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nickelback is a group.
17. Re:Funny block... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  As a technical person, I'd look for a browser plugin to download the video, then a desktop app to rip the audio.
  while that works and will continue to work, this site is infinitely more convenient. you put in the youtube url and get an mp3 download link pretty much instantly. either they download and convert it really fast, or they cache the mp3 after the first time they convert it. caching makes sense as it would be silly to download and convert the same popular video thousands of times.
18. Re:Funny block... by ganjadude · 2012-06-19 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  no joke, my 12 year old cousin actually knew how to do all of that, This really is something that never even was a thought to me because the way to do it is so simple.
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
19. Re:Funny block... by jbov · 2012-06-19 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Once you figure it out, you can use this knowledge to extract audio or video portions from video sources other than YouTube. You also have the freedom of not relying on a third party service to extract the audio for you.
  There isn't even a need to figure out anything. It's already been figured. You only need to perform a web search.
20. Re:Funny block... by kelemvor4 · 2012-06-19 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's far easier to just launch the sound recorder of your choice (on windows) and select an audio source of "what you hear". It's not like it takes any technical skill. I don't understand really what value a separate website to do it for you provides.
21. Re:Funny block... by imahawki · 2012-06-19 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Wish I had mod points!
22. Re:Funny block... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-06-19 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh, whoosh-ity whoosh.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
23. Re:Funny block... by hairyfeet · 2012-06-19 08:19 · Score: 2
  
  Even easier just don't be a cheap bastard and buy Speed MP3 downloader which i got off of giveawayoftheday but you can buy it for like $25, and it lets you set tags, choose bitrates, its really nice and beyond simple. hell your grandma could run it. Sure you can go through the steps of using a browser extension, downloading to desktop, converting to MP3 then, but why bother? With Speed you don't even have to fire up your browser, just pick what you want from it and hit the download button. they have a free trial so check it out, if for some reason i ever screw up and lose the GAOTD version i'll just buy it, being that hassle free is worth $25 IMHO.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
24. Re:Funny block... by retchdog · 2012-06-19 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  i've read their site... what the hell does it actually do? i.e. which service(s) is it scumming the content from?
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
25. Re:Funny block... by hairyfeet · 2012-06-19 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much all of them, youtube, vevo,mtv,, pretty much ANY site that has videos and is of any real size they end up having it on there. Like I said they have a trial version for free, give it a spin, you'll find its the easiest song downloader around. Hell I would have never heard of it either if it hadn't been on giveawayoftheday a month or two ago and decided to give it a spin, but DAMN, it finds just about anything you want in just about any bitrate, you can look by artist, song name, and damned if it won't find it. hell I even downloaded some bird sounds for the neighbor's parakeet with it, just click and go. The tagger is also nice, you can fill in the data in the style you use in your music folder so you don't have to screw with retagging.
  Anyway give it a go, with a free trial it isn't like it'll cost anything but a couple of minutes to try it out. i love how it can even come up with live and alternate versions, really awesome to hear some of my fav songs live or unplugged or alternate versions i didn't even know existed.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
26. Re:Funny block... by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2012-06-19 11:47 · Score: 2
  
  I personally didn't feel like "figuring it out" across three different platforms for something I only used about twice a month.
  Honestly, if I'm listening to an interview or a standup routine from Youtube, I don't NEED the video of someone talking. And if I'm anywhere where bandwidth is limited or just plain sucks, I appreciate having an MP3 converter two clicks away that doesn't require me to horse the video across a line that's struggling to stay above dialup levels.
27. Re:Funny block... by retchdog · 2012-06-19 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  interesting. i don't use windows, but if it can really find the stuff i look for and at decent bitrates, it could save me some hours. i'll keep it in mind.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
28. Re:Funny block... by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2012-06-19 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Personally for three years I thought it was just a derisive term for a particularly talentless band.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
29. Re:Funny block... by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2012-06-19 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who knows how to run an ffmpeg-one-liner is probably not wasting his time listening to crappy You-Tube recordings via crappy soundcards and even crappier speakers. I wonder how the imbeciles who do are actually finding the ripping site. Oh let me guess - they have an "app" with a single button to push...
  
