Alleged German YouTube-to-MP3 ripper sued by labels

The music industry has opened fire on audio-stream rippers. A copyright-infringement lawsuit has been filed in California by a clutch of Warners labels and is targeted at YouTube-mp3.org and its alleged proprietor Philip Matesanz of Germany. The website offers to convert YouTube vids to MP3 files, for free, which allows people …

[Pascal Monett]

How is that supposed to work ?

Okay, yeah, arrgh, piracy, yarrrr, etc..

But hang on a minute, they file a complaint in California against a company in Germany.

I would have thought they would have to file in Germany. Okay, I know, Americans, but still : the judge is going to throw it out on the basis that the USA does not have jurisdiction over Germany, right ?

We've already had that kind of nonsense over the LHC some dimwit filed a complaint against and that was the result. Can it be any different this time ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: How is that supposed to work ?

US judges tend to think that US law applies to everyone, everywhere in the world. They slso get really upset when they make a ruling that is subsequently ignored by a non-US organisation that has no US presence. The *huge* fine applied to Spamhaus (a UK-based organisation) when a US spammer complained about them to a US judge is a case to point (even if the fine was subsequently reduced and then dropped when someone in the US took on the case on a pro bono basis).

[John Lilburne]

Re: How is that supposed to work ?

Tit-for-tat. Germany rules that it has jurisdiction over the US (well in fact the world)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/18/outcry_against_flickr_censorship/

Indeed because the internet occurs worldwide all national jurisdictions apply. Whether one can enforce judgement or not is another matter. Though there is always the possibility of extraditing the alleged culprit.

[AndyS]

Re: How is that supposed to work ?

That Flickr case is totally different. Germany ruled that they should do XYZ in Germany, so they did. They may be a US company, but they were operating in Germany, and complied with German law in their German operations.

I suppose the equivalent would be a US court ruling that this ripping site should be blocked in the US, which would be perfectly reasonable. But attempting to actually alter the behaviour of the site, the company or their operations outside the US, through the use of the domestic US court system, is meaningless.

[John Lilburne]

Re: How is that supposed to work ?

Do the audio-stream rippers sell into the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Music DRM is largely a waste of time...if it plays music to the user, you can record it at the same time at the same quality. I suspect it's more about tracking who's listening to what for "telemetry" purposes than any real protection of copyright.

[Anonymous Coward]

Home taping...

If I can watch it on my screen, and listen to it via my speakers, I can "home tape" it. Nuff said.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: Home taping...

I'd agree with that. However, I can see someone getting a bit pissed if you then offered to perform that service for others (especially as in doing so you accrue wealth).

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh FFS

Then we will just plug a fucking 3.5mm lead into the headphone output and then loop it back into the input and record it the old fashioned way.

Christ on an AT-AT, have a fucking word....

[Elfo74]

"The website offers to convert YouTube vids to MP3 files, for free, which allows people to keep copies of official and unofficial music videos – sans ads, of course."

No... it doesn't.

[Dan 55]

I thought the whole point of the exercise was to lose the video and keep the audio.

No matter, the conversion is done on his server so he's cannon fodder.

I wonder if he put up a blog post explaining how to use two or three open source programs to do the same job he'd also get hauled up before the beak.

[Criminny Rickets]

No.... it doesn't

I think the website itself would disagree with you.

"What is YouTube mp3?

YouTube-mp3.org is the easiest online service for converting videos to mp3. You do not need an account, the only thing you need is a YouTube URL."

[Elfo74]

Re: No.... it doesn't

It does not allow people to keep copies of music videos. It just lets them keep the audio...

[Black Rat]

As some have pointed out the Analogue Hole ripping method is the gotsee in the room but for how much longer? Apple have ditched the 3.5mm jack on the new iPhone so you have to wonder if other companys will follow their lead or rather lack of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to vibrate the headphone speakers to generate the sound, so at worst case you tap the signal there. Even if you DRM'd the signal within the headphones (and stuff everyone's existing headphones, so that won't go down well), you still have to decode it to enable listening. And once you do that, it's copyable. The analogue hole will remain, unless the music industry figures out a way of DRM-ing people's ears.

[phuzz]

I heard about this sneaky trick to get copies of whatever music you want, completely unencrypted! You can play the tunes whenever you want, on pretty much any device after a bit of (lossless) conversion and there's nothing the recording industry can do about it!

What you do is; buy the CD.

[simon maasz]

Just about any music editor software can record what is being played internally on a PC. If you can hear it, you can record it at the same quality it is being played at.

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is this?

The site was probably wrapped around https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ or something.

Is the DMCA just about popping zits these days?