Google blocks MP3 rippers from YouTube Websites that allow MP3 files to be recorded from YouTube are feeling the wrath of the Chocolate Factory, and popular ripping site YouTube-mp3 is calling foul. "Google is accusing us to threaten your safety and wanted us to close this service. If we wouldn't comply they threatened to sue us," said no-last-name Philip on …
this sucks hard, i often use this site & apps if they aren't broke for getting very rare mixes of tracks and stuff no longer available, i like user created mixes also, not to mention alot of instructional video's
when you're tv or media player doesn't have the Youtube app built in.
does anyone know if this is going to affect video?
google seems to be getting more evil by the day, get all the users in, then piss everyone off by spamming google+ and restricting ripping sites/apps etc.
Audacity for me.
I agree about others' comments about adverts however. My kids never bother with AdBlock Plus. I'm always stunned when I use their machines -- so much shit that just annoys. I've got them both using Firefox, so there's no excuse. They say they never notice them, but I say I didn't know they were there not to notice.
Hey, AdBlock Plus even works on El Reg.
Look, it's not really difficult. These bar stewards want to push advertising down your throat, and there are some really cool people out there that who create tools that are effectively like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Lovely jubely.
As the article says, I thought Google was precisely in the business of taking other people's content and presenting it as a service...
Shouldn't the content holders - not Google - be the ones deciding who should or shouldn't have access?
Complete loss of control over your own content seems a pretty high price to pay in return for free file hosting.
Not sure why this wasn't reported here, but other websites (e.g. 9to5Google) claim Google not only closed access but is actually threatening legal action:
"Continuing to violate these restrictions, Cohen [Google's Product Counsel] warns, may result in “legal consequences” for YouTube-mp3. The site has been given seven days to comply."
The whole thing is a massive copyright 'infringer' in the first place, I find it surprising that it's still in business and that the RIAA and BPI haven't shut it down, maybe the argument they didn't like with regards to mp3 sharing, i.e. that some free music or a few free plays maybe helping the industry, is something that they think does apply to YouTube. Or maybe it's because you only get 128kbps copies?
Anyway, there are a huge number of ways of getting mp3's out of a YouTube video, I can't see them being able to stop anyone who wants to. Isn't a 128kbps mp3 copy considered the equivalent of a tape to tape recording of the present day era? Then again they did try to ban tape to tape copying too....
Steady on Jon. You're talking about old fashioned analogue technology, which was replaced by the new digital methods to avoid all the problems with fidelity and copying distortion that went with that old fashioned and discredited technology. And you'd need another computer to convert and record the first computer's audio output; it gets silly.
I've never ever used a YT download site. I just rip the video directly and then toss it to MediaCoder to wav it, use Nero's sound editor to tweak it so it sounds less crap, then command line lame to mp3 it at the settings I want. Or maybe just MediaCoder directly to mp3 at a higher bitrate if I'm in a hurry...
...this way I have the audio to listen to, plus the accompanying video so it is archived for when somebody makes a complaint and the original vanishes.
Those people that point a video recorder at the record spinning around, cracks me up. I like that. Especially when it is a slightly wobbly record, it is relaxing to watch...
@ camnai
Sorry, but when you download copyrighted content for free, you're stealing it, and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the people who have other reasons to want to limit the freedom of the internet. And 'everyone does it' is not an excuse.
FAiL
You don't know about programmers yet. If you do, your hiding and ignoring it. Which either makes you wrong, or evil.
If you have PERMISSION from the band or label[s] in question, to broadcast the content, and that "priority" content they sent you has an audio glitch? (where priority means, it's probably the hottest video campaign they are interested in.) What to do? Especially if you Promised the band or someone at the label it would air. Tick Tock, Deadline.
No problem.
Find the same song, drop it on the time-line, synchronize it, the find the missing little part, tweak it's leading edge, tweak the following edge, sometimes double up for more fatness, et viola glitch free broadcast. This works so well I have even had bands comment they can't find the glitch. IT's mostly a deception trick, it can be harder when you start with a VOB and have to use .flv video to patch a video glitch. Sometimes you can just DESTROY a small part of the video on purpose to hide the glitch.