  --
  Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
30. Re:Funny block... by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2012-06-19 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  Bad analogy. It's more like "anyone who can't figure out how to open a water tap will have to buy bottled water."
  
  --
  Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
31. Re:Funny block... by AssholeMcGee+ · 2012-06-19 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  They will block that next.... This really is not news worthy, the sound quality of these videos on YouTube are horrible, even the the ones that seem to have "high quality" are pretty bad when converting them to mp3's. I had been doing this for a short time then I got worried over getting nailed for piracy, using a browser plug-in, then converting to MP3. From the other comments it is not that someone does not know how to do this, it is just a short cut, I would figure you could just google how to do this manually instead of using a web site, but I guess that is wishful thinking!!!! My point would be because of the crap quality, why would Google waste the time to do this, the record industry should just push for the videos to be banned, or sue Google. Google's new slogan should be "Selling Out, Good Luck!!!"
32. Re:Funny block... by obsess5 · 2012-06-20 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Most Opera browser add-ons for converting YouTube to mp3 work by submitting the YouTube URL to various on-line converter sites such as YouTube-MP3.org. The add-on description tells you the ripping site. No need to Google ripping sites. I imagine other browser add-ons work the same way.
  
  Most of my conversions are of generally poor-quality live recordings, so bad soundcards and speakers don't really matter.
33. Re:Funny block... by Caesar+Tjalbo · 2012-06-20 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  It used to do that but since a year or so I don't find the .flv files anymore in my .tmp directory. They're 'unlinked' as soon as they're created meaning they're invisible in normal file system use.
  
  --
  "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by l0ungeb0y · 2012-06-19 04:04 · Score: -1, Troll

Remember kids -- Google took the solemn pinky oath to Not Be Evil, so the removal of YouTube-MP3.com from their search results is for your own good. And remember, Youtube is staunchly against copyright violation and has never violated any copyright or made copyrighted media available to unauthorized parties -- ever.
1. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by houstonbofh · 2012-06-19 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  It is not removed from the search results. It is also not a .com... Really, at least fully read the summery.
2. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  I just searched for it and it still shows up in search results. From the summary, looks more like they denied the site access to youtube which may still be censorship, but not at all the same thing as you erroneously claim.
3. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by SydShamino · 2012-06-19 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not that Google isn't evil when it suits them, but I'm relatively certain that this is a CYA move to keep YouTube from being sued by the **AA using whatever made-up laws their lawyers have pushed through to make this illegal.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
4. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  They haven;t removed it from their search results; they've removed the sites ability to access the youtube servers. It's the opposite to censorship.
  Censorship is saying 'I won't let you say that'.
  Google is saying 'We're not going to answer you'.
  The direction of information transfer is the critical difference; we have no right to shut someone else up, but they have no right to force us to speak.
5. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by OvERKiLLsFFT · 2012-06-19 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Remember kids -- Google took the solemn pinky oath to Not Be Evil, so the removal of YouTube-MP3.com from their search results is for your own good. And remember, Youtube is staunchly against copyright violation and has never violated any copyright or made copyrighted media available to unauthorized parties -- ever.
  RTFA, Google did not censor anyone here.
6. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by hawguy · 2012-06-19 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Remember kids -- Google took the solemn pinky oath to Not Be Evil, so the removal of YouTube-MP3.com from their search results is for your own good. And remember, Youtube is staunchly against copyright violation and has never violated any copyright or made copyrighted media available to unauthorized parties -- ever.
  Evil is not always black and white. If the choice is between allowing videos to be transcoded to MP3's or having RIAA pull down every song on Youtube because they feel they are going to eat into MP3 sales, which choice would the average user consider to be more evil?
7. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by Johann+Lau · 2012-06-19 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm what? If they didn't block the site, but removed it from search results, people could still find it via other links and use it. Blocking it from youtube just leaves a useless husk in the search results, so I don't quite get your point.
8. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by l0ungeb0y · 2012-06-19 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  The original summary stated that Google had removed the site from their search results. That to me is censorship.
  No, I did not read the article, so I guess that's what I get for commenting on what was written in the summary.
9. Re:It's Only Censorship When the *IAA Does It. by houstonbofh · 2012-06-19 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  The original summary stated that Google had removed the site from their search results.
  I have been bit by that as well. It throws me, since we can not change our posts... So, sorry for the assumption.
Sucks for youtube-mp3.org, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:06 · Score: 0

