YouTube-MP3 Ripping Site Sued By IFPI, RIAA and BPI (torrentfreak.com) 310
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Two weeks ago, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry published research which claimed that half of 16 to 24-year-olds use stream-ripping tools to copy music from sites like YouTube. The industry group said that the problem of stream-ripping has become so serious that in volume terms it had overtaken downloading from 'pirate' sites. Given today's breaking news, the timing of the report was no coincidence. Earlier today in a California District Court, a huge coalition of recording labels sued the world's largest YouTube ripping site. UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, Arista Records, Atlantic Records and several others claim that YouTube-MP3 (YTMP3), owner Philip Matesanz, and Does 1-10 have infringed their rights. The labels allege that YouTube-MP3 is one of the most popular sites in the entire world and as a result its owner, German-based company PMD Technologies UG, is profiting handsomely from their intellectual property. YouTube-MP3 is being sued for direct, contributory, vicarious and inducement of copyright infringement, plus circumvention of technological measures. Among other things, the labels are also demanding a preliminary and permanent injunction forbidding the Defendants from further infringing their rights. They also want YouTube-MP3's domain name to be surrendered. "YTMP3 rapidly and seamlessly removes the audio tracks contained in videos streamed from YouTube that YTMP3's users access, converts those audio tracks to an MP3 format, copies and stores them on YTMP3's servers, and then distributes copies of the MP3 audio files from its servers to its users in the United States, enabling its users to download those MP3 files to their computers, tablets, or smartphones," the complaint reads. "Defendants are depriving Plaintiffs and their recording artists of the fruits of their labor, Defendants are profiting from the operation of the YTMP3 website. Through the promise of illicit delivery of free music, Defendants have attracted millions of users to the YTMP3 website, which in turn generates advertising revenues for Defendants," the labels add.
And this is a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? I do this all the time. If you don't want people listening to your music, maybe you shouldn't put it on the internet?
Just saying....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score:5, Insightful)
First..on YouTube, so you don't know the source and quality and then ripped to lossy mp3 format, and I'm guessing it isn't likely to be very high quality mp3.
This is almost analogous to trying to record songs off FM radio onto cassettes...except without having to dodge the DJ talking over the music.
Does no one put value into decent sounding music (just talking about the fidelity of the recording here, not getting into the quality of actual musicianship in the modern day).
Re: (Score:2)
I have to imagine the quality of this music is pretty dismal?
"Dismal" is relative. The popularity of these sites suggests that the quality is "good enough" for the consuming audience.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm...I think this new way of thinking about music is a loud statement on the quality of music content being put out today.
Musicianship has gone out the door, and I think it is exemplified by music not seeming important to youth as yourself, no emotional or binding common anthem for your generation. I think popular music died sometime just at the start of the 90's for a plethora of reasons.
Your post is kinda starting to confirm that for me.
I find that sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Musicianship is still alive in older metal and hard rock bands and progressive rock bands as well as jazz. However, there are not as many good young bands as there used to be, so yeah, musicianship is being downgraded...dunno if it will ever finally die.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube audio quality at the HD setting (720p/1080p) is 128kbps AAC, which is close to being considered "audibly transparent" (I believe for AAC the bitrate is a little higher for that - 192kbps?). At lower quality settings, the audio quality does go down.
And a lot of it is ripped, so you do
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when I was 16-24yrs, I was into and enjoyed high fidelity stereo....my friends all did as well.
Hell, when I was about 12yrs, I went into a high end audio shop at the time, and heard my first pair of Klipschorns hooked to a McIntosh tube amp...and was hooked.
I've been building my system ever since then...started with little crappy stereo from Santa for xmas one year...and over the years with $ from lawn mowing, and baby sitting, I bought and traded thr
Few ever cared about quality sound (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, when I was about 12yrs, I went into a high end audio shop at the time, and heard my first pair of Klipschorns hooked to a McIntosh tube amp...and was hooked.
While there is nothing wrong with appreciating high quality sound, being willing to pay big $ for it makes you something of an outlier among the General Public.
But I wasn't the stand out of my day...all of my friends for the most part worked for and bought good stereos for home.