I have now shown a legit REASON to download copyrighted content for free.
IT's unconstitutional fascist controlled government who are limiting internet freedom piece by piece, things are exactly the way they want them. IT's also why they do such dirty crap in secret!
The banksters have stolen more than any petty thief trying to hear some damn songs on their mp3 player. If there were justice there, instead of monetary terrorism, all the chaos and dis-trust in the markets, labor, and everything else would cease, jobs would come back, and people would BUY more music. That's why people steal, and since this FACT and REALITY is all still being denied by the fascist fucks in corporate media sucking on their CAFR checks. They tow POTUS line, so the FCC grants them permission to LIE, meanwhile the FEDs are happy with their war funding, and nothing will ever change--because it's the way they WANT IT!
@Rich2
Reading is difficult isn't it...
The situation he is describing is this. You are an audio-tech (no idea why he calls it programmers though) working for a broadcast company. A band/label has hired your company to broadcast some song. The file they send you has a glitch but NEEDS to be aired and the label doesn't have any other high def files available at that time. What do you do? Rip the song from youtube or similar, patch the glitch with the correct bit from the rip and bobs your uncle. Since you have permission to air the song from the label and permission to fix the glitch you haven't broken any laws by downloading that song. Thus this is an example of a legal use of such ripping websites.
Sorry, but when you download copyrighted content for free, you're stealing it, and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the people who have other reasons to want to limit the freedom of the internet. And 'everyone does it' is not an excuse.
Mind you, IANAL, but are you trying to tell me that if I use MP4 Downloader to suck down an mpeg4 of one of those YouTube videos of an old 45 spinning with a digital copy of the old 45 -- often some old obscure mid-60s "garage rock" single that's been out of print for nearly 50 years -- and rip an .aif and an .mp3 from it for my own personal listening use, I'm "stealing"?
I could see it if I were ripping a bunch of old "garage" 45s to mass-copy a bootleg compilation CD and selling it out of the trunk of my car, but finding a copy of a favorite old song I haven't heard in a dog's age -- out of print, never reissued on CD anywhere -- and ripping an mp3 from the YouTube stream so I can listen to it again after all these years? If that's technically illegal, than this is clearly a case where "the law is an ass".
"Rip-offs
Sorry, but when you download copyrighted content for free, you're stealing it, and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the people who have other reasons to want to limit the freedom of the internet. And 'everyone does it' is not an excuse."
I'm sorry but Youtube is one big thief. It's full of copyrighted material from TV shows and music albums (half of which don't have any video content just a image) so youtube need to look at themselves before others. They are the ones exploiting copyrighted material and taking money away from artists and profiting from advertising
I'm sorry but Youtube is one big thief. It's full of copyrighted material from TV shows and music albums (half of which don't have any video content just a image) so youtube need to look at themselves before others. They are the ones exploiting copyrighted material...
YouTube is also full of silly videos of three year-old kids dancing to an old Prince tape playing on a boombox in the background whose parents find themselves being bullied by record companies for "copyright infringement" and forced to take down said video of their adorable toddler dancing to an old Prince song because they don't have the financial and legal resources to stand up to corporate bullying -- as if said toddler-dancing-to-Prince footage somehow presents some kind of threat to said record company's profits. Like fucking hell.
Sorry, but when you download copyrighted content for free, you're stealing it
While Big Media would love for copyright infringement to be a criminal crime, right up there with arson and murder; in most places with a clue it is still an infringement. The words "unlawful" and "illegal" exist because they actually mean slightly different things.
Now we get on to an interesting technicality. For downloading <item>, you will be accused of having stolen it (your posting shows that you buy into this rhetoric). The problem is, to have "stolen", somebody must be deprived of something.
.
Now I shall present three examples for you to ponder.
The first is the song "Mandy" by Barry Manilow. I'm none too keen on that song, but a while back somebody made an obscure reference in an email, perhaps a half-assed attempt at invoking a meme. So I fired up YouTube, listened to it, didn't get the reference, and moved on. You could argue that Barry (or his label) have lost a sale from me, but I can say hand-on-heart that I would not have purchased the song. I know it, I've heard it on the radio, I don't need it in my MP3 collection.