Come on, what was youtube-mp3.org really expecting? This is one of the only routes for Google where they don't get sued for complicity in copyright infringement (note that the right-or-wrong-ness of them getting sued is not what I am saying, it is the likelihood of it). Also, Google probably needs to keep youtube content on youtube, or else they will get no ad revenue (thus, the ToS clause, which I haven't read, and don't know if it exists).
It doesn't matter ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:11 · Score: 0

that they've been blocked by Google. Nobody will need to look them up any more.
They're about to be Slashdotted :-)
Boy that sucks. by halcyon1234 · 2012-06-19 04:12 · Score: 1

Boy, that sucks. If only there were developers working on cure this ill. Perhaps users of this very site. Maybe they could solve the problem with a firefox extension?
Too bad. Because I would have totally loved that to be a real thing.
Protip: It is, and I'm being cagey.

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again
And not a single f**k was given... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Cloud:
- Keepvid: http://keepvid.com/
- Vixy: http://vixy.net/
- Saveyoutube: http://saveyoutube.com/
- Savevid: http://www.savevid.com/
- More: www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=youtube+video+download
Firefox addons:
- Download Flash and Video: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-flash-and-video/?src=search
- YouTube Download: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-download/?src=search
- 1-Click YouTube Video Download: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1-click-youtube-video-download/?src=search
- Download YouTube Videos as MP4 and FLV: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-youtube/?src=search
- More: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=firefox+download&appver=&platform=
Chrome extentions:
- YouTube Downloader: MP3 / HD Video: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hokfcbmfpgeajcgkaeigohghnkhjmcbj
- FVD Video Downloader: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lfmhcpmkbdkbgbmkjoiopeeegenkdikp
Manually:
- HOWTO: Download FLV videos from YouTube manually: http://inspirated.com/2007/08/24/howto-download-flv-videos-from-youtube-manually
Dear Google,
give up. LOL, noobs...
Regards,
NotASingleF**k.
1. Re:And not a single f**k was given... by avandesande · 2012-06-19 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  You really think that is what this is about? It's about getting them of the hook from a legal liability standpoint. Obviously they cannot control the client but they can control requests made through another web site....
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
2. Re:And not a single f**k was given... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  And how many of 'em are inside U$A jurisdiction?
  Just a reminder, the World just don't give a single f**k for U$A corporate-lobby-broke-legal-system...
  Regards,
  NotASingleF**k.
3. Re:And not a single f**k was given... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  You p0wned them noobs..
I Thought Google Was A Search Engine..... by zenlessyank · 2012-06-19 04:13 · Score: -1

Not a Judgement Engine!!
Sensationalist Title by Haedrian · 2012-06-19 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't see why this article is of interest.
A site does something which goes against youtube's TOS - Google changes something in Youtube to block it - and sends a letter to the owner of the website. So?
If you Google it - you still get search results, and Google didn't do any tricks which we find immoral.
Why is this an article? What were we expecting? How could Google have dealth with it better?
1. Re:Sensationalist Title by saveferrousoxide · 2012-06-19 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's like a news story about the cool kid ratting out someone for smoking behind the gym at lunch. It's playing on the supposition that Google is somehow a benevolent lover of all that is free, rather than a business being run by people trying to make a profit in all ways that are not deemed "evil" by the powers that be.
2. Re:Sensationalist Title by rgbrenner · 2012-06-19 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  ^ I agree with this
  It was nice of Google to send them a letter though..
Audacity by dubbayu_d_40 · 2012-06-19 04:14 · Score: 2

