World's most popular YouTube stream-ripping site sued by music labels over copyright infringement

[midian182]

Some of the biggest record labels in the world have sued a popular website that converts YouTube videos into .mp3 audio files. The group says that YouTube-mp3.org facilitates copyright infringement through its stream-ripping service.

The BBC reports that Universal, Warner Bros, Sony Music, and others have launched a lawsuit against the German operator of the site in Los Angeles federal court. They are seeking damages that include $150,000 for every alleged instance of piracy.

The site works by simply inputting a YouTube URL, hitting the convert button, then downloading the audio track taken from the video. The Recording Industry Association of America said that YouTube-mp3.org’s 60 million users per month made it the largest website of its kind, responsible “for upwards of 40 percent of all unlawful stream-ripping of music from YouTube in the world."

The labels say that "tens, or even hundreds, of millions of tracks are illegally copied and distributed by stream-ripping services each month" and that YouTube-mp3.org is the "chief offender."

"This site is raking in millions on the backs of artists, songwriters and labels," said Cary Sherman, Chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America, in a statement.

"We are doing our part, but everyone in the music ecosystem who says they believe that artists should be compensated for their work has a role to play. It should not be so easy to engage in this activity in the first place, and no stream ripping site should appear at the top of any search result or app chart."

The claim includes 304 songs that the labels allege have been illegally stream-ripped through YouTube-mp3.org, including tracks from Meghan Trainor, Sia, Missy Elliott, Sugar Ray, James Blunt, and One Direction.

YouTube-mp3.org has not commented on the case. The website claims that it copies music to its own servers. "Different from other services the whole conversion process will be performed by our infrastructure, and you only have to download the audio file from our servers."

The music industry also took aim at those organizations it believes support stream-ripping sites. "We hope that responsible advertisers, search engines and hosting providers will also reflect on the ethics of supporting sites that enrich themselves by defrauding creators," said BPI Chief Executive, Geoff Taylor.

A hearing date has yet to be set.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/66487-world-most-popular-youtube-stream-ripping-site-sued.html

 

[stewi0001]

Cry me a river...

 

[Kotters]

Boy, hope they don't realize youtube-dl is a thing.

 

[Panda218]

Reminds me of my youth when I used to sit and record mix tapes from what was played on the radio.

 

[Lionvibez]

Boy, hope they don't realize youtube-dl is a thing.

lmao they only figured this out 10 years later.

There are numerous browser add ons that allow you to rip youtube videos into mp3.

Day late a dollar short!

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Its illegal? Isn't this just time shifting - or is there a specific prohibition on that for 'streaming'?

 

[Igrecman]

You can do a better job with Audacity using the Stereo Mix input, then saving in Mp3 320 kbps or FLAC if needed. Will they go after the Stereo Mix input next? Calling it illegal?

 

[p51d007]

I just search spotify or pandora. As far as "owning", shoot, if it wasn't made before the late 80's, I probably wouldn't listen to it anyway. My music tastes runs the gamete, from classical, blues, (old 60's through 80's) country, rock (classic)... pretty much anything but (C)rap. I wouldn't download most of the new stuff anyway, so if it isn't on pandora or spotify, I probably won't listen anyway.

 

[Igrecman]

Reminds me of my youth when I used to sit and record mix tapes from what was played on the radio.

Precisely. No one ever claimed that was illegal, if done for personal use.

 

[Bigtruckseries]

One of my car show videos got hit with like 10 copyright violations due to ambient music. Youtube needs to make ambient music fair use - cause it is.

 

[SirChocula]

You can do a better job with Audacity using the Stereo Mix input, then saving in Mp3 320 kbps or FLAC if needed. Will they go after the Stereo Mix input next? Calling it illegal?

How's the sound quality? Correct me if I'm wrong but if the source itself (youtube) isn't 320kbps or FLAC, then recording it through audacity or any other means would not give you any benefit even if you save it in those formats. It would just be a reproduction of the audio quality of file that YT has.

 

[Igrecman]

How's the sound quality? Correct me if I'm wrong but if the source itself (youtube) isn't 320kbps or FLAC, then recording it through audacity or any other means would not give you any benefit even if you save it in those formats. It would just be a reproduction of the audio quality of file that YT has.

You're right, but at least this wouldn't add more compression in FLAC or almost none in MP3 320kbps. I dunno what the site mentioned uses for compression though.

Edit: it's 128kbps. Hence it will add some more noticeable compression.

 

[Bruce Fraser]

I don't get it.
For years, I've wondered why the media companies aren't suing the pants off YouTube, for the millions of songs people have posted there. Sure, some are "official" video releases, but I venture that's a very small minority.

And the people who include the notice "No copyright infringement intended"--that's utter rubbish. If you don't own it, you may post an excerpt (that's what "fair use" is all about), but not the whole thing.

