I don't really understand what's the problem here. YouTube don't want him to do what he's doing, so they've blocked his servers from accessing their site. Isn't that pretty much end-of-story?
Maybe it's true that they can't legally threaten him (I don't understand the relevant laws here), but they're certainly within their rights to IP-block him.
Since DoS attacks are illegal, I guess you might be able to interpret this as a form of that. It could be an unreasonable usage of YouTube resources from a single source.
Maybe this can set a precedent for the PadMapper-Craigslist situation.
The difference is that Padmapper used the Craigslist API, whereas this site appears to be able to skirt Youtube's API restrictions because it doesn't use the API.
There also is some way it can skirt the general TOS because of a German law that says TOS can only be applied between two companies when a contract is signed, which apparently never happened. I don't quite understand it, but I'm not a German lawyer.
EDIT: I was misread. Padmapper didn't use a Craigslist API. Craigslist's TOS does state that scraping is forbidden and leniency is at their sole discretion. I'm not sure how that would play out in a German court, as they seem to have a different view of how TOS work between companies.
It appears they didn't, but in answer to your question generally, many APIs will often be subject to usage limitations. Twitter and Google Maps being two examples that immediately spring to mind.
Don't dismiss the legal situation so easily. This could be an interesting case.
First of, which law is to be applied? Philip and his site seems to be located in Germany, so german law, or american one, because of where youtube is located? Seems to be determined that german law it is. This is important, because it profoundly changes the importance of the ToS and wether they are accepted by simply using the service or not.
The case itself is also interesting. Youtube is a public available resource, the videos are accessible for everyone. This means that it might be perfectly legal to use those for anything, including conversion to mp3. In Germany, that would not be the case if they were proteced with any effective means, which seems to mean with any means at all, like basic encryption (even with a known-to-be-known key). For Youtube-videos, that does not seem to be the case, there is no protection.
This has to be compared to the needs of youtube (i think so at least, if the case is not clear already because of a definitve law), which most probably lose money from operating their service - for another service which earns money - without having the opportunity to earn any money with it (given their ad-based business-model).
Which means that the case can be linked to the discussion of property of digital products, with drm and open access. So no, i think it's not simply blocking access, end of story.
Same. When I was 15, I wrote a little script that used youtube-dl and then ran the resulting download through mencoder to strip out the audio. I don't see why teens today can't do the same :-)
Hm, it may not have had it a number of years ago, I'm unsure. I would have looked at the man page though so I'm certain there was a reason for using mencoder in the end.
Oh dear, the Wifi I was using when I posted that was terrible and - a trip to Venice later - I am unable to delete the repeat comments. I'm very sorry :-S
Same. When I was 15, I wrote a little script that used youtube-dl and then ran the resulting download through mencoder to strip out the audio. I don't see why teens today can't do the same :-)
Same. When I was 15, I wrote a little script that used youtube-dl and then ran the resulting download through mencoder to strip out the audio. I don't see why teens today can't do the same :-)
Same. When I was 15, I wrote a little script that used youtube-dl and then ran the resulting download through mencoder to strip out the audio. I don't see why teens today can't do the same :-)
This guy was tempting fate. Serving ads on content hosted by the same company, allowing them to see every penny in traffic? I'm amazed some account manager with a grudge didn't pull the plug sooner.
So far we've seen the Twitter app shutdowns, Padmapper-Craigslist as chrischen noted, and now this. The established players continue to amass their information into silos, while the demands of the greater internet keep upping the water pressure.
He's not using the API, he's just downloading videos as any user would and feeding the videos to ffmpeg to produce mp3's.
It's alway been possible to download YouTube videos. They use progressive download, not ("encrypted") streaming a la Adobe.[1] And they used to use ffmpeg internally as well. Not sure if they still do.
The only explanation I can think for Google's strange response to this is that they are under pressure from the RIAA. The RIAA may not like this particular site for some reason. There are certainly others like it.
1. There is a common myth that YouTube uses "streaming" and that Adobe flash player is needed to watch YouTube videos. The RIAA is probably among those who believe this. It is simply false. I've never had a working Flash player since I don't use Windows or Linux and I've been watching YouTube videos since the beginning. Not to mention videos from various other sites that tell users they need to install Adobe flash player (and open themselves up to flash cookies).
If the RIAA was really serious about stopping people from listening to music via YouTube, they would do better by going after Google. Though I think we all, including the RIAA and its members, know they can't win that battle. The courts ar are on Google's side. And fingerpinting and DMCA notices just won't cut it.
So this guy is really just a pawn in the game. Google can "negotiate" with the RIAA, while this guy cannot.