They did so because that was the fashion of the day. I seriously doubt many of them were audiophiles. Most young people I've ever met with expensive home stereos tend to listen to them at volumes that will ensure loss of hearing so that they will never be able to appreciate quality sound. In my college dorms 20+ years ago it was de-rigeur to have a ridiculously oversized stereo and to play it at volumes that would wake the dead. Subtle details of the sound were not important. Some of them were actually genuinely nice pieces of kit but that wasn't why anyone bought them.
So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
Why do you assume they ever really cared? People want to listen to music that evokes an emotion in them. For most the quality of the sound is largely incidental to this. Nobody really gives a crap if the latest Brittney Spears album has amazing fidelity.
Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score:5, Informative)
#!/bin/bash
;;
OPTIND=1
while getopts "dh" OPTION; do
case "$OPTION" in
d) DEL=1
h) echo "-d will cause the original to be deleted"
esac
done
shift $((OPTIND-1))
for i in "$@"; do \
WAV=$(echo "$i" | sed 's/\.mp4/\.wav/')
MP3=$(echo "$i" | sed 's/\.mp4/\.mp3/')
mplayer -quiet "$i" -ao pcm:fast:file="$WAV" -vc dummy -vo null -channels 2
lame -h -b 192 "$WAV" "$MP3"
rm "$WAV"
if [[ "$DEL" = "1" ]]; then
rm "$i"
fi
done
Sounds fine. Not like a concert, but certainly good enough to enjoy on a CD.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just use FFMPEG to split the audio from the video. It wont be mp3 (AAC IIRC), but it wont suffer a conversion loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when I was 16-24yrs, I was into and enjoyed high fidelity stereo....my friends all did as well.
Er, not unless your parents and friends' parents were very well off, or all of them were in the military and bought their equipment duty-free in Asia you didn't. Before digital, in America a high fidelity stereo (let alone quadraphonic system) would cost your a couple grand.
I used to have an audiophile-quality system I bought stationed in Thailand, but it was stolen in a burglary. I have a pair of JBLs now,
Re: (Score:2)
No, we weren't wealthy...lower middle class.
No one said you bought the WHOLE system at once, no we could not afford that.
I started off with a present from Santa in about 4th grade...a department store little stereo of a turntable and two small speakers..which maybe were 1'x1'x1'.
Not the best sound in the world, but where I started.
I saved my m
Re: (Score:3)
So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
Somewhere around the time of the Loudness War [wikipedia.org] when many recording artists stopped caring about dynamic range in their music and instead decided they liked the way that amplitude clipping sounded (~1994). As someone who has worked in pro audio stores, I appreciate high-quality systems and speakers. I listen to music encoded at least to 196k through Sennheiser headphones at work. Most of my friends are content with the label "Bose" or "Harmon Kardon". As long as the bass shakes them up a bit, they're happy. I
Re: (Score:2)
When I was 12, I was doing well enough just to hit "record" on the boombox when BBC Radio 1 started playing something I wanted to keep.
(Two years later: substitute "AFN Kaiserslautern" for "BBC Radio 1," but since they were both on AM, audio quality on either of them would've been dismal by modern standards.)
Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score:5, Insightful)
16-bit @ 44 KHz was "good enough" for the average Joe.
And by that you mean "mathematically proven to capture everything the human ear can hear". But I'm sure your cables are danceable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll probably be down-modded for being snarky but just because you're "tone deaf" and can't tell the difference between 16-bit @ 44 KHz and 24-bit @ 192 KHz doesn't imply everyone else is.
I never mentioned the shenanigans of bullshit cables such as this one:
https://www.amazon.com/AudioQu... [amazon.com]
But keep bringing up non sequiturs.
Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score:5, Funny)
I have to say this thread reminds of the joke that audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment :-D
Re: (Score:3)
And how much did you pay, after being convinced by the salesman that you could hear the difference? Or did you get scammed by HD-DVD? Do you believe you can hear 90 kHz, or do you believe Nyquist was wrong, or did you get taken by a staged A/B test?
Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score:4, Interesting)
16-bit @ 44 KHz was "good enough" for the average Joe.
And by that you mean "mathematically proven to capture everything the human ear can hear".