 

[Igrecman]

Lots of artists wouldn't exist without pirated mp3. Any artist nowadays can be famous around the world in a matter of days without having published any album. That's huge. Grimes comes to mind. She started off MySpace giving free songs (two free albums) and later when her first commercial album Visions came out, she said publicly that she didn't mind if people shared it.

 

[Lurker101]

I find this to be very dubious at best. I mean NOBODY is downloading James Blunts music, legally or illegal. Nobody can be that bloody stupid.

 

[wastedkill]

Where do I sue? I've got a song I wrote on youtube and its been ripped Trillions of times using the site above.

 

[GirlDownunder]

Kind of sh*tty to actually have bought the LP, only to have it go to cr*p over time....in my mind, I ought to be able to download it, since I bought it.

And what about the concerts on video? Even if you had the money to buy a ticket- if they sell out, tough luck. Or, there's a duo which appeared on a show-- never recorded.

Why shouldn't I be able to snag those?

Sorry. This is the Sony-company-types suing-- the very ones who ripped artists off BIG TIME, forever, & now are crying....tough to you, too.

 

[Mister Rios]

Reminds me of my youth when I used to sit and record mix tapes from what was played on the radio.

Precisely. No one ever claimed that was illegal, if done for personal use.

What a load of bull crap. So if I go to a record store and want an album for my collection, and state that it's for personal use only, it will be provided to me free of any charge?

 

[Igrecman]

What a load of bull crap. So if I go to a record store and want an album for my collection, and state that it's for personal use only, it will be provided to me free of any charge?

LOL you must be very young. Audio Tape Recorders (Stereo Tape Decks) in the 70's, 80's and 90's were sold just for that,,,recording radio and music. People were buying it as tape player too but mostly to record the songs they wanted when it played on the radio or to copy other tapes and LP records and 45rpm. That was how people got music they didn't buy before the MP3 and the Internet.
If it were illegal then to record songs playing on the radio for personal use, they would have sold players that don't record and it would have failed except for the Walkman and car radios.

 

[Panda218]

What a load of bull crap. So if I go to a record store and want an album for my collection, and state that it's for personal use only, it will be provided to me free of any charge?

No not at all, but no one is stopping you from recording that audio from another source to listen to in the future. Just don't go sharing and selling it and your secret is safe ^^

 

[captaincranky]

Precisely. No one ever claimed that was illegal, if done for personal use.

Whoa! Not so fast!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...sic-CD-collection-violates-copyright-law.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/usin...-the-uk-this-summer-and-no-one-noticed-2015-8

 

[Igrecman]

You may find laws in many parts of the world that are totally impossible to enforce unless they could post a policeman in every home. Like I bought a few years ago the Hauppauge HD_PVR so that I could record for keeps some HD TV shows my Cable TV PVR recorded. If there is a law to forbid this for personal use, they should never have allowed the HD_PVR to be sold in the first place. Same for audio and the thousands of devices sold for many decades to record it. Just don't share it, that of course deserves to be considered illegal.
Fair Use? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

 

[captaincranky]

You may find laws in many parts of the world that are totally impossible to enforce unless they could post a policeman in every home.

"Illegal", and "unenforceable" are two entirely different things. My post was correct from the legal standpoint. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that law will pretty much be completely ignored in the Home. However, it could conceivably be enforced against uploading one's personal material to iTunes. That's where the problem begins. Surely you remember the old adage, "give therm an inch, and they'll take a mile". Internet sharing and copyright infringement by individuals, (and some companies), has already taken that "mile" and many, many, more, just like it.

My point is, the pendulum is starting to swing the other way, and the entertainment industry is aggressively trying to take back that distance, and add a few miles to their scorecard. They're also doing a damned good job of enlisting governments to their cause.

Fair Use? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Funny you should mention "fair use". It was the Sony corporation who won big in favor of "fair use", when they sued to allow their VCRs to be sold for "personal use in the home". Now, they're one of the most aggressive and litigious companies in existence, trying to limit those rights they fought so hard to obtain. I guess that's what happens when you crap out on the hardware segment of your business, and now make more money in entertainment distribution.

 

[Techstar]

One of my car show videos got hit with like 10 copyright violations due to ambient music. Youtube needs to make ambient music fair use - cause it is.

Just make your own music, it's extremely simple these days and anyone can do it.

 

[Techstar]

I don't get it.
For years, I've wondered why the media companies aren't suing the pants off YouTube, for the millions of songs people have posted there. Sure, some are "official" video releases, but I venture that's a very small minority.

And the people who include the notice "No copyright infringement intended"--that's utter rubbish. If you don't own it, you may post an excerpt (that's what "fair use" is all about), but not the whole thing.

Anything can be used in it's entirety for educational and public discussion purposes without any copyright infringement.