I used to use Audacity for this, and it worked well. However, the audio quality on YouTube is noticeably awful.
I don't think they need to block these sites. The poor quality is what finally pushed me to start purchasing songs.
1. Re:Audacity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  I've heard that it's better quality on HD videos, but I've never tried to make the comparison.
  I can't remember why I stopped using Audacity, but my work computer has RealPlayer which adds a handle to every video that lets you download/convert it.
There is a fix for that... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:15 · Score: 0

DownloadHelper
No big problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:15 · Score: 0

Simple solution. Just use the software Replay Music to record whatever you are playing on Youtube or any other website.
Will they block real.com next? by michaelmalak · 2012-06-19 04:19 · Score: 0

Will youtube.com sue real.com next?
BTW IANAL but I think it's legal to download YouTube video because of the Betamax case. I suspect YouTube-MP3.org may have been targeted because a) they purloined their trademark and b) YouTube-MP3.org acts as a third party "distributing" copyrighted works (not merely Betamaxing it for time-shifting) because they act as an intermediary between YouTube and the end user. It's the low-hanging fruit for YouTube -- if they can succeed against YouTube-MP3.org then probably the next target will be a similar site that doesn't mimic their trademark. Then if they succeed with that maybe they'll even try their luck with going after tool vendors (though probably at first one smaller than real.com), thereby overturning Betamax.
1. Re:Will they block real.com next? by zoward · 2012-06-19 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Will youtube.com sue real.com next?
  BTW IANAL but I think it's legal to download YouTube video because of the Betamax case. I suspect YouTube-MP3.org may have been targeted because a) they purloined their trademark and b) YouTube-MP3.org acts as a third party "distributing" copyrighted works (not merely Betamaxing it for time-shifting) because they act as an intermediary between YouTube and the end user. It's the low-hanging fruit for YouTube -- if they can succeed against YouTube-MP3.org then probably the next target will be a similar site that doesn't mimic their trademark. Then if they succeed with that maybe they'll even try their luck with going after tool vendors (though probably at first one smaller than real.com), thereby overturning Betamax.
  Why bother going after anyone else? It costs money to litigate. Google went after these guys for three reasons:
  1) They infringed on Youtube's trademark.
  2) They're wasting Youtube's bandwidth.
  3) Shutting them down gives Google proof they're protecting IP when the **AA's come knocking on the door.
  Anyone with half a brain can find an alternate way to scrape the audio substate from a Youtube video.
  
  --
  "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
Easy on Linux by jampola · 2012-06-19 04:26 · Score: 1

apt-get install youtube-dl (deb, ubuntu) pacman -S youtube-dl (arch)
How I interpreted the headline. by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-06-19 04:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

A Google service for bars called "Google Bars" that converts youtube songs into MP3.
1. Re:How I interpreted the headline. by echogen · 2012-06-19 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  i thought it is a new service that does the same job... i thought youtube was being helpful to its users!
  
  --
  mmmmm.....
Why not use Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:35 · Score: 0

Even if Chrome developers thought a javascript API to read from or tap the sound output was useful they would not add it because that would enable ripping youtube songs entirely client-side and it couldn't be blocked... the best you might get is a patch included in a poorly maintained fork of Chromium.
By using Chrome, you are promoting a web designed to work the way an advertising company wants it to work.
It's not blocked by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:47 · Score: 0

The site is still the first result on Google when you search "YouTube mp3". I clicked through that link, found a youtube video URL in another tab, converted and downloaded the mp3, which worked perfectly.
Maybe this is a publicity stunt to appease the RIAA, because nothing has really changed.
1. Re:It's not blocked by hldn · 2012-06-19 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  it's blocked from converting new videos. they still have cached mp3s of all the videos they've previously converted.
  