"Experimentally proven to capture everything the human ear can hear, and add some as well". Unfortunately, even the best 16b-bit 44kHz reproduction chains introduce uncorrelated high-order harmonics that fall in the audible range and can add a harshness to the sound that makes people tire of listening more quickly. Higher resolution and higher sample rates push these spurious components farther up in frequency, where they are inaudible, or at least less audible.
Re: (Score:3)
introduce uncorrelated high-order harmonics that fall in the audible range
Arguing against math is rather pointless, you know.
and can add a harshness to the sound that makes people tire of listening more quickly.
It's rather the other way around. Most recordings, including some great early jazz recordings, are "unlistenable" if reproduced accurately, because the engineering simply didn't care abotu top-octave noise. In the early days, there wasn't any equipment to reproduce it with any fidelity, and recordings were mastered to sound great on the equipment of the day. More modern pop stuff people just don't care when mastering, as they know their audience will be
Re: (Score:2)
Err..there are still plenty of higher end audio shops out there, I've been to them.
Hell, even the chain Best Buy has in some stores a high end area called the "Magnolia Room"....I was at one a couple weeks ago, they had the McIntosh MC275 [mcintoshlabs.com] tube amp.
Its out of my range right now...but looking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "masses" of yesterday didn't know either.
This "back in my" shit has to stop.
In the "70's" 90% of the public listened to music of fucking 8-tracks, shitty turntables, or fuckin am/fm radio with shitty single paper speakers.
In the "80's" they "upgraded" to cassettes. ROFL
In the "90's" we got CD and the snobs complained about the "loss" in sound? are you fucking kidding me?
"cheap" equipment and MP3's today is 10 times better then what 90% of the public used EVER.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't grow up in poverty, but was lower middle class.
My parents didn't buy me luxuries for the most part. As I mentioned, I worked before I was 16yrs mowing yards and babysitting to earn extra money. When I was 16yrs, I started washing dishes in a restaurant and worked my way up to head bus boy through HS.
I worked hard, made money and saved to buy each audio piece (and other things I wanted). I didn't buy it all an
Re: (Score:2)
Do kids not work summer jobs and part time through high school anymore?
They do not, for several reasons that I've been able to dig up.
Re: (Score:3)
Aha, so here's the problem: (Score:3)
Through the promise of illicit delivery of free music, Defendants have attracted millions of users to the YTMP3 website, which in turn generates advertising revenues for Defendants," the labels add.
So it's not about copyright infringement, it's about getting money from ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, YouTube and the record labels did figure this one out a while ago. They have various forms of advertising along with the content when it's served from YouTube, they're all getting some cut from it, and listeners are free to enjoy the music.
It's reasonable to claim that the ripping tools are undermining that, reducing YouTube usage by promoting illegal copyright infringement as an alternative, and that they are doing so on a commercial scale for profit. So the businesses who have the legal rights are s
And the net effect this will have? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can think of a few ways the media industry could prevent them, but suing one particular site will not do much in the end.
Re: (Score:3)
What beats me in this is why the hell would you want to further convert the music to MP3 format? What player worth still using does not handle AAC directly?
At which point "youtube-dl -f 140" is all you need.
Probably the cheap USB HU in your car eh? (Score:3)
Or, the cheap usb boombox....
Not everyone plays music only on their PC
Re: (Score:2)
Neither do I, but once you have the AAC on your computer in DRM free format from youtube you can copy it to whatever device you happen to be using.
Re: (Score:3)
What player worth still using does not handle AAC directly?
What player worth still worth using does handle AAC directly? All I've tried recently don't.
But there's no reason to use AAC anymore. It's barely better than MP3, and proprietary to boot. In blind listening tests, OPUS at 96kbps fares better than AAC at 160kbps or MP3 at 320kbps.
If you're really paranoid, you can encode OPUS at 128kbps, for real-world equipment and regular ears 96kbps is more than enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Idiots Strike Again (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
1) The old-school content industry companies succeed at implementing draconian copyright laws, and place exorbitant prices on the content they control.
2) Newer content industry companies place sane prices on their content.
3) Old-school companies gradually go bankrupt as fewer and fewer people elect to pay their prices when much cheaper alternatives are available, and artists realize they can get pretty much the same distribution while keeping 70% of the revenue for themselves, inst
You keep using that word. 99% of musicians (Score:2)
That term doesn't mean what you think it does, though you used it three times in one short post.
