Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube-MP3 Ripper Creator Takes On Google

Posted by timothy on from the anything-that-can-be-played-can-be-copied dept.

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."

8 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. It may be legal in germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It may be legal in germany... by camperslo · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  2. Why should Google care... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'
    1. Re:Why should Google care... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Why should Google care... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:Why should Google care... by fatphil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  3. Google is covering its own arse for later disputes by ClassicASP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:It's not Google, it's the copyright holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    The obvious pressure that the labels can apply to Google is to stop allowing their music to be posted on YouTube. Google knows full well that listening to music is one of the primary uses of YouTube, and that taking all the big-label music down will hurt YouTube ad revenues --- far, far more than any tiny losses from people who ripped the music from YouTube.