GOOGLE sueing

36 posts

Flag Post

Well i was just getting some songs from Youtube when the conversion to Ipod failed and it said “Cannot convert due to this”
http://torrentfreak.com/google-threatens-to-sue-huge-youtube-mp3-conversion-site-120619/
Whats your thoughts on this?

 
Flag Post

Stealing music is/should be illegal?
You don’t say!

 
Flag Post

I just get whats not on Itunes.

 
Flag Post

And there’s no other way to get it, like, the artists’ homepage, a store that sells CDs?

 
Flag Post

I generally use YouTube to find music I like, usually I might like one song from an artist, not a few so I just download them. Artists I realy like, I might torrent the music first and then try to buy the CDs, I prefer them and its nice to pay for what is owed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

And there’s no other way to get it, like, the artists’ homepage, a store that sells CDs?

Not at all!
I admit there might be some music that’s next to impossible to find and buy, but there is very little that you can’t get. The odds are the rarer it is, the less likely torrent sites are going to have it.

 
Flag Post

I download videos like There she is, homemade videos like imdebest and vocaloids. I don’t download any real songs.

 
Flag Post

I remember when I was younger (read: poorer/had no personal income), I remember trying to pirate a specific artist. He had his albums for sail on a website. Everything on youtube was a crappy cellphone video, and there was nothing on any torrent website I looked for.

Anyway, Google suing over this shouldn’t be surprising. If the uploaders copyright isn’t respected, they’ll just not post anything. If fans post it and it doesn’t get removed, they’ll sue Google for not removing it.

In general, I don’t care for copyright laws. However, there isn’t really much debate to be had in this case. More than, the article is hilarious.

“We would estimate that there are roughly 200 million people across the world that make use of services like ours and Google doesn’t just ignore all those people, they are about to criminalize them. With the way they are interpreting and creating their ToS every one of those 200 million users is threatened to be sued by Google,” Philip adds.

 
Flag Post

there’s a big paradigm shift in motion. give it a couple more years and our economic system will be way different. it will have to be.

and google sucks. really really bad.

 
Flag Post

The service itself doesn’t seem like it should be illegal; but some uses for it certainly are.

 
Flag Post

well what’s awkward here is that youtube is often used for copyright violations, but they defend themselves by saying “it also has a legal use and therefor it should be legal, and any illegal use of it is not our accountability”. but now they are suing someone else that defend themselves in exactly the same manner.

and google is probably going to win, because google is owned by rich Jews. yes. they control everything now.

if they weren’t so confident i don’t think they’d ever have drawn this much attention to something that could hurt them. they’re trying to defeat the defence they themselves use…

 
Flag Post

You really need to stop being such a crazy person, omega.

Google will probably win because their ToS are reasonable, and they are being breached by other companies. This is not the same as “Some people use this service illegally, but it also has legal uses.”

 
Flag Post

yes is it entirely the same. i bet the conversion provider has the same ToS, or otherwise they could simply make it.

i’m crazy now for telling it like it is?

 
Flag Post

Yes, you are. Because Google does not allow users to illegally download the stuff to their PCs.
That company does.

There is a huge difference between giving someone the ability access something that has been shared online and downloading something from that source without the approval of the uploader or the service that enabled him to share it.

 
Flag Post

oh well, in that case i like being crazy, because we need people to tell it like it is.

unlike you, who doesn’t see that by allowing people to stream them, youtube can just as much be culpable for giving people the opportunity to download. i mean, there are other more creative options than such conversion sites. you can also play it in real time and simply record your audio.

also even by allowing users to make copyrighted material available for streaming is also copyright breach. it doesn’t have to be a download for there to be a copyright breach. and of course youtube can defend itself by saying that that’s not the legal purpose for which youtube is intended and therefor only the user is culpable, but so can these conversion sites defned themselves the exact same way.

which i already explained but you apparently didn’t get it.


i mean seriously, what basis do they have to make stream-to-download conversion illegal? this totally sounds like a legitimate and useful utility, and for youtube to try to demand an outright ban on such a utility from being allowed to be used, just so they can get money off of this grey area is extremely questionable.

you might as well sue the internet for making illegal downloads possible in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Playing the devil’s advocate, eh?