Myspace alone offers 53 million songs by 14 million artists, with 13,000 songs uploaded each day. BMG has 312 artists signed to their label. Over 99.9% of musicians are not associated with a label.
Yet there is some reason you want that 0.01% of music, not the 99.99% or so that's independent.
If you feel that you really want to have the tiny, tiny fraction of music that's distributed by the major labels, that the
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh, the return of the Betamax case, should technology be banned because it can be used to infringe copyright? Supreme court said fuck no.
https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
"Jack Valenti: I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. "
VCRs went on to be by far the biggest income Hollywood ever got from movies. Jack Valenti nearly killed that at birth. It was nice rhetoric backed by lots of fake studies, sort of like
Ok, let me get this straight... (Score:2)
"YTMP3 rapidly and seamlessly removes the audio tracks contained in videos streamed from YouTube that YTMP3's users access, converts those audio tracks to an MP3 format, copies and stores them on YTMP3's servers, and then distributes copies of the MP3 audio files from its servers to its users in the United States, enabling its users to download those MP3 files to their computers, tablets, or smartphones,"
So, because something can be used to commit a crime, that is sufficient reason to assume that it is?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Guns can be used to commit a crime too. A lot of crime involves a gun. But we don't ban those, right?
In civilised countries, yes.
Your analogy doesn't work in any case--nobody ever got killed by a stray shot from an MP3.
Re:Ok, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm picturing an SAS man with an iPod, and the officer's shouting at him: "Idiot! I told you to bring an MP5!"
Re: (Score:2)
China and Vietnam are next with near total bans.
Re: (Score:2)
He said civilised, not civilized. English and American notions of the concept do not align.
Although I'm being facetious, it really is a loaded term. You two could argue about it until the sun explodes and get nowhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Guns can be used to commit a crime too. A lot of crime involves a gun. But we don't ban those, right?
In countries that are ripe for conquering and contain citizens who don't mind being defenseless targets for criminals, yes.
FTFY.
When was the last time one of us was invaded? Pretty sure most of the recent invasions have been in countries with armed populaces in the middle east. There are also ways to defend yourself without resorting to a deadly weapon in the first instance. It helps when the assailant doesn't have one either though. You have two perfectly good weapons on the end of your arms and a couple backups attached to your legs. They can be used for more than shoveling food in your face and walking to and from the fridge.
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, sites like YTMP3 are violating the current Terms of Service for Youtube. However Google is really the ones going after them, not the record companies. And, so far Google has put little effort into actually enforcing their Terms of Service beyond forcing the removal of a
Re: (Score:3)
That's all fine and well, for dealing with companies that offer websites to facilitate downloading from YouTube.
But how do you deal with download scripts? You can't. If I can download a YT video using my browser (because it's impossible to listen to the song without downloading it, after all), then I can do the exact same thing with a script like "youtube-dl".
Of course, if they succeed in shutting down the download websites, that'll probably end most unauthorized copying, since most users appear to be too
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget cars, you can kill someone with a car and/or use one to flee the scene of a crime.
Oh, and arms and legs too, you can beat a person to death with no weapon other than your own body parts, gonna have to ban life....
Intentionality of tools (Score:2)
So, because something can be used to commit a crime, that is sufficient reason to assume that it is?
It's not sufficient reason by itself in most cases. But generally there is more to the story than just the existence of a tool.
Guns can be used to commit a crime too. A lot of crime involves a gun. But we don't ban those, right?
Umm, yeah actually a lot of places do. Not surprisingly those same places tend to have much lower rates of deaths and injuries from firearms and fewer crimes committed using one.
There is an intentionality to most tools. For a firearm their designed purpose is to injure/kill. That IS what they were designed to do. Sometimes there are defensible reasons to use a gun for its inten
Re: (Score:2)
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (Score:3)
"... half of 16 to 24-year-olds use stream-ripping tools to copy music from sites like YouTube."
*cough* BULLSHIT! *cough*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a thousand and one websites that do this for you. For example, Google search for {youtube mp3} [google.com].
Like this will help (Score:4, Insightful)
Just use Youtube-dl (Score:2, Informative)
It's a wash (Score:2)
Please explain... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Other than the amount of money in Data that I'm saving by not watching a song.