  --
  http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
So? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 04:50 · Score: 0

This kind of shit happens all day, every day. Some website/program does something that violates another site/programs EULA. We dont need to know about every god damn one of them.
And site is back to working again by Cito · 2012-06-19 04:56 · Score: 1

The mods over at youtube-mp3.org have already fixed the problem, probably swapped ip's or something.
the site is back up working 100%...
youtube/google has failed and original post is no longer relevant.
Browser plugin by Hatta · 2012-06-19 05:01 · Score: 1

This could easily be replaced with a browser plugin. Then there's no one to C&D because the author of such a plugin need never agree to Googles TOS. Google would have to C&D their users directly.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
should have rickrolled them by dlmarti · 2012-06-19 05:10 · Score: 2

Redirecting YouTube-MP3.org to the song "Never Gonna Give You Up" would have been more appropriate.
1. Re:should have rickrolled them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Oh for mod points.
2. Re:should have rickrolled them by fritsd · 2012-06-19 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ooh nice one!
  Or even Zwaluw ach Zwaluw by Max & Betsie Anders.
  WARNING: NSFPWFE (Not suitable for people with functioning ears).
  But that would probably violate their corporate motto "do no evil".
  
  --
  To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
As if this stops anything by kilodelta · 2012-06-19 05:14 · Score: 1

There are still a number of sites out there that don't make mention of YouTube in their domain name that allow you to keep YouTube vids as MP4, MP3, etc. . So I doubt they'll catch them anytime soon.
1. Re:As if this stops anything by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  http://keepvid.com/
  looooooooooooooool. Also there's JDownloader which lets you get tons of links and download them all at once (you can even auto-download as an mp3).
Useless site by Meneth · 2012-06-19 05:25 · Score: 1

Not only did it recode the audio data, losing some quality, but it was also closed-source software-as-a-service. Good riddance.
1. Re:Useless site by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Because the entire Internet was built for the way you use it. It must be so annoying having all those stupid sites messing up your Internet.
Buy a cheap Android phone with no minutes by tepples · 2012-06-19 05:28 · Score: 1

If you've already bought a smartphone and it isn't made by Apple or Nokia, then you have an Android-powered PMP supporting .ogg files. If you haven't already bought a smartphone, you can buy an $80 PCD Venture phone from Virgin Mobile and never buy minutes for it.
1. Re:Buy a cheap Android phone with no minutes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  I have a Nokia N9 which supports .ogg you insensitive clod!
K.I.S.S. always wins in this "market" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:29 · Score: 0

It's funny how being technical can cause you to miss the boat on some trends just because the problem addressed was just never a problem for you in the first place.
Truer words were rarely spoken. I would have done it myself, just like you. I had heard of them, but barely knew they existed and the whole concept made me nauseous because I care about quality.
I always go for the best quality possible, not speed and ease of acquisition. But lets face it: you and I and all of the genuine geeks here (and there are a ton of pretenders who post at Slashdot) amount to f***-all - we're not 99.9% of the world.
You have to constantly remind yourself that 99.99% of computer "users" are 10-year-old girls or 30-something techno-duhs.
To them, the computer is just an obnoxious tool (and if they had it their way, it would be invisible or non-existant) and anything that makes it *easier* to use (even if it makes it less flexible than it could be and even if the end-quality is vastly inferior) will naturally attract them.
Microsoft (once the world's most successful crap-marketing company) proved that people will buy sow's ears if the b.s. is strong and price is tolerable. They work on the "there's one born every minute to buy this crap" principle (I often think the world would be much farther ahead technologically if Bill Gates Sr. had only used a condom) and it worked well for them. Good technology - what's that and why should we give a damn?
The bottom line: K.I.S.S. wins again and quality and flexibility be damned.
This seems like a complete non-story to me.
I couldn't agree more. So are most "stories" for which links are posted at Slashdot (and for which Slashdot gets users to post teasers that Slashdot doesn't even fact-check and rarely edits - I don't think Slashdot actually does any work but sell advertising). But Slashdot is a for-profit business and it needs "eyeballs" to sell the advertising. That's all.
1. Re:K.I.S.S. always wins in this "market" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  You have to constantly remind yourself that 99.99% of computer "users" are 10-year-old girls
  AKA FBI agents.
  