Example two. YouTube. Half asleep, I mistyped "Otsuka" (Ai) and it autosuggested "Onitsuka" (Chihiro). Since then I bought a CD album and hopefully a CD single. The problem I have is postage from Japan costs a horrid amount, and items nearer are about as much (presumably to cover their own postage). I wait for friends to go to Japan and ask them to pick up CDs. If it wasn't for YouTube and my typo, I'd never have discovered her.
Example three. The day the Haruhi Suzumiya film (Disappearance) hit The Wired, I downloaded, watched, loved. I'm now the proud owner of the DVD. Still got my fingers crossed for a Steins;Gate boxed set.
While I accept that there are many freetards who rip stuff freely, the idea that download=theft is not as simple as you would like everybody to believe. When you couple this with seemingly arbitrary extensions to the duration of copyright "protection", the desire to stamp upon "fair use" (which is in itself not clearly defined), the wish to make infringement a criminal act and to push measures like ACTA through outside of public scrutiny, plus the murmurs over the use of "orphaned works" (namely a demand for institutional disregard of other people's copyright), you need to look at the big picture, not just a convenient soundbite that fits in with your preconceived views...
Pick your favorite weekly show. Go on Youtube the day after it airs. Odds are you will be able to watch it without any concern about the google's so-called concern about copyright. Even more certain that you can find advertising links to external sites that promise more convenient access, though I think most of those are just trying to get you to install zombot software to support the spammers.
Funny story. I wasted a lot of time over a period of some months trying to discourage this sort of thing. What I discovered is that YouTube is GREAT for wholesale abuse, but reporting abuse is a tedious retail business, and becomes amazingly tedious after the third report of the day. In most cases, I could find dozens of fresh pirate accounts, each with faked video ads for dozens of copyrighted shows. No way to report the entire account, and even if I was focusing on for-profit abuse of one of my personal favorites, there was nothing that could be done. At least not in the world of the EVIL google.
I used to like google. I even though it wasn't the google's fault that the rules of the business game in America were obliging the google to grow like an evil cancer. Then I found out that the google has become the leading lobbyist among tech companies, spending more money on lobbying and bribing politicians than Apple or even Microsoft. Now I do NOT like google and I do NOT trust the google. I don't really trust their search results, mostly wondering what they aren't showing me and I absolutely do not trust any of their ads.
Pick your favorite weekly show. Go on Youtube the day after it airs. Odds are you will be able to watch it without any concern about the google's so-called concern about copyright...
I'm an old MST3K fan from way back; for the past year or so, I've been re-acquainting myself with one of my old TV faves via YouTube. YouTube is practically crawling with entire episodes of MST3K -- with the commercials lovingly removed -- many of them from big, clean rips of old restored fan tapes via the Digital Archive Project's (not to be confused with archive.org) MST3K Project.
Granted, many of those old episodes are available on DVD -- mostly through Rhino Records, my favorite repository for old cult music, movies and video -- but many of those sets have gone out of print, including some of my favorite episodes, so I'm pretty much forced to rebuild my collection either by sucking down mpeg4's from YouTube via the MP4 Downloader add-on, or by downloading .avi rips via the DAP's MST3K Project... for my own personal use, not mass-copying for profit.
Also, when not doing "straight" graphic design, I do political cartoons as an avocation. Often, when doing a cartoon based on a quote from a politician or some such, I find YouTube an invaluable research source; when in doubt about a quote, I'm often able to find the previous night's broadcasts of cable news shows on YouTube which I can watch and download in order to "fact check" and transcribe said politician's quote.
>Videos containing copyrighted content are automatically detected, and copyright holders get a share of advertising.
Which has given rise to a knock-on "business model": claiming copyright for something and hoping that whoever posted the video doesn't realize it's erroneous.
Goo^G^G^G Have a look for "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" - they tried to claim copyright to a parody of Land of Hope and Glory I posted on Youtube, but retracted as soon as I challenged. However, a lot of (it appears nearly all) people don't challenge and assume they're right, so any money from advertising goes to a bunch of parasites who do nothing other than add annoying ads to videos. Some people *even after being told of this" did not challenge, and so have ads on their videos paying money to someone with no right to it at all.