The amount of money they're missing by not forcing all the ads on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it... because you... you see, it's...
Just shut up, that's what!
Re: (Score:2)
Well it... because you... you see, it's...
Just shut up, that's what!
.....the sudden realization that music videos are mostly crap...
Most people launch music videos then start surfing other pages. What YouTube should have is an audio only option. At least then the data usage would be a lot less.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll play into that daft question...The hits aren't recorded, so the artist misses out on popularity rankings & ad revenue.
If you're using ad-blocking software to avoid YT's ads, then the hits are still recorded, but you're undermining the entire business model that's allowing you to consume the content in the first place. An analogy about eating cake comes to mind...
Re: (Score:2)
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem not solved - you expect the money to pay those artists is just conjured out of thin air? Those artists get their pay out of the revenue generated by advertisers paying the platform to spread their brand. As a consumer, you're given a choice as to how to pay for your content - purchase it, subscribe to it, or have a third party pay for it in exchange for you seeing their ads.
Circumventing the site to get the content without paying is akin to shoplifting. The argument that stealing virtual media is di
Re: (Score:2)
Was there an ad before you played it 50,000 times on YouTube?
Re: (Score:2)
Or before you play that CD you bought once 50000 times....
Re: (Score:2)
You're STEALING $0.01 worth of advertising revenue of which $0.0001 goes to the artists! Won't you think of the dying artists!
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but you have to think about bigger numbers. Let's say 100K people listen to your song. That may only be 10$ for the artist but that's 1000$ for the advertisers!
Won't somebody think of the advertisers!
Don't forget 40-somethings too! (Score:2)
I thought this was how most people 50 and under got their music these days: open up about 8-12 browser windows with content I like, flip on the stream ripper, let the computer run overnight, and wake up in the morning to a collection of a few hundred mp3s to pick through. Happy to hear that the young-un's have figured this out too though!
the solution is so simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Just create a $0.10 per pop Download button in Youtube and look how fast you'll be cashing in.
Re: (Score:2)
400 Dogecoins for a song? That seems a bit high.
Re: (Score:2)
Why rip audio only... (Score:2)
rip it good (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it really "wrong"? (Score:3)
Sure, it may not be legal in some places. But if half the people are doing it, and less than 1% of people care that it's happening, maybe it's time to modernize the law and bring it in to line with societal norms...
Legality and morality are not the same thing, and when such a large percentage of people think something is right, and comparatively few feel that it's wrong, maybe the law is on the wrong side of the evolution of modern society.
Re: (Score:2)
Only happen if we the people can raise enough money to buy back the politicians making the laws....
Just use an addon. (Score:4, Informative)
Given that you can youtube-dl to get an mkv of mp4 file, then ffmpeg -i in.mp4 -vn -c:a copy out.m4a, or similar, which ytmp3 just does behind the scenes and caches its output, this strikes me as yet another publicity stunt to get more and more pro-ip anti-tech laws. These guys think that nothing in the universe is as important than their financial income. Such greed is a cancer in society.
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer to use -f 140 to just grab the best AAC version of the track directly or you could just do -x. There is no need to demux the audio after the download.
This is hysterical: (Score:2)
So, let me get this straight:
Youtube is a company that makes large amounts of money off of people uploading pirated content. It then puts up a cumbersome problem plagued automatic system to "address" copyrighted content problems, but in reality has such a big legal budget that most organizations wouldn't want to go up against it in court.
And now, the MPAA etc are up; in arms over sites that help users "pirate" this pirated content.
I know there is no shame, but that's a pretty big elephant standing in this c
Home Ripping is killing Music (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How many lives does the music industry have anyway? Can't it just stay dead? It must have been killed by enough new technologies by now, with cassettes, CD-ROMs, MP3 players, USB thumb drives, and now Youtube rips laying into it.
Don't forget the player piano [viewfromll2.com]
Use jDownloader instead (Score:2)
I dont see the use for having a website-based ripping tool for youtube videos.
I have been using jDownloader for the better part of a decade, if I recall correctly, and am very happy with it.
