RIAA Goes After CNET For Media-Conversion Software 257
First time accepted submitter moj0joj0 writes "Two days after YouTube-MP3.org, a site that converts songs from music videos into MP3 files, was blocked from accessing YouTube, the RIAA has asked CNET to remove software from Download.com that performs a similar function. The RIAA focused its criticism on software found at Download.com called YouTubeDownloader. The organization also pointed out that there are many other similar applications available at the site, 'which can be used to steal content from CBS, which owns Download.com.' CNET's policy is that Download.com is not in any position to determine whether a piece of software is legal or not or whether it can be used for illegal activity." For a sufficiently broad definition of "steal," you could argue that all kinds of software (from word processors to graphics programs to security analysis tools) could be implicated.
Re:How to scare your neighbors (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ads
Re:Invalid or valid argument? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Other News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Draw me a line (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Draw me a line (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't and won't draw you a line. Drawing a line would state that, at some point in history, nothing beyond the current technology could do us more or less harm. That is exactly what they don't to have happen. By keeping their position grey, and constantly venting that new tech. is further depriving them profits, they can't be held to any single position of appeasement.
With this new found argument of 'site scripts' for conversion or 'track grabbing', they might as well say wget and the entire TCP/IP stack should be illegal as well.
There will never be a withdrawal of attack from the likes of the **AA's and everyone here knows it. If they had their way, you'd have to pay for every time you heard a song, whether intended or not, and every time you saw a movie or movie clip. And likely, if you commented on either online, you'd have to pay them to have it ok'd to be put on the web. That is the absurd length they would go to, to protect their outdated business model, despite hollywood accouting, and artist royalty strong-arming. To add insult to injury, they'd also want an ISP tax in place in so that even if people don't copyright content, they'd still get a cushioned share on the chance that they can't catch you.
In short, FUCK THE RIAA and MPAA! From now, till forever!
Re:Invalid or valid argument? (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I guess you could argue said program is no different than a VCR (which the SCOTUS ruled can legally capture video and store it).
...which is likely why the RIAA is asking and whining, instead of issuing takedown notices and sending official threats of litigation.
The absolute last thing they'd ever want is for a case like this to end up making video/audio ripping off a stream the equivalent of using a VCR to tape a show.
Simple enough then (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA members should stop uploading of any content to YouTube which they do not wish to be copied.
Re:In Other News... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Draw me a line (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. They've overstepped their jurisdiction, and need to be placed back in their box.
The RIAA doesn't have any jurisdiction. They're basically a gang like the bloods or the crips with a different agenda and larger bankroll.
Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. The RIAA has often stated that it represents the copyright interests of signed artists to its group member; now, many people have pointed out that this is false, but from a quasi-political / legal aspect, we prefer the guillotine's blade to be nice and sharp before offing a tyrant.
The RIAA has, for a time, had a semi-legitimate case, but has seen to not 'get with the times,' preferring an outdated business model that promotes the very problem it seeks to resolve through legislation. What more, it's continued advances into other, protected sectors is angering a great many people (both at the top, and closer to the middle). Now, the people who have count themselves as friends of the RIAA will remain as such, provided they continue to be furnished with the appropriate bribes; but there will come a time when this will end, as all things must, and the populace will be left with nothing but a devastated legal landscape. At its heart, the RIAA is a paranoid baker, who bids his customers to eat their bread in his kitchen, where he can ensure not a crumb escapes to the outside world; customers are required to sign a lengthy legal document, entreating them not to share their bread with anyone else; special precautions, such as searching his customer's persons to prevent them sneaking off with a loaf, and a search of all nearby bakeries, whose bread is confiscated if it is deemed too similar to his own; finally, for fear of his customers and non-customers alike, enjoying their grainy treats in the quiet of their homes, he proposes to search them on demand as well.
Cooks have long dealt with issues of recipes (copyright) for centuries.
Re:Stream, Download, what's the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't these dorks know there is not much difference between streaming and downloading.
Ads. Data caps. Access restriction. Post-upload revisions. Censorship. If you can equate streaming to downloading, you can equate licensing to ownership.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)