10 ms·

This isn't recording Spotify or Sirius XM. If I want to listen to a song 100 times on youtube, then how is that different from converting it to an mp3 and list

by jdlyga 10y ago

This isn't recording Spotify or Sirius XM. If I want to listen to a song 100 times on youtube, then how is that different from converting it to an mp3 and listening to it 100 times? Youtube is free. Should whoever posted the song have exclusive rights to the exact format you listen to something in? The only argument I can think of besides controlling distribution is getting rid of the ads.

jokoon 10y ago
Of course it's the ads. If lawyers can get a job to sue whatever because money or because ownership and private property, you can bet lawyers will be put to work. Legal disputes seem to follow murphy's law.
izacus 10y ago
Looking for reason, logic or restraint in lawnmowers[1] demanding utter, total and complete control and submission to their DRM demands is rather futile. In all my time in the digital broadcasting industry, there was no logic or thought given from legal teams demand complete prevention of any kind of recording or usage beyond extremely draconian DRM terms. At the ISP/IPTV provider I worked with, at no point noone stopped and thought about how these provisions affect the users. DRM was demanded by content providers (or you didn't have content) and every year the demands for more control, spyware and lockdown of devices increased. The fact that there is practically no concern given to fair use (which should be laid down by law, but has been trivially worked around by content providers' legal teams) means that as soon as technical DRM capabilities will expand, you'll soon only watch and listen to art on completely locked down devices that will call home constantly to make sure you've paid enough and seen enough ads. Removing DRM is already illegal under DMCA in USA anyway. Cory Doctorow can explains and outline the utter catastrophe of modern state of DRM and draconian copyright laws better than I ever could in the new episode of The Changelog podcast [2]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc [2]: http://5by5.tv/changelog/221 http://5by5.tv/changelog/221
- userbinator 10y ago
  Cory Doctorow Two related articles from him which also give a lot of good background on this: http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html ...and one from RMS: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
colejohnson66 10y ago
You can't geoblock an MP3
acomjean 10y ago
In theory the artists make some money on the streaming (youtube or streaming service of your choice) because its counted. Remove the counting by allowing people to rip as mp3 and you remove the small revenue artists/labels share for each play. There is a reason buying a song costs 99 cents (or so) on iTunes but a months subscription to a unlimited steaming service it about 10$ without ads.
zaidf 10y ago
I wonder if RIAA ever pushed YouTube to embed ads in videos downloaded by these sites. YouTube would object since they can't change the ads once it is downloaded so they'd have to sell a different ad package to advertisers for "permanent" ads.
cced 10y ago
Youtube is not free - ads and you're giving your data away. C'mon mate, you have to willfully be ignoring the fact that ripping the songs off of Youtube as opposed to listening to them online cuts the revenue stream.
- ksrm 10y ago
  So does adblocking. Should that be illegal?
  - sfifs 10y ago
    Conceptually it is the same. Many sites do refuse to serve content on detecting Ad blocking but because you're not making a "copy" and storing it for later use, the websites can't sue you - only refuse to serve. If you "hack" the refusal to serve, they could potentially sue but generally won't bother given the economics. In this case, downloading the offline copy gives them a leg to sue - and even then it is more economical to go after the enabling website.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      What if I mute the ad? What if I minimize the browser window while the ad is playing? What if I go to the bathroom while the ad is playing? Are any of those also conceptually the same as theft? If so, where do you draw the line? Is it wrong to mute commercials on OTA TV broadcasts? Is it wrong to change the channel when a commercial comes on? Is it only ethical to change channels between shows, when the ads are not based on the current show? Is it wrong to tear ads out of a magazine, since we all know the cost of the copy doesn't cover the cost of producing it? Until you can answer these questions, you can't claim ad blocking is conceptually the same as theft or in any way illegal. The bottom line is that, every time an advertiser purchases an ad, they take a gamble. It might be that no one sees it, or that it has no impact. Content freely offered obligates no one to watch any part of it, including any embedded advertisements. If they want to enforce restrictions, they must restrict and sell access to it.
biot 10y ago
The argument "oh, hey... it's free" doesn't permit you to use GPL software in a manner unapproved by the license. Same goes with songs.
sfifs 10y ago
See a lot of people make money when you listen to something on YouTube a hundred times. YouTube (via ads), the ad industry (brokering the said ads), the music industry and the artists (revenue share from loyalty based on number of plays). They are giving it away for "free" under the TOS that you "pay with your time" watching ads and don't copy their content. So when you download an MP3 of the YouTube content and listen offline outside of the YouTube player, that money stream goes away - so naturally the people making money off it get angry. And this does violate TOS - so they have a leg to sue on. In the end, the rights holder has the right to monetize their content. So if you do want to listen 100 times offline, buy the song or subscribe to something Spotify/Apple Music which do pay royalties on offline.

