

YouTube-MP3 Fights Google With Lawyers and 220K+ Signature Petition - webtechan
http://torrentfreak.com/youtube-mp3-fights-google-with-lawyers-and-220k-signature-petition-120703/

======
codeka
I don't really understand what's the problem here. YouTube don't want him to
do what he's doing, so they've blocked his servers from accessing their site.
Isn't that pretty much end-of-story?

Maybe it's true that they can't _legally_ threaten him (I don't understand the
relevant laws here), but they're certainly within their rights to IP-block
him.

~~~
chrischen
Since DoS attacks are illegal, I guess you might be able to interpret this as
a form of that. It could be an unreasonable usage of YouTube resources from a
single source.

Maybe this can set a precedent for the PadMapper-Craigslist situation.

~~~
JamesLeonis
The difference is that Padmapper used the Craigslist API, whereas this site
appears to be able to skirt Youtube's API restrictions because it doesn't use
the API.

There also is some way it can skirt the general TOS because of a German law
that says TOS can only be applied between two companies when a contract is
signed, which apparently never happened. I don't quite understand it, but I'm
not a German lawyer.

<http://edge.youtube-mp3.org/gcase/wbs.pdf>

EDIT: I was misread. Padmapper didn't use a Craigslist API. Craigslist's TOS
does state that scraping is forbidden and leniency is at their sole
discretion. I'm not sure how that would play out in a German court, as they
seem to have a different view of how TOS work between companies.

~~~
chrischen
If PadMapper used an api, then why did they receive a cease and desist?

~~~
grabeh
It appears they didn't, but in answer to your question generally, many APIs
will often be subject to usage limitations. Twitter and Google Maps being two
examples that immediately spring to mind.

~~~
chrischen
My point was that with an API, you don't need to send a cease and desist. You
can simply cut off API access.

------
grabeh
I think the central complaint would be that the site in addition to taking
traffic away from Youtube, was then serving ads to users of the site thereby
obtaining revenue.

Google probably have no issue with individuals using tools to download mp3s
(or at least realise there is nothing to be gained in pursuing action) but
when third party sites are intentionally diverting revenue away, this is bound
to cause issues.

The legal analysis is interesting in terms of copyright infringement.
Particularly as to whether the existing method used by Youtube is a 'technical
measure' designed to prevent infringement.

I think it arguably is as a large majority of users will not download videos
direct as a result of the system used by Youtube.

------
maybird
I use this to download from Youtube:

<http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/>

~~~
kaolinite
Same. When I was 15, I wrote a little script that used youtube-dl and then ran
the resulting download through mencoder to strip out the audio. I don't see
why teens today can't do the same :-)

~~~
spindritf
youtube-dl has an --extract-audio option built in.

~~~
kaolinite
Hm, it may not have had it a number of years ago, I'm unsure. I would have
looked at the man page though so I'm certain there was a reason for using
mencoder in the end.

------
mplayer-share
He's not using the API, he's just downloading videos as any user would and
feeding the videos to ffmpeg to produce mp3's.

It's alway been possible to download YouTube videos. They use progressive
download, not ("encrypted") streaming a la Adobe.[1] And they used to use
ffmpeg internally as well. Not sure if they still do.

The only explanation I can think for Google's strange response to this is that
they are under pressure from the RIAA. The RIAA may not like this particular
site for some reason. There are certainly others like it.

1\. There is a common myth that YouTube uses "streaming" and that Adobe flash
player is needed to watch YouTube videos. The RIAA is probably among those who
believe this. It is simply false. I've never had a working Flash player since
I don't use Windows or Linux and I've been watching YouTube videos since the
beginning. Not to mention videos from various other sites that tell users they
need to install Adobe flash player (and open themselves up to flash cookies).

If the RIAA was really serious about stopping people from listening to music
via YouTube, they would do better by going after Google. Though I think we
all, including the RIAA and its members, know they can't win that battle. The
courts ar are on Google's side. And fingerpinting and DMCA notices just won't
cut it.

So this guy is really just a pawn in the game. Google can "negotiate" with the
RIAA, while this guy cannot.

------
avocet
"Google closed his Adsense account"

This guy was tempting fate. Serving ads on content hosted by the same company,
allowing them to see every penny in traffic? I'm amazed some account manager
with a grudge didn't pull the plug sooner.

So far we've seen the Twitter app shutdowns, Padmapper-Craigslist as chrischen
noted, and now this. The established players continue to amass their
information into silos, while the demands of the greater internet keep upping
the water pressure.

------
nodrama
And that's why not all software will be in the cloud.

------
bederoso
Snippet from <http://www.youtube-mp3.org/situation-update>

_Update: Google has released a new YouTube app for Android which allows videos
to be downloaded and stored in a permanent fashion on the device. I don't
think that it is necessary to comment this._

How convenient that they decided to start shutting down services that download
videos/mp3 from youtube while launching an app to do exactly that