Not only does it let me rip mp3s from youtube directly to my PC without going through another sever (with ads) first, I can pick dozens of file formats for audio and video as well as resolutions (if available) for youtube alone. And it supports hundreds of different sites out of the box, many more if you pass the adress
The jig is up! (Score:2)
I was dreading the day that the record companies would learn that they'd been voluntarily uploading their music to a new Napster for years.
Re:Consumers (Score:4, Informative)
So any reason why all these labels dont giv consumer what consumers want?
This suit comes right on the heels of a study which concludes that lawsuits do nothing to prevent illegal copying, but that illegal copies have higher consumer value than the legal copies because of stupid decisions made by music and movie producers and distributors.
Re: (Score:2)
you just described itunes, google music and amazon music. they all songs a la carte
Re:Consumers (Score:5, Insightful)
iTunes is weird, in that you need a special application which only runs on a couple of OSes, to be able to use it. You can play the music on nearly anything, but you can't simply buy it on anything.
They should make a web store. I think this web thing is going to take off; it's not a fad.
Re: (Score:2)
Region coding (Score:2)
You are being given what you want, so what exactly is stopping you from paying?
"Not available in your country". Region coding is one of those things that'll probably still be around for decades until old contracts and old businessmen die off.
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes sells non-DRM'ed music files in AAC at 256kbps. If you still have devices in 2016 that can't play that format, you should upgrade. Even a Nintendo DSi from seven years ago can play those files.
But does it run in Wine? (Score:2)
iTunes sells non-DRM'ed music files in AAC at 256kbps.
Have you or anyone else reading this been able to make a purchase in iTunes in Wine? If not, making a purchase requires first purchasing Apple hardware or a Microsoft operating system.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Try bandcamp.
Here, I'll start you off with some premium grade-A smokey music. [bandcamp.com] Nope, that's not marijuana (though if that's your thing, it should still work out for you). Inhale again and you'll realize it's mesquite. I suppose the two are similar, because smelling this music gives me the munchies, except I don't wanna settle for anything less than slow-fuckin'-cooked brisket.
Re: (Score:2)
The labels never consistently gave consumers what they wanted. As soon as a band started doing well, the music companies created 50 sound alikes. Those weren't what consumers wanted, they wanted new variety...which is anathema to music executives. How would they find it? How would they know when they heard it? They'd have to take chances, but chances cost money. They are in the business to make money, not spend it.
Re: (Score:2)
Half a decade ago.
iTunes runs only on non-free DRM'd OSes (Score:2)
Even if iTunes purchases don't have DRM, one still has to install DRM to use it. Last time I checked, the iTunes client application was available only for macOS (hardware locked with "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext"), Windows (Genuine Advantage anyone), and iOS. Or since when was iTunes made available for an operating system that doesn't itself require DRM?
Re:Consumers (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone old enough to remember when CDs first came out, they were packed with all sorts of security by obscurity measures designed to make sure that they wouldn't play from your computer as well as from your car stereo.
I'm old enough to remember, but I don't remember that. Audio CDs have been around since the early 80s, but protected audio CDs didn't happen until a lot later. According to Wikipedia's page on copy protection [wikipedia.org]:
By 2000, Napster had seen mainstream adoption, and several music publishers responded by starting to sell some CDs with various copy protection schemes. Most of these were playback restrictions that aimed to make the CD unusable in computers with CD-ROM drives, leaving only dedicated audio CD players for playback.
So it seems that CDs enjoyed nearly 20 years of unprotected playback. It's easy to see why. In the early 90s, a hard drive that was large enough to store a CD rip would have cost thousands of dollars. Even video games released in those days on optical media didn't bother to protect themselves because they didn't have to contend with cheap and large drives or affordable CD writers.
Re: (Score:2)
IFPI, RIAA, and BPI have sued users who have the audacity to recall verses and lyrics from songs they heard on Youtube and the radio.
RIAA spokesperson commented, "Each time one of these social deviants hums, sings, or otherwise repeats our intellectual property to their peers represents an enormous loss of revenue to our members. We intend to aggressively pursue legal action whenever possible to recoup all potential losses. It's clear the recent declining revenue in our industry is directly caused by these unauthorized reproductions of our copyrighted material"
They backed down this time [bbc.co.uk] but I'm sure they'll keep trying