I did write to YouTube asking for these fraudsters to be banned if it turns out as I suspect that they're repeatedly claiming to hold copyright for things they do not - so far, five weeks and no response. It doesn't seem high on their list of priorities :-(
Goo^G^G^G Have a look for "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" - they tried to claim copyright to a parody of Land of Hope and Glory I posted on Youtube, but retracted as soon as I challenged...
Hah, I can beat that.
A couple of years ago, I created a satirical newsreel video using footage I shot of a Tea Party rally; for one of the patriotic musical numbers, I overlaid a mashup using the famous helicopter gunship camera footage of reporters being gunned down from the air by a US Army helicopter which was posted on Wikileaks, and which I downloaded directly from Wikileaks as a .mov file, not from YouTube, although that footage eventually wound up on YouTube, of course, having been released to the public domain by Wikileaks.
So... about a month or so ago, I got an email from YouTube informing me that my use of the helicopter cam footage "infringed" on the copyright to an Al Jazeera TV report on the Iraq War using a copy of that very same footage. Needless to say, I smacked them down by reminding them that the footage in question was downloaded from Wikileaks, who'd made it publicly available to World+Cat.
1) Clear your MSIE cache
2) Go to the Youtube video (in IE) you want to capture, let it load the whole thing
3) Go to the browser cache (keep a shortcut on your desktop for complete ease), see the large file there? Copy it to the desktop...... name it, with .flv - it should play in freebie app VLC at this point
4) load it in freebie app Audacity (which reads audio from video files with free add-on from their website)
5) trim, edit to taste, save as WAV or mp3 or whatever
I was originally going to rant about how it's legal to record from TV, but then realised, everything on YouTube is available at any time unlike a TV. It looks like all Google are trying to do is ensure that if you want to watch something from youtube, you watch it on youtube (like if you record something on sky+ you have to watch it via the sky+ box).
The problem is when you want to watch / listen to something on a device and don't have internet access in order to stream it. Most phones now have the ability to create a playlist which will play via the site, while offline so that should resolve that issue too.
So long story short, nothing should really change if you are using the product / service in the way in which it is intended to be used. If you're not happy with the limitations of the service there are many, many others you can use.
You know how the knowledge that built the pyramids was lost, the same is with recording music.
If you have a device or thing that is outputting music that you wish to record then in the old days you'd record it to tape.
This meant that you had to record in real-time so if you wanted a copy of that 45 minute LP for the car, it would take you at least 45 minutes to do it.
Now everyone wants to 'rip' something and grab all that audio almost instantly.
Kids who are now unfamiliar with tapes and the practices that went with are now stumped when confronted with restrictions such as these.
Use any recording program on your computer, on Windows it's built in, set it to record the output of your sound card, play your video, audio stream, DVD, mp3, computer game etc. Any sound your computer makes regardless of how it did it will be recorded to a big .WAV file. Use something like Audacity to trim that file to what you want to keep and then convert that to mp3.
Sure it's slightly more convoluted than 'ripping' but it ensures you get your audio without having to navigate some protection system.
This post has been deleted by its author
For it was only yesterday that just putting up a new install of LInux MInt Katya and dl'ing Opera and then the add on extensions that I like on it, that I noticed a few new .mp3 rippers of Youtube.
I dl'ed a few, but there were more. I already use save from net, but was curious to try these others.
I mean, couldn't you just dl the vid anyway and rip from there? This is for Opera mind you.
Maybe other browsers don't have such a plethora of 'rippers'.
I like recording German women showing their make up collections and then super imposing it on Electronic music dance tracks, tempo-tracked on time:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=schiminksamlung&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Schminksammlung&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=mum&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsl&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ei=cCviT9OHKYSG8gP3v-zUDg&ved=0CDQQ_AUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=6d7a537ec159f319&biw=1024&bih=612
Alles klar.
Or at least it was. Why is someone always interfering with whatever bit of fun I manage to achieve in this life?
Fucking perverts!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
