Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube-MP3 Ripper Creator Takes On Google

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:17AM (#40551951)

    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.

    • 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.

    • by camperslo (704715) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:53AM (#40552449)

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

      • by Bigby (659157)

        He is fine with the usage, as much as google-sucks.com would be protected.

        PS: I don't think Google sucks.

      • ICANN would be more than happy to resolve domain name disputes. I really doubt that the domain name is the issue.

    • by Raenex (947668)

      Just ask that British guy that faces extradition to the US for things that are legal in the UK.

      Which guy would that be? The most prominent one I know about is McKinnon, and he is charged with crimes that are illegal in both places (computer hacking).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    End of story.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    How is this different from ripzor.com or downloadhelper?

  • Potential problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:30AM (#40552095)

    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.

    • by cpghost (719344)
      If he's a German citizen, he can't be extradited to the US. At least not by Germany. If he travels abroad, that's another question.
    • by raynet (51803)

      You do know that even .de -sites can be accessed by international audience, even sites without domain names can be accessed by international audiences, the is the default behaviour of the internets....

  • by SlithyMagister (822218) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:32AM (#40552125)
    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

    .
    • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:56AM (#40552491) Homepage

      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 you left out the part where google has paid the actual content owners for the right to make advertising money off of those songs.

        • by berashith (222128)

          I think google left that part out also.

        • by _KiTA_ (241027)

          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 [youtube.com] for the rights for this rip of the Persona 4 OST?

          Well, ya learn something new every day!

      • by Zemran (3101)

        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!!!

    • by rioki (1328185)

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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

    • by rioki (1328185)

      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 c

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@lynx.b c . ca> on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:38AM (#40552229) Journal

    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.

    • by mat.power (2677517) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:43AM (#40552319)
      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 :)
      • by MightyYar (622222)

        I'm sure it has to do with the licensing agreement that Google has with the studios that allows the music to be on YouTube in the first place.

      • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @12:26PM (#40552871) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • 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.

          • I can listen to it.

            I can also give copies away at my own expense.

            If I really wanted to be a dick about it, I could claim that my recording was individual art in of itself, and publicly distribute it.


            Of course, that's all non sequitur to the point, as this particular discussion is in regards to the legality of making the recording itself.

            To that end, as Youtube has no membership or payment requirement to view videos, uploading to Youtube is essentially creating a public performance. If the performance i
            • I can also give copies away at my own expense.

              Meant to qualify this as hard copies, i.e. CD's, hand delivered.

              • by whoever57 (658626)

                I can also give copies away at my own expense.

                Meant to qualify this as hard copies, i.e. CD's, hand delivered.

                While IANAL, I am fairly sure you cannot legally distribute your recording in any form, unless it is covered by some kind of fair use defense and I don't think that giving away CDs of an entire concert would qualify as fair use.

                • 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 origin
        • 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.

          • 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.

            The sound waves trespassed on my property. Are you saying it's illegal to record the sound waves that enter my private property?

            Got any legal precedent to back that?

          • by gottabeme (590848)

            It's legal to record off the radio or television--why in the world would it be legal to record from the airwaves but not from the REAL AIRwaves?

          • by rioki (1328185)
            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 n
      • by fatphil (181876) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @12:30PM (#40552927) Homepage
        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.
      • by zoloto (586738)
        What a load of shit. The "powers that be" tried to axe the VCR and Audio Cassette. MP3 ripping is nothing different.
      • Really?  Why wouldn't anybody be free to turn it into an mp3?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by dunezone (899268)

        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.

        They also have links under the video to where you can buy the music through a legitimate distributor. Google most likely takes in a certain % of each sale through that link referral.

    • 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.
      • But what amazes me is that this has always been possible and always will be. If there is sound coming out of your speakers, there is a way to record it.

        I guess the auto-ripper website makes it so easy as to make Google nervous. But when they manage to stamp out all of those websites, they'll next have to come for the thousands of different audio software that record whatever your computer is playing. Then they'll have to go for the manufacturers of headphone plugs, because if nothing else you can always

      • by C0R1D4N (970153)
        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.
    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      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 a

      • by mark-t (151149)

        If they really want to ensure that their ad gets views, then they should be horrified at the notion that the player which plays back the video actually runs on the client, and can, with some amount of technical skill, be modified by the client to save the entire video to a person's hard drive in the same definition that it is being viewed.

