Google Legally Going After YouTube MP3 Rippers

[jediagh]

@a victim?
Why back in the mid 70s and 80s was it OK to use a tape recorder put it next to the radio and when the song you wanted came on you could record it onto your tape and then hear it and your leaisure **WITHOUT** having to buy the song from a store on cassette tape?

That same concept is what is occuring now with YouTube expect instead of the radio airwaves it's being streamed digititall via the internet.

 

[bustapr]

lol the only time Ive really downloaded an mp3 file from a youtube video was for a song made by a user and I downloaded it with the users consent to make a guitar cover over it. though this doesnt affect me, nor do I feel guilty of anything for using the site, I get why google is attacking the site.

 

[Guest]

@jediagh, it was not OK in the mid 70s and 80s and it's not OK now! That's like saying we burned witches in the 17th century so it's OK to do it now. Having said that, it's the current state of the law in Saudi Arabia!

 

[Guest]

Actually by the very nature of receiving data over the internet, you ARE downloading the song. Downloading does not mean you have to save it, it's just the act of receiving data. This has nothing to do with radio play since your ears dont have to receive bits of data in order to process it into sound, unlike a computer. Every time you watch a youtube video, you downloaded it. The data is cached in your browser as a file which you could actually go in and retrieve if you wanted. This is how we used to "rip" early youtube/quicktime streams in the past. Just find the file in your temp directory and rename it.

 

[capt_taco]

way to go Google. Do nothing evil.

 

[eddieroolz]

Even if Google tries, they won't eliminate it because there are literally hundreds of those websites out there.

 

[a victim]

There are millions of criminals in the world. Guess we should just give up and let them steal whatever they wish.

 

[happyballz]

[citation][nom]a victim[/nom][/citation]
Once again you have no idea what you are talking about if you did then you would know the difference between stealing and copy rights infringement.
Show me one record label that failed because of piracy with concrete evidence...exactly. I do not condone piracy however music label's archaic distribution and restriction systems will be the end of them (I really hope so); and the start of many more independently funded musicians, this we already started to see and it's becoming common place. Where people after listening music for free decide to donate or not to donate to that musician.

 

[a victim]

Sorry, but the dictionary definition of "steal" includes intangibles like ideas. Record labels and software companies have been severely damaged by piracy. I personally have been damaged by piracy -- so don't tell me it doesn't occur. And it has NOTHING to do with archaic distribution. I distribute software via the Internet. I provide full demos and a 100% money-back guarantee. People still steal from me. As a result, I spend much time building in anti-piracy methods instead of new features, have scaled back development, and will eventually just stop providing new versions. Long ago, a study proved that people will NOT donate enough to support development.

If there are such great musicians out there that use what you consider non-archaic distribution systems, then support them. No one is stopping them from using whatever distribution method they wish. But, stop stealing from the rest of us. There is no excuse to do so if your idea of distribution actually worked.

Fact is, pirates consider people in some businesses second-class citizens without property rights. We have the same rights as you. We have to feed our children too. Stop stealing just because you can.

 

[gm0n3y]

For everyone saying that this is 'stealing' and illegal. Yes, it is against Google's terms, but it is not stealing. Under current law, it is possible that it is copyright infringement (which isn't stealing). Of course those laws are ridiculous and need to be drastically tamed down or removed altogether. Saving a datastream that you are legally allowed to access should not be a crime. Those bits of data are entering my computer, what I do with them once they are there should be up to me.

 

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]jediagh[/nom]@a victim?Why back in the mid 70s and 80s was it OK to use a tape recorder put it next to the radio and when the song you wanted came on you could record it onto your tape and then hear it and your leaisure **WITHOUT** having to buy the song from a store on cassette tape?That same concept is what is occuring now with YouTube expect instead of the radio airwaves it's being streamed digititall via the internet.[/citation]

Easy, ToS and since you're using Google's services they can do whatever they want. You are using their servers directly and using bandwidth that they pay.

This is one time I agree with this.

 

[a victim]

You can claim it is stealing all you wish -- but the dictionaries disagree.

No, you cannot do anything you wish with bits on your computer. Suppose you download all the pages in the NYTimes website, or some subscription website. Do you think that gives you the right to remove the ads, and place them on your website? Suppose you lease software for a year or download a 30-day trial. Does that give you the right to continue using it after the lease or trial expires, just because the bits are on your computer?

In the future, most everything will be software. Most of the cost of a TV is now software or other works protected by IP rights. The software in the chips, the software in the machines that build the chips, in the robots that piece together the TV, the design software to create the physical design and electronics, the thousands of patents involved, etc. The rest is just sand and plastic. When you buy a TV, the money goes to a huge number of people. Without intellectual property rights, no one would be able to afford to create TVs.

It is pirates that are thinking in old ways, not designers. Pirates want to think of non-tangibles as without value. They don’t understand that in the modern world, manual labor is fading away, and it is intellectual property that runs the economic engines. Without the IP rights that you think stupid, the future will be dismal indeed.

 

[a victim]

From the Oxford English Dictionary: Steal - "To take or appropriate dishonestly anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial."

From Webster’s: "STEAL may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things"

Piracy is stealing.

 

[happyballz]

[citation][nom]a victim[/nom]From the Oxford English Dictionary: Steal - "To take or appropriate dishonestly anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial." From Webster’s: "STEAL may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things"Piracy is stealing.[/citation]
Once again for imbeciles and butt hurt software developers that claim that they should get more than they deserve: Court of law could care less about your definitions and your personal interpretations. If this ever was a lawsuit it would be filed under copy right infringement so get over yourself.

No one cares that you personally think you should get much more than what people are giving you for your product. Secondly, you are one naive person to believe that absolutely everyone will give you money and no one will pirate it; it is the reality of doing business- always has always will be. No one pushed you to make the product thus you should have know the risk and costs of doing business beforehand, if not then you are ignorant fool and it is your own fault for unrealistic expectations. I own a business and I know this, maybe it is time for you to gather in and input all the factors in your failure of a business model that you have now.

Additionally, I am still waiting for documentation on your claims with written-in stone direct evidence of big corporations and recording studios bankrupting/failing solely because of pirating.

 

[a victim]

Anyone with a gun can kill you. Does that make it right?

YT makes money from ads. If they can't play the ads, they can't afford to provide the service. By copying the file and replaying it, they can't show their advertisers that they are displaying new ads. It's funny that you claim we are anti-all those things, when you don't even understand how this works.

I am not only pro-Internet, I was involved in the ARPANet before the I'Net. I have been in technology for decades. I am very pro-progress. Using the Internet to violate the rights of workers is not anti-Internet.

 

[a victim]

I will not respond to people that start out with "imbeciles and butt hurt software developers." Second-grade ad hominem are not a substitute for logic. Pirates not only steal the hard work of others, but actually throw childish insults at them as they do.

 

[a victim]

Pirates generally appear to believe they are somehow entitled to the works of others for free. They use all manner of rationalization to claim that somehow the workers will magically be better off if the pirates don’t have to pay for anything. When you challenge the view that we should work for them for nothing, and the flaws in their rationalizations are explained, we then see the discussion turn into streams of personal attacks. If it continues, we usually see them resort to simple homophobic name-calling. I don’t see any value in getting to that point. Feel free to call me what you wish – I turned off the alert and won’t be reading this page any further.

 

[whimseh]

As they should, there are too many lowlives stealing other people's work and mooching off everything.

 

[kdw75]

Stop putting the videos on Youtube if you don't want people to have access to them.

 

[kdw75]

If I go out in public, ie the internet, and start singing then anyone has a right to videotape me. If you don't like it then don't do it in a publicly accessible area.