  or 30-something techno-duhs.
  AKA their prey.
Interactivity defeats the analog hole by tepples · 2012-06-19 05:31 · Score: 1

afterall, so far, there's no DRM that can keep someone from plugging the analog audio-out cable from their computer into their sound card though I'm sure some day RIAA and MPAA will make sure we have analog fingerprints on all of our outputs that would close this analog hole
One way to work around the analog hole is by making a work interactive because a walkthrough video is no substitute for playing it yourself. That might be part of why MPAA members such as Disney and WB have started subsidiaries that develop video games.
pacman by tepples · 2012-06-19 05:35 · Score: 1

pacman -S youtube-dl (arch)
How long until Namco Bandai cease-and-desists the maintainer of this method?
jscripts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:50 · Score: 0

seriously.. I just added a jscript to Opera in order to have a download button on every single youtube videos, can download the mp3 or in any other resolutions available.
1. Re:jscripts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  youtube doesn't provide mp3s, so you have to convert a video to mp3 somehow.
  this site actually provides browser addons that add a download mp3 link right on the youtube page as well.
Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 05:56 · Score: -1

Google cheerleaders are so funny. If it was Microsoft. The title to the story would be like - youtube-mp3.com shut-down and accused of piracy by Microsoft
Then.. in this thread there would be anti-ms trolls screaming about how the website was actually being used to convert non-copyrighted material too and how Microsoft is evil. When its Google, apparently there is no chance of legitimate use for this website.
I uploaded a video last night by circletimessquare · 2012-06-19 06:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Youtube is accusing me of plagiarizing, because i put a PUBLIC DOMAIN audio track of "The Star Spangled Banner" in the video. Their automatic software however has decided this is false positive enough with someone else's recording of OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM (!?) to block my video. I disputed the claim, linked to the public domain audio source, and now I have until July 18 to twiddle my thumbs while Youtube placates the copyright trolls.
Our intellectual property system is an absurdity that hinders creativity, I want to live in a just and sane society. Our intellectual property system is incompatible with being fixed, and any move to a more sane status quo requires that it be made abundantly clear to everyone that laws put on the books in the days of cassette tapes do not work in a world of TCP/IP.
I support anything and everything that directly undermines the enforcement of intellectual property laws. Civil Disobedience is what is needed, civil disobedience here in this context is any and all actions that are sane and reasonable consumer actions of YOUR CULTURE but obviously not in line with intellectual property letter of the law. Supporting artists does not mean supporting the parasitical corporations and laws that merely operate on a rent seeking basis, and add no value to our culture or our creativity.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:I uploaded a video last night by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  That's what you get when you rely on someone else to host your video. Why don't you host it yourself, CTS?
  btw, did you ever finish your Filipino horror movie?
2. Re:I uploaded a video last night by circletimessquare · 2012-06-19 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  if a corporation is large enough to serve a major social function of my culture, it is open season to insist it abide by social norms. again, of course, the legal status is that a corporation is not a government entity, and therefore not bound by public demands. this is a nice sentiment in a world where adequate alternative choices exist. but we're not talking about a free market situation, we're talking about a oligarchy, domination by a handful. in such a corporate oligarchy, the corporations have taken over major government functions and therefore, morally, if not legally, are rightfully bound to work for the people (to the extent that any society dominated by corporations and not the people works for the people, but this gets right back to the problem with intellectual property laws in the first place)
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is about teaching people to google! by Nyder · 2012-06-19 06:11 · Score: 1

Okay, look, we all know how easy this stuff is to get around. That is the whole point. Google wants to educate the public on how to use computers for getting copies of music better.
First off, Google knows you can easily get a better copy of the song by using google. But people are lazy and don't to go thru instructions on how to do anything, they just want to pop an address in and out comes whatever they want. Google isn't happy about this. See, google makes a search engine, and if you always use the top find, you're wasting all the power of google going thru and ranking all the other links.
So now, people are going to have to use google and actually read and click on the other search results, not just the top one!!!!
It justifies all of googles computers.

