Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?

from the interesting-legal-questions dept

Tue, Feb 8th 2011 11:36am — Mike Masnick

There are a variety of different tools out there that let you "record" a YouTube video and turn it into an MP3, just as there are a variety of tools out there for converting Pandora streams to MP3s or converting internet radio to MP3s. Technically it's no different than "recording" something you hear off the radio, which is generally considered legal under the Audio Home Recording Act (which had plenty of bad things in it, but also included protections for people recording at home for personal use).

We may get a test of whether or not that applies to the online world, with the news that former Gnutella P2P client MP3Rocket has changed strategies and ditched its P2P offering to switch to an app that simply records YouTube videos and turns them into MP3s. The company seems to be relying on the Supreme Court's Betamax ruling, by claiming that since all it's really doing is "time shifting" the ability to listen to music streamed via YouTube, it's no different than the ruling that said it was okay to record television shows via video cassettes.

Of course, RIAA supporters and the like will quickly counter by pointing to the various lawsuits over whether or not XM's recording device was legal. Most of those lawsuits ended in settlements, so I don't think there's as strong a precedent that says that turning digital streams is infringement. However, you'd have to imagine that there's going to be one hell of a lawsuit either way.

The reality is that this is yet another case of the law not being able to keep up with technology. There simply is no intellectually honest rationale that says recording songs off the radio is legal, but recording songs off your computer is illegal. It's a weak attempt by an industry that doesn't want to deal with changing technology to put in place laws that prevent what the technology allows. Those never work.

It certainly would be nice to see the Supreme Court note that something like this really is no different than the Betamax ruling, but given the Supreme Court's various bad copyright rulings over the last few years, I have little faith that it will do so. Instead, it would likely just use a case like this to chip further away at the Betamax ruling, just as the Grokster decision did.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: betamax, downloading, mp3s, recording, time shifting, youtube
Companies: mp3rocket, youtube

93 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 11:42am

the only problem I could see with it is if the video you are changing was not put up by the owner of the video. Though my father in law does record youtube audio from his Wii to a cd recorder, so its not like the software does anything new.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 11:50am

How it'll be different....
First, you're missing a parenthesis (sp?) at the end of your first graph.

Second, this situation will be said to be completely different because the internet is involved, and the RIAA is pretty sure that every time you record a YouTube stream as a digital recording, sixteen month-old puppies are personally drowned by Julian Assange....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 11:54am

Re: How it'll be different....
I was going to point out the same thing. "Its the Internet" so we have to do things differently, just like satellite radio is different than normal radio, etc. I wish people would use common sense on these things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 11:54am

Re: How it'll be different....
American puppies!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PW (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 11:56am

Something seems different
"There simply is no intellectually honest rationale that says recording songs off the radio is legal, but recording songs off your computer is illegal."
While I'm not up on the law here and I don't think there s/b anything to prevent this, I'd like to play devil's advocate here. Since the original production is on YouTube, then can't it be claimed that it is made up of both the video and the audio, and that by stripping out the audio the original has been altered? In the Betamax case it's still about recording a TV show for the purpose of time shifting the TV show. In this YouTube example, it's less about time shifting and more about changing it's use from watching the content on a screen to simply listening to the music on devices that could not support video. This may not make any sense, but thought I'd explore this angle to see if others have any thoughts on this reasoning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 11:56am

Re: How it'll be different....
Not only does a puppy get drowned, but Al-qaeda recruits a new terrorist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 11:58am

If this lawsuit occurs and is won ...
I have a prediction. If the app makers (youtube - to - mp3) win inevitable lawsuit the labels will pull a chunk of label music from YouTube. Yet again shooting themselves in their collective feet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re: How it'll be different....
who will drown the puppy while flying a plane into a building of importance...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:02pm

Re: Something seems different
When I'm playing a music playlist of mine on YouTube, I do not watch, only listen.

Certainly I am not alone is this action.

As it could be claimed the 'normal' (or 'reasonable person') only listens to the music and does not watch after the first few times, there may likely be a good basis for disputing the "changing it's use" argument.

Just saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:06pm

Anything that comes out of my speakers, can, and if I want to, will, be recorded.

If I see an advantage to spend storage space instead of continuous bandwidth I will record it. With internet radio, there is also the factor or randomness, as I don't know when if ever, I'll have the chance to listen to that specific music again.

