YouTube-MP3 Ripper Creator Takes On Google

It may be legal in germany... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 03:17 · 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.

Re:It may be legal in germany... by NettiWelho · 2012-07-05 03:43 · Score: 2

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... by camperslo · 2012-07-05 03:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd think the real problem would be the use of youtube in his site name.
Re:It may be legal in germany... by rioki · 2012-07-06 00:46 · Score: 2

No it does not ... directly. The copyright treaties are either ratified into German law or they are invalid. Natural persons are not bound by international treaties. Countries are bound by international treaties to ratify them into law.

Potential problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 03:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by Internetuser1248 · 2012-07-05 04:27 · Score: 2

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 by Sentrion · 2012-07-05 06:25 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by rioki · 2012-07-06 01:09 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually a German citizen can not be extradited from Germany. It actually even works the other way around. If you happen to commit a crime in a foreign country, the German government will try "everything" (at different degrees of everything) to get you back to Germany and then try you under German law. This is done since German law is seen as fair and others as barbaric. There where a few high profile cases of drug possession in Tailand (which will get you executed), where the German government intervened.

Service? We don' need no steenking service by SlithyMagister · 2012-07-05 03:32 · Score: 2

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:Good grief by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-05 03:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Exnae on the ipperrae itessae!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

The TLD is under the jurisdiction of the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 03:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by rioki · 2012-07-06 01:36 · Score: 2

You should come by and visit Germany. Nice place, fast cars, nice girls and sane courts. You can take as many lawyers as you like, what counts are your arguments and the law as printed. Germany has strong bias towards written law, instead of case law. Case law is only relevant where written law is not explicitly defined something. Under German law, you can only sue at the place of the crime or where the defendant is situated. In this case this would be where the servers are hosted or the guy lives. Google can try to mount a case in the US, but that is futile, since Germany will not extradite a German citizen and not extradite at all in civil matters.
Come by, we can rent a A4 and take a spin down the A5 at 180 km/h at 3 am.

Why should Google care... by mark-t · 2012-07-05 03:38 · 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'

Re:Why should Google care... by mat.power · 2012-07-05 03:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 03:45 · 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.
Re:Why should Google care... by Antipater · 2012-07-05 03:48 · Score: 2

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.

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Re:Why should Google care... by C0R1D4N · 2012-07-05 03:59 · Score: 2

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... by mark-t · 2012-07-05 04:09 · 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'
Re:Why should Google care... by CanHasDIY · 2012-07-05 04:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Why should Google care... by fatphil · 2012-07-05 04:30 · 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
Re:Why should Google care... by tlhIngan · 2012-07-05 04:37 · Score: 2

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... by Richard_at_work · 2012-07-05 05:14 · Score: 2

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... by VGPowerlord · 2012-07-05 07:40 · Score: 2

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.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:Why should Google care... by CanHasDIY · 2012-07-05 09:05 · Score: 2

Before posting that, I was thinking about how recording for personal use is legal, and distribution of a personal recording again for personal use is a bit of a legal grey area... but then, I'm going off my own experience and not taking into account the results of the ongoing copyright/patent wars, but now that I think about it (and take recent legal proceedings into account), best to err on the safe side and presume that's not allowed... I suppose one could try and argue that the recording I made is original art, and thus I have a right to distribute it as I please... but for the sake of avoiding bullshit, it's safer to assume that you're right.

Of course, one major advantage of distributing a burned CD by hand is the lack of paper trail, thus lowering one's chance of capture/prosecution.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Why should Google care... by rioki · 2012-07-06 01:49 · Score: 2

Actually no. Under US copyright law you have the right to personal copy for delayed view. That or each and every TiVo would be illegal. If that applies to digital TV, it applies to non encrypted streaming in the internet. The service is just an auxilary, like your TiVo. The big difference here is that Google is claiming TOS violation, which in the US would have occurred, but in Germany TOS must be explicitly agreed to. In the US TOS is basically a contract, in Germany they are only general guidelines; you need a contract to make them relevant. So without a contract general law twats any TOS anytime. (Pro tip: any EULA that you did agree to before paying money is invalid in Germany...)

Re:Regardless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 03:39 · Score: 2, Funny

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

I just registered youtube-mp3.de by acidfast7 · 2012-07-05 03:41 · Score: 2, Funny

problem solved.

It's not Google, it's the copyright holders by billlava · 2012-07-05 03:51 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 09:47 · 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.

Re:Regardless by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-05 03:54 · Score: 2

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.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service by _KiTA_ · 2012-07-05 03:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-07-05 03:58 · Score: 2

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.

ffmpeg -i input.flv output.mp3 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 04:32 · Score: 3, Informative

TSIA

Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 04:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by mpricop · 2012-07-05 07:00 · Score: 2

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

Re:Service? We don' need no steenking service by Lucky75 · 2012-07-05 04:40 · Score: 3

You have to disable Adblock.

--
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association

What the RIAA is actually doing to combat this by slashmydots · 2012-07-05 05:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 is covering its own arse for later disputes by ClassicASP · 2012-07-05 05:10 · 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.

Re:Good grief by ichthus · 2012-07-05 05:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Odmae the arentpae up, eh.

--
sig: sauer

Official Chrome Extension by YouTube does the same by SmilingBoy · 2012-07-05 05:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Enlightenment by Zinho · 2012-07-05 06:53 · Score: 4, Informative

You're welcome.

--
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin

Re:Official Chrome Extension by YouTube does the s by balbus000 · 2012-07-05 08:20 · Score: 2

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.

Re:A.N.A.L.O.G. H.O.L.E. by Gaygirlie · 2012-07-05 10:31 · Score: 2

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...

Silly "solution" as can only be expected from an AC.

First of all, you're just further reducing audio quality of something that is already not-so-good by decompressing it, playing it over analog, recording it over analog and then recompressing it. Secondly, that's a hassle. Thirdly, the "analog hole" can actually be plugged to an extent, like e.g. devices which support Cinavia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia ) wouldn't play Cinavia-protected content even after you've played it back and recorded over analog contacts.

Slashdot Mirror

YouTube-MP3 Ripper Creator Takes On Google

43 of 141 comments (clear)