--
Be seeing you...
N900 or N9 in USA by tepples · 2012-06-19 06:23 · Score: 1

Which I'm guessing you bought before Nokia's shift in strategy to Windows Phone 7 and its reentry to the United States market. It's not like the N900 or N9 was sold in carrier-owned stores or big box stores in the United States. But I agree with you that an N900 or N9 is as good as an Android-powered phone for playing .ogg recordings.
Plus: it's 2012 (not 1999) and by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 06:23 · Score: 1

we need to acknowledge that a lot of the rabble these days use non-desktop machines (like [barf!] so-called phones, etc.) to access Yotub that don't have the tools for a DIY job on that non-desktop machine.
But they can "surf" and download with them, so ...
Weird... by f3rret · 2012-06-19 06:58 · Score: 1

So I just tried it out, it seems to work just fine..huh.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
1. Re:Weird... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  it's been posted about a dozen times. they cached the mp3s when they converted them, because duh, converting the same video thousands of time would be retarded. any mp3s that have already been converted are still available for download, but if you try to convert a new video it gives you an error.
YouTube is the Web's biggest music archive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:08 · Score: 0

This sucks for music lovers - especially those of us who love rare dance 12 inches and alternate mixes. I've found hundreds of songs that were never mainstream enough for radio but were played in dance clubs when I was younger... In so many cases there is just no way to purchase any of these songs legally and making playlists on YouTube just isn't feasible... this is a very useful service and one that Google should acknowledge by providing it for a fee. I don't mind paying for a higher quality audio MP3 of some of these YouTube videos that are really nothing more visual than a static photo. The service they're blocking often produces lower quality audio but it's fine on my iPod or phone.
winff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:30 · Score: 0

winff
no need for this online stuff
Rockbox for media player by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:41 · Score: 0

See if this works for you: Rockbox (WARNING: it's firmware, so install at your own risk! especially "iPod classic" is listed as "status unstable").
It's supposed to play MP3, other MPEG audio, Ogg, AAC, WMA, Speex, FLAC, AC3, and more. Disclaimer: I haven't got a portable media player besides ancient cassette walkman, so I haven't tried it out myself.
Not a problem on the Mac... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 07:56 · Score: 0

http://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijackpro/ - definitely worth the $32 to be able to record anything passing through the computer's audio chain.
Downside (small): realtime. Upside: uses VST plugins to screw your sound all over the place if you want.
useful service ? by echogen · 2012-06-19 08:17 · Score: 0

For all those not understanding why such service is useful: If you live somewhere with limited bandwidth and slow connection, downloading a video could take hours, and resume is not well supported if you want to download the video, so such service as youtube-mp3, saves lots of time and bandwidth when all you need is to listen to the information / music in the video and not to watch the contents

--
mmmmm.....
Why is this news? by Vrtigo1 · 2012-06-19 09:33 · Score: 1

It DOES violate the YouTube TOS. What did they expect was going to happen?
And so it begins by nurb432 · 2012-06-19 09:39 · Score: 1

Now that they are both provider and in effect produce, the shoe is on the other foot
What ever happened to fair use? Oh, that is right the AA's have about stamped that out.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
idea by merxete · 2012-06-19 10:38 · Score: 0

why not have a website like youtube, but where everything on it goes into the public domain once uploaded. Of course checks would need to be made towards authenticity of ownership of material by the uploader, and that it's not plagiarizing something else copyrighted (etc), but I dunno, it seems this would be a good idea and a website I'd definitely frequent perhaps as much if not more than youtube.
There's an app for that ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-19 12:19 · Score: 0

...which I have used numerous times. No other web site needed.
What I'd like to know is: When someone embeds a YouTube video in another web page (which I believe YouTube even facilitates) or inserts it into an e-mail, where are these things called Terms Of Service of which you speak?
good by mug+funky · 2012-06-19 16:46 · Score: 1

this should keep the MAFIAA quiet for a while.
it's an ineffective token move, no doubt designed to placate an ineffective and token business model and keep them off their back for a bit.
hardly seems worth it by kungfuj35u5 · 2012-06-25 09:47 · Score: 1

considering the absurd amount of compression applied to the video during upload. Seems like transcoding between at least two different lossy codecs after applying already pretty conservative compression parameters.