I think the central complaint would be that the site in addition to taking traffic away from Youtube, was then serving ads to users of the site thereby obtaining revenue.
Google probably have no issue with individuals using tools to download mp3s (or at least realise there is nothing to be gained in pursuing action) but when third party sites are intentionally diverting revenue away, this is bound to cause issues.
The legal analysis is interesting in terms of copyright infringement. Particularly as to whether the existing method used by Youtube is a 'technical measure' designed to prevent infringement.
I think it arguably is as a large majority of users will not download videos direct as a result of the system used by Youtube.
Update: Google has released a new YouTube app for Android which allows videos to be downloaded and stored in a permanent fashion on the device. I don't think that it is necessary to comment this.
How convenient that they decided to start shutting down services that download videos/mp3 from youtube while launching an app to do exactly that
24 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 74.9 ms ] threadMaybe it's true that they can't legally threaten him (I don't understand the relevant laws here), but they're certainly within their rights to IP-block him.
Maybe this can set a precedent for the PadMapper-Craigslist situation.
There also is some way it can skirt the general TOS because of a German law that says TOS can only be applied between two companies when a contract is signed, which apparently never happened. I don't quite understand it, but I'm not a German lawyer.
http://edge.youtube-mp3.org/gcase/wbs.pdf
EDIT: I was misread. Padmapper didn't use a Craigslist API. Craigslist's TOS does state that scraping is forbidden and leniency is at their sole discretion. I'm not sure how that would play out in a German court, as they seem to have a different view of how TOS work between companies.
First of, which law is to be applied? Philip and his site seems to be located in Germany, so german law, or american one, because of where youtube is located? Seems to be determined that german law it is. This is important, because it profoundly changes the importance of the ToS and wether they are accepted by simply using the service or not.
The case itself is also interesting. Youtube is a public available resource, the videos are accessible for everyone. This means that it might be perfectly legal to use those for anything, including conversion to mp3. In Germany, that would not be the case if they were proteced with any effective means, which seems to mean with any means at all, like basic encryption (even with a known-to-be-known key). For Youtube-videos, that does not seem to be the case, there is no protection. This has to be compared to the needs of youtube (i think so at least, if the case is not clear already because of a definitve law), which most probably lose money from operating their service - for another service which earns money - without having the opportunity to earn any money with it (given their ad-based business-model).
Which means that the case can be linked to the discussion of property of digital products, with drm and open access. So no, i think it's not simply blocking access, end of story.
http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/
This guy was tempting fate. Serving ads on content hosted by the same company, allowing them to see every penny in traffic? I'm amazed some account manager with a grudge didn't pull the plug sooner.
So far we've seen the Twitter app shutdowns, Padmapper-Craigslist as chrischen noted, and now this. The established players continue to amass their information into silos, while the demands of the greater internet keep upping the water pressure.
It's alway been possible to download YouTube videos. They use progressive download, not ("encrypted") streaming a la Adobe.[1] And they used to use ffmpeg internally as well. Not sure if they still do.
The only explanation I can think for Google's strange response to this is that they are under pressure from the RIAA. The RIAA may not like this particular site for some reason. There are certainly others like it.
1. There is a common myth that YouTube uses "streaming" and that Adobe flash player is needed to watch YouTube videos. The RIAA is probably among those who believe this. It is simply false. I've never had a working Flash player since I don't use Windows or Linux and I've been watching YouTube videos since the beginning. Not to mention videos from various other sites that tell users they need to install Adobe flash player (and open themselves up to flash cookies).
If the RIAA was really serious about stopping people from listening to music via YouTube, they would do better by going after Google. Though I think we all, including the RIAA and its members, know they can't win that battle. The courts ar are on Google's side. And fingerpinting and DMCA notices just won't cut it.
So this guy is really just a pawn in the game. Google can "negotiate" with the RIAA, while this guy cannot.
Google probably have no issue with individuals using tools to download mp3s (or at least realise there is nothing to be gained in pursuing action) but when third party sites are intentionally diverting revenue away, this is bound to cause issues.
The legal analysis is interesting in terms of copyright infringement. Particularly as to whether the existing method used by Youtube is a 'technical measure' designed to prevent infringement.
I think it arguably is as a large majority of users will not download videos direct as a result of the system used by Youtube.
Update: Google has released a new YouTube app for Android which allows videos to be downloaded and stored in a permanent fashion on the device. I don't think that it is necessary to comment this.
How convenient that they decided to start shutting down services that download videos/mp3 from youtube while launching an app to do exactly that