        Is having the skill to accomplish this task illegal?

        If not, then what about teaching others how to do it?

        In other words, at what point does the mere *KNOWLEDGE* of

    • by houghi (78078)

      If it's an issue of unauthorized copies, then shouldn't the video with the unauthorized soundtrack on it in the first place be taken down?

      No. Just because I put my audio online does not mean that it becomes public domain.
      So they get an autorised copy and making copies of those is not allowed by current laws.
      If a writer writes a book, a publisher has the right to copy and distribute the work for e.g. 100 copies (or a gazilion if it contains sparkling people). That does not mean you can make a copy of that

      • by mark-t (151149)
        I'm not saying that everything online is or should be public domain. I'm suggesting that absolutely ANYONE who watches a video is, inherently, downloading a copy of that video, and that there is absolutely no means that the provider can detect whether the recipient might be saving a copy of any part or parts of that work for their own personal and private use. If it's really not just for their own use, then I can see *THAT* activity being discouraged, but then they should go after them for *THAT* activi
  • by acidfast7 (551610) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:41AM (#40552285)
    problem solved.
    • by Calydor (739835)

      So you're trying to grab the videos from a German domain?

      Let me know how that works for you when it comes to any file with any kind of potentially copyrighted sound on it. HINT: This video is not available in your country because GEMA has not granted the respective rights.

      • You can't grab videos from a domain. A domain is just a name you give to some IP. The physical machine can be everywhere from Germany to Cambodia.

  • by billlava (1270394) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:51AM (#40552417) Homepage
    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.
    • So... They'll be going after Microsoft next, for including an audio recording program with their OS? Yea, didn't think so.

      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.

      Unless that's you volunteering to be that one man, STFU.

    • by Raenex (947668)

      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.)

      I doubt it. The music execs started putting up official videos very late in the game, after years of trying to keep music locked down with DRM. They just accept the risk as worth the revenue potential.

  • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2012 @12:32PM (#40552965)

    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.

    • by karnal (22275)

      Radio Shack probably will, given their ever decreasing hobbyist electronics section.

  • Rights (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2012 @12:37PM (#40553051)

    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?

    • 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 may have a right to do that (IANAL), but does *someone else or a service* have the right to do it FOR you?

      It's not the same as operating your own tape recorder.

      Again, IANAL...

    • by mpricop (2604347)
      You have that right. What you don't have is the right to re-broadcast your recordings for profit.
  • 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.

    • by nigelo (30096)

      And if the party has been convicted of offenses, would the practice then be 'StripedCrowdMilking'?

      I think we should be told.

    • by ADRA (37398)

      Yes, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the original poster uploaded them to begin with because its a good distribution platform regardless of any profits held by YouTube? Nobody put a gun to these people's heads.

      I host my own sites, and guess what kids, They cost money! If you want the right to ad free video sharing, then you're going to pony up and pay for the right to do so.

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @01:09PM (#40553525)
    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 [youtube.com] 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.
  • by ClassicASP (1791116) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @01:10PM (#40553535)
    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.
  • 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.
  • by SmilingBoy (686281) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @01:18PM (#40553701)

    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 [google.com] (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.

    • 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. [google.com]

      A list of all Google extensions is here. [google.com]

      • 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!
        • 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 [google.com]

  • 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

    • by Sentrion (964745)

      Thank you for your confession. Your IP address has been logged and your confession has been added to the file that we've been keeping on you. Please send us $10,000.00 per infraction within the next 30 days to avoid any future litigation. Please also provide receipts to prove that the 45's and CD's are legitimate. Failure to comply immediately could result in a police raid to confiscate all of your recording and computing hardware. The cost of such a raid and any other investigative activities will be

  • 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 [youtube.com] 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 [echoone.com], but the live streaming YouTube now uses makes it less useful

  • 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 resu

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...