YouTube Downloader Legality Question

I've noticed for a while on cnet.com, the "YouTube Downloader" that downloads and converts a video to MP3 has been near the top for downloads. You can find most songs on YouTube, which could then be downloaded and converted to an MP3, therefore giving you a free copy of the song.

My question is if this is illegal just like LimeWire or uTorrent? I haven't considered doing it but I'm just curious.

 

It violates the youtube TOS iirc.

 

I still don't get how people "own" or "infringe" 1s and 0s, which is all digital data is. But, on topic, yes, to the media companies, it is illegal and if it is used to "infringe" the courts will likely find it illegal as well.

 

The same way that whens omeone publishes a book they own the letters that comprise the words that comprise the novel.

Intellectual property is protect and for good reason. Just because it's not as tangible as a car does not mean it's not real.

 

But some companies (most movie ones) can remove YouTube videos if they "steal" copyrights (some trailers were just removed). Shouldn't the music companies do the same?

 

Lol, they own the letters huh? So let me ask you this: CBS uploads an episode of one of their popular shows to Youtube. It's free for the viewing obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have put it there. Now, record that episode and throw it up on Pirate Bay..and watch the infringement claims start flying. Fair, or greedy? I call greed. Why? Public domain. I spoke on this in a different thread earlier. If you upload data to a public server, you are not protected by the right to privacy or search and seizure. In the same way, if you upload something to Youtube, your claim of copyright infringement is bogus. CBS chose to upload the show for free, on a free website with no restrictions on access to the material.

To cry foul about it being copied and distributed elsewhere is ludicrous, and is a good portion of what is so screwed up about U.S copyright laws. Intellectual property laws should exist to prevent copying and selling works (meaning you yourself copy a CD and toss it up on your website for cheaper purchase, and let people pay for and download it as much as they please, without a license deal from labels, film companies and publishers). It also should prevent others from copying and attempting to make the work "theirs", whether by changing things around or blatantly stealing ideas. It should not be for making a copy of a legally bought item and sharing it with others. You can't "steal" a CD by purchasing it and making a copy and putting it online for others to download. That is not stealing, whether the RIAA and MPAA likes it or not or any other company for that matter. P.S, I know the Windows argument is coming, so let me shoot that down real quick. You don't pay for Windows itself, you pay for the license key. You can't "steal" software, you can only steal licenses. You cannot "steal" a digital copy of a book, of a CD, or a movie unless you steal a physical copy.

 

Well, there is a difference between streaming and downloading, as well as distribution permissions.

Not that I don't agree with you.

 

The specific combination, of course.

I agree on some level.

After all a stream is just a download.

But it's still their material that they own the rights to and they have the right to choose how it's distributed. They may have a partnership with Youtube that allows some kind of exchange - possibly even based on view count or "thumbs ups" and therefor by bypassing that exchange you're viewing their copyrighted material in a way where they won't profit.

They have the right to profit from their intellectual property.

 

You can pretty much assume that if a company has something up without ads on youtube they're profiting via a partnership agreement with youtube. Bypassing youtube to watch the video means you're bypassing their business model and they have the right to that business model.

 

This brings me great memories. Last year, one of my favorite bands released their last album on their Myspace page.

My damn browser cached it all... It would be a sin to throw away such nice musics, so I kept them. I know, I'm a mean person.

 

LOL, I get them from the Flash temporary file.

Not for newbies. They can't save them.

 

Lol, ahh, the old cache trick Let's see the RIAA get around that one. It literally wasn't your doing

 

Why have I not thought of that? Lol...I wonder if that works with places like Pandora or, say Flash-based webcam websites?

 

All of it is downloaded but it can be protected/ encrypted.

 

Which is where GetFLV comes in

 

Of course. There's no way to protect it entirely.

 

I use VideoCacheView, which is portable and 64-bit compatible. Not sure, you're going to need something else if the stream is encrypted.

 

Sorry to necro this thread, but I am faced with a moral question. Right now there is a record company called Rise Records. I like the music of several of their bands. Right now they have every song from all their bands on YouTube, where anyone can watch them.

So do you think it would be stealing to download the videos and convert them to MP3s, if they are already letting people view the songs online for free? I just want them in case I don't have Internet for some reason.

 

I still say no. They put it up for the public to view for free. It makes no difference if you watch it via Youtube or offline. You have to understand, if it's free to view and posted to be free to view, there is no moral issue. If I hand you some bread and then tell you that you can only eat it right in front of me, would that make a bit of sense? If I give it to you, and you meander off, and break a bit off for another person to share, is it stealing?

Don't fall for the BS, it's all about greed and power, not morals.

Btw, I'm going to go check out this Rise Records, thanks for the information

 

If you gave me bread under some precondition (eating it in front of you) what right do I have to take that bread and walk away?

 

How did I know you'd argue with that example? Only you, Hungry, lol. My point is (though I'm sure you caught on to it) is that if you throw something up on a free, public service and say "Hey, this is for you guys to check out for free!"....you can't put preconditions on it, it's completely illogical.

Btw, @Brandonn2010: Ten After Two is amazing.

 

I don't see it as that illogical. Not everything is paid for in dollars. Sometimes the site wants to track you, sometimes they want to track playcount, etc.

Downloading it and watching it locally might be one thing but distributing is, in my mind, an undeniable offense.

 

Ahh, but Brandonn didn't say he was going to distribute it, so that argument doesn't count here I actually won't argue with the play count idea, as that is Youtube's main method of determining success of content. If the site wants to track me, well, we're heading off in another direction with that topic, and I won't be agreeing with any of it.

For what he "says" he wants to do though, I think Brandonn is well in the clear.

Edit: Eh, are there any bad bands on that label, Brandonn?

 

My point about the distribution is that once the user has downloaded the content you don't know what they're doing with it.

And play count as well as other stats (age, gender, etc) are important to how Youtube works, suggests videos, distributes revenues, creates video partners.

That's why it's against the rules.

 

If you're that paranoid, simply don't put content up for public, free consumption? We could go back and forth all day on this, lol. But the thing is, they put it up there expecting for it to be copied. They have to expect it, Hungry, lol. I guess they could take the government approach and just start blocking/taking down websites that post free content, if they are that afraid. But guess how long we'd have an Internet..not long.

It reminds me of the Lars Ulrich situation back in 2000. The guy griped that Napster was "killing bands" and took the "we're starving our artists" route the RIAA likes to take. How cute that a band (along with literally countless other bands) that dubbed tapes of favorite bands and passed them out at concerts in the 80s, decides now that it'll destroy music and artists' lives. All that has changed since then is corporate greed, nothing else. Copying off of Youtube is no more dangerous to the careers of artists than artists handing out free CDs at their concert. All it has ever been about is record execs saying "more, more more!".