I see no difference between doing that, and the red button on my VCR remote, on my DVR device, on my Cassete Tape recorder.

On YouTube, you have even another thing to consider, you don't know how long that video is going to be available, or if it's going to be crippled.

I don't resell the recording, don't share them, and absolutely don't advertise them. Only use they have is my own private enjoyment. Of course I could buy any of those works, but, what's the fun in that? Have any of you ever climbed a tree to get some fruit only because the act of doing that made the fruit taste better then any other? I see it in that same light. Those recordings may lack professional quality, may be incomplete, but, each of them has a much more personalized touch then a bought product that only involves having the necessary money to obtain it.

Hopefully I made my point clear enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greevar (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re: How it'll be different....
The CIA program that trained and armed Afghan citizens to fight against the Soviet Union? I thought the CIA discontinued that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
codeslave (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:13pm

I think a good rule of thumb is that if a member of the RIAA or MPAA didn't make any money from whatever you just did, they'll consider it to be infringement. They'd charge people each time they pressed a Play button if they could.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
"who will drown the puppy while flying a plane into a building of importance..."

Worse yet, they will convert the unwitting puppy to an extreme form of Islam, promising it 72 Beggin' Strips in heaven if only they would hide a small amount of detonable formula in a whiskey barrel tied to their coller.

Which is why, as I've said or years, we will all eventually elect Michael Vick as our President, and he will single-handedly save us all from the imminent evil of bearded Al Queda Shih Tzus and their insatiable appetite for bacon flavored almost-meat. He will stand at the forefront of this great battle, shirtless, in a Philidelphia Eagles helmet on his head, The King James Bible in one hand and the American flag in the other, and he will resolutely strangle the life out of every last one of these enemy combarkants, as is the will of the American People.

The day is coming, my friends, when you will turn to all of those wierd women you know who own cats, possibly the world's most creepiest animal, and you will look upon them with favor, recalling the great Puppy Terror Scare and its propulsion of President Vick, also called Captain Eyebrows, to the highest office in the land....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
your mothers lover, 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
troll
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nunya_bidness, 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
it is not the will of the American people to rid the world of evil, it is the will of all people to rid the world of evil. Americans are just not pussies like most of the world, so we take action that most of the world is afraid to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
DH, you have officially one every single teh interwebs, ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
wow, ignorance really is bliss...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZdJRDpLHbw

Terrorists, your game is through
Because you have to answer to... AMERICA!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:50pm

Re: How it'll be different....
this situation will be said to be completely different because the internet is involved

not only the internets but also mp3's. uploading mp3's to the internets destroyed all music. imagine what recording mp3s directly from the internets will do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nunya_bidness, 8 Feb 2011 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
we may be slightly ignorant, like all citizens of the world, but... still not pussies!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:01pm

Nice spin, Masnick.

But the real story of course, is that thanks to the increasingly forceful and effective anti-piracy measures taken by the US, this company decided to abandon the business of blatant copyright infringement.

The emerging trend is plain as day, and it's not in favor of the pirates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:05pm

Re:
you know how i know you aren't a content creator?

well, other than posts like this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:22pm

Re:
Nice spin, Anonymous.

But the real story of course, is that thanks to overly draconian copyright laws used to protect something as unsubstantial as entertainment content, the overall population is seeing less and less reasons to follow the laws.

The emerging trend is plain as day, and it's in favour of the majority, not the tiny minority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:22pm

Re:
"But the real story of course, is that thanks to the increasingly forceful and effective anti-piracy measures taken by the US, this company decided to abandon the business of blatant copyright infringement."

In the beginning of the current administration, they said that these RIAA types at the DOJ will not be able to do anything for their industry for six month. I snickered ... my list of what they would do after six months consisted of. Web site seizures (domain name in this case), criminal charges against infringers, jail time for infringers, loss of internet access for infringers, examples being made in a very public way with press releases and perp walks.

Here is why this will fail. Every time ICE or HomeSEC or DOJ is asked if this is legal, they do an end run around the question. They do this because people are pointing out things like, the copyright clause, the 1st, 4th, 14th amendments, prior restraint, etc.

All in all it is only a short term victory that will get slapped down by the courts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re:
"The emerging trend is plain as day, and it's in favour of the majority, not the tiny minority."