Theoretically you can only upload stuff like videos if you have the OK by the artist or the publisher. Of course it doesn’t always go like that, but that’s what the ToS say. If you violate against them your video can get taken down as soon as someone complains (ideally YouTube should take it down automatically, but that’s a different story).
Recording the audio directly is just as illegal as making an illegal download available, but it is close to impossible to find out about that. And it is definitely not YouTube’s fault if someone does that.
The main difference in this case is that this site is openly advertising what it is doing. It is using what YouTube is offering legally and uses is in an obviously illegal way. I see no way how they are going to win a case against Google here.

 
Flag Post

I feel like you’re trying to argue a point that isn’t there. Also from the source:

Citing the ToS for YouTube’s API, Cohen insists that offering any kind of service that allows YouTube content to be downloaded (as opposed to simply streamed) is prohibited.
Furthermore, Cohen underlines the fact that to “separate, isolate, or modify the audio or video components of any YouTube audiovisual content made available through the YouTube API” is forbidden, as is externally storing copies of YouTube content.

Google is saying “This is something we don’t allow people to do with our service.” It doesn’t matter at that point whether it’s legal or illegal to do it according to US law (which Google would have to follow, being a US company). What matters is that they say their service cannot be used like this, and other companies are violating their terms of service.

They never requested stream-to-download be made illegal. They never requested it be outright banned.

 
Flag Post

Well, how about google fixed there own problems about all the complaints about how they track you and save all kinds of information you have never agreed to!? they are the ones who should be sued! And really, whats the difference of hearing the song 1000 of times on youtube or hear them from your desktop a 1000 times? If people like it of course people will support them so they can make more (most people). So it dosnt really make that big of a difference IMO..

 
Flag Post

Greedy bastards, all of them.


I got you anyways. Take the coding while you can!
It’s much faster anyways, and you don’t get popups.

Works like a charm on any youtube video, and in nearly any format.
Audio only, or video and audio, the whole thing with good quality.

If the app is removed at some point, you will still have the coding to use the add-on later.

 
Flag Post

btu they’re not sueing them for breaching the terms of service. i don’t think you can sue for that.

they’re sueing for the breach of copyright laws. but that service doesn’t breach copyright laws; just Youtube’s ToS. the users of such conversion software are breaching copyright laws, and i would imagine the ToS of such conversion software.

They never requested stream-to-download be made illegal. They never requested it be outright banned.

then what are they sueing for if not that?

 
Flag Post

Alright, here’s the deal.
The terms of service are a legal binding contract. By breaking them, you open yourself up to legal action. By providing a service that breaks the term of services, that service can come under legal action. The torrents in question were specifically meant for taking YouTube videos and audio files and converting them into free MP3s, which is a massive breach of copyright law and the terms of service.

 
Flag Post

Well the most sites (atleast those i have been on) doesnt talk about that the site is to download youtube videos, it just says its a converting website, and thus it cant violate there terms of service.

 
Flag Post

Update: Apparently, Youtube-MP3 is a German website, and by German law, you have to actively accept a Terms of Service. Furthermore, since Youtube-MP3 doesn’t use the Youtube API, I’m not sure if they will get anywhere with the ToS argument. Relevant.

That being said, I don’t take the owner of Youtube-MP3 very seriously. For the most part, he seems to be playing the conspiracy card, accusing Google of withholding ad revenue, and pushing other companies to not do business with him. Source.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by CrazyTG:

And really, whats the difference of hearing the song 1000 of times on youtube or hear them from your desktop a 1000 times?

In one case the artist has agreed to publish his products there, in the other one he hasn’t.

If people like it of course people will support them so they can make more (most people).

In what kind of dream land do you live?

Originally posted by CrazyTG:

Well the most sites (atleast those i have been on) doesnt talk about that the site is to download youtube videos, it just says its a converting website, and thus it cant violate there terms of service.


The site in question only works when you enter a YouTube addresses.
And either way, as soon as it can be used to get free MP3s from YouTube videos there is a asis for them to take legal action.

 
Flag Post

Well in almost ALL cases its NOT the artist that has published the song on youtube so no the artist did NOT agree to publish it there.
And i dont know what kind of fucked up people you know, but those that i know support what they like so they can keep doing what they do, and dont just take it all without supporting anybody like you apparently do?. and if you just look at my comment again you would see i said ‘’(atleast those i have been on)’’