Slashdot Mirror
YouTube-MP3 Ripper Creator Takes On Google
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."
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.
End of story.
How is this different from ripzor.com or downloadhelper?
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.
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.
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
.
and you don't want to pay for it!
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
problem solved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think google left that part out also.
Which ads?
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...
TSIA
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.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
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 have to disable Adblock.
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
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.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
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 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'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.
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!!!
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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 (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.
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.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Let's hope he doesn't go to London or they'll ship his ass to the States for a fair* trial.
mod parent -1 shill. no sane person can think that a giant corporation like google cant just say FU to the MAFIAA
Radio Shack probably will, given their ever decreasing hobbyist electronics section.
Karnal
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 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, 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 on YouTube. As always, if anybody can make money from what I'm giving away for free, they are welcome to do so.
...laura
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.
I just downloaded that for Chromium. No worky. :(
You're welcome.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
You can't honestly think that the developer of that extension is actually youtube.com. Just look at the screenshot with the drawn-on red arrows...
Also note that an official app would have a green check next to the developer as seen in the official YouTube app.
A list of all Google extensions is here.
You are probably correct. I have not used the extension much but had it installed for a while. Interesting that Google would allow a developer called youtube.com!
Who needs it? Just direct the analog audio output of your sound card into the input of an audio recorder, and direct your browser at YouTube or whatever you want a copy of, and hit play. Cut, paste, print. Now you have the file, and no one can stop you. Basically the same as recording off radio, as far as I'm concerned. So you don't need the software... the can't plug the analog hole, Mal... they can never plug...
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.
Really? So just as a quick off the cuff example, Google paid Shoji Meguro and Atlus for the rights for this rip of the Persona 4 OST?
Well, ya learn something new every day!
The green check mark next to the website name is missing. It means it is not verified, or the app for some reason does not include the signature of "youtube.com". For an example of an app that is signed by Youtube.com - check here
Would you object to a desktop app that has adds embedded? So the moment someone takes the effort to build an application that makes the process painless it's ok, but the moment he makes money off it, it is immoral?
The fun thing here is that if youtube-mp3 makes money or not is totally irrelevant to the case at hand. youtube-mp3 is an auxillery and it really does not matter if you use a "cloud" or desktop app.
why would I do such a thing?
in all seriousness I was at my friends house only a few weeks ago and saw some ads on youtube and I turned to him and was shocked and said something along the lines of, well i knew it was only a matter of time until they put ads on youtube. He than told me thats its been that way for years now, I laughed as I honestly had no idea youtube was serving up ads all this time
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same