by jdlyga 10y ago

jokoon 10y ago

Of course it's the ads. If lawyers can get a job to sue whatever because money or because ownership and private property, you can bet lawyers will be put to work. Legal disputes seem to follow murphy's law.

izacus 10y ago

Looking for reason, logic or restraint in lawnmowers[1] demanding utter, total and complete control and submission to their DRM demands is rather futile. In all my time in the digital broadcasting industry, there was no logic or thought given from legal teams demand complete prevention of any kind of recording or usage beyond extremely draconian DRM terms. At the ISP/IPTV provider I worked with, at no point noone stopped and thought about how these provisions affect the users. DRM was demanded by content providers (or you didn't have content) and every year the demands for more control, spyware and lockdown of devices increased. The fact that there is practically no concern given to fair use (which should be laid down by law, but has been trivially worked around by content providers' legal teams) means that as soon as technical DRM capabilities will expand, you'll soon only watch and listen to art on completely locked down devices that will call home constantly to make sure you've paid enough and seen enough ads. Removing DRM is already illegal under DMCA in USA anyway. Cory Doctorow can explains and outline the utter catastrophe of modern state of DRM and draconian copyright laws better than I ever could in the new episode of The Changelog podcast [2]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc [2]: http://5by5.tv/changelog/221 http://5by5.tv/changelog/221

userbinator 10y ago
Cory Doctorow Two related articles from him which also give a lot of good background on this: http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html ...and one from RMS: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

colejohnson66 10y ago

You can't geoblock an MP3

acomjean 10y ago

In theory the artists make some money on the streaming (youtube or streaming service of your choice) because its counted. Remove the counting by allowing people to rip as mp3 and you remove the small revenue artists/labels share for each play. There is a reason buying a song costs 99 cents (or so) on iTunes but a months subscription to a unlimited steaming service it about 10$ without ads.

zaidf 10y ago

I wonder if RIAA ever pushed YouTube to embed ads in videos downloaded by these sites. YouTube would object since they can't change the ads once it is downloaded so they'd have to sell a different ad package to advertisers for "permanent" ads.

cced 10y ago

Youtube is not free - ads and you're giving your data away. C'mon mate, you have to willfully be ignoring the fact that ripping the songs off of Youtube as opposed to listening to them online cuts the revenue stream.

ksrm 10y ago
So does adblocking. Should that be illegal?
- sfifs 10y ago
  Conceptually it is the same. Many sites do refuse to serve content on detecting Ad blocking but because you're not making a "copy" and storing it for later use, the websites can't sue you - only refuse to serve. If you "hack" the refusal to serve, they could potentially sue but generally won't bother given the economics. In this case, downloading the offline copy gives them a leg to sue - and even then it is more economical to go after the enabling website.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    What if I mute the ad? What if I minimize the browser window while the ad is playing? What if I go to the bathroom while the ad is playing? Are any of those also conceptually the same as theft? If so, where do you draw the line? Is it wrong to mute commercials on OTA TV broadcasts? Is it wrong to change the channel when a commercial comes on? Is it only ethical to change channels between shows, when the ads are not based on the current show? Is it wrong to tear ads out of a magazine, since we all know the cost of the copy doesn't cover the cost of producing it? Until you can answer these questions, you can't claim ad blocking is conceptually the same as theft or in any way illegal. The bottom line is that, every time an advertiser purchases an ad, they take a gamble. It might be that no one sees it, or that it has no impact. Content freely offered obligates no one to watch any part of it, including any embedded advertisements. If they want to enforce restrictions, they must restrict and sell access to it.

biot 10y ago

The argument "oh, hey... it's free" doesn't permit you to use GPL software in a manner unapproved by the license. Same goes with songs.

sfifs 10y ago

See a lot of people make money when you listen to something on YouTube a hundred times. YouTube (via ads), the ad industry (brokering the said ads), the music industry and the artists (revenue share from loyalty based on number of plays). They are giving it away for "free" under the TOS that you "pay with your time" watching ads and don't copy their content. So when you download an MP3 of the YouTube content and listen offline outside of the YouTube player, that money stream goes away - so naturally the people making money off it get angry. And this does violate TOS - so they have a leg to sue on. In the end, the rights holder has the right to monetize their content. So if you do want to listen 100 times offline, buy the song or subscribe to something Spotify/Apple Music which do pay royalties on offline.