6 billion of us and a couple hundred thousand of them. I am wondering who will win this ... ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg G (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:31pm

Re: How it'll be different....
At sixteen months, are they really still "puppies"?

I know to the owners they probably are....

And, I do agree that it's no different than me, back in the early 80's when I was in HS, using my dual cassette deck to record directly from the radio. It's just newer technology allowing me to do the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Rife, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:32pm

Re: Something seems different
Since the original production is on YouTube, then can't it be claimed that it is made up of both the video and the audio, and that by stripping out the audio the original has been altered? In the Betamax case it's still about recording a TV show for the purpose of time shifting the TV show.
So, what you're saying is that it was implicit in the Betamax decision that when playing back your recording, you would be strapped into your chair with your eyelids taped open so that you would see the video as well as hear the audio.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:36pm

"Technically it's no different than "recording" something you hear off the radio, which is generally considered legal under the Audio Home Recording Act (which had plenty of bad things in it, but also included protections for people recording at home for personal use. "

Surely, technically it is very different,
I don't recall taping something off the radio by sending the signal to a third party to do the taping and having them deliver the finished recorded off air product to me.

nonetheless it is effectively no different,
the music is being "broadcast" legally and the copier ends up with a copy for their own personal use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re:
I'm sure there's absolutely no plan being crafted at this very moment to shut down waffles, what, and demonoid, all on the same day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
American pussies!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Re:
Just like there's no plan being crafted at this very moment to reopen waffles, what, and demonoid the day after.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:54pm

Re: Re: Re:
And I'm sure that you pay no attention to what people say, but i still respond like there is some minute hope that you'll say something intelligent.

What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:02pm

Real Player
What about Real Player's YouTube video recorder that pulls a Youtube video and saves it as an .FLV? It also comes with a converter to change that .FLV into MP3, MP4, MOV, WMF.

I love my free, legitimately acquired Real Player tools...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:03pm

Re:
"effective anti-piracy measures"

Please. Name one - just one - "anti-piracy" measure that has been effective. I certainly can't think of one. I can think of many that have been counter-productive and caused many negative unintended consequences, but effective? No.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:29pm

Re: Real Player
There are multiple other browser extensions that do similar things too. Chrome can even do something close itself (via Inspect Element).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:35pm

Re:
I think a good rule of thumb is that if a member of the RIAA or MPAA didn't make ALL money from whatever you just did, they'll consider it to be infringement. They'd charge people each time they pressed a Play button if they could.

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re:
Please. Name one - just one - "anti-piracy" measure that has been effective. I certainly can't think of one.

Ooo, I got one!

All of the old celluloid movies rotting away in vaults that the owners won't let be copied onto different formats even if someone else pays for it.

Making sure that those aren't copied insures that there's no old content around, so people have to buy new content. That's effective, right?

/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:44pm

"Technically it's no different than "recording" something you hear off the radio, which is generally considered legal under the Audio Home Recording Act (which had plenty of bad things in it, but also included protections for people recording at home for personal use)."

Technically, it is different, in that that recordings from the radio (most radio, anyway) are not purely digital recordings that suffer no loss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:49pm

Re: Something seems different
There are several ways Betamax could be distinguished, including both stripping of the "creative" video and stripping of the visual ad content.

Also, there are at least two intellectually honest ways of distinguishing the AHRA. First, digital copies are different than copies from analog radio because there is no loss in quality in each generation. Second, the AHRA was a legislative compromise among different interest groups, and there is no equivalent compromise in place that would apply to this type of recording.

That doesn't necessarily mean a contributory infringement case would win, but it does mean neither Betamax nor the AHRA are the end-all, be-all for this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griff (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:50pm

What about streaming services ?
I'd have thought the real "concern" among these RIAA types is not that someone will record a youtube vid (someone made it possible to watch listen for free already by uploading) but that someone might make it easy to get a $5 / month Napster subscription and then just digitally record 1000 albums, then end the subscription and keep the MP3's for ever.

I frequently use TotalRecorder to record dial in conference calls/webinars from Skype so I can listen at my leisure when walking the dog in the woods. Is that fair use ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:54pm

Re:
Technically, it is different, in that that recordings from the radio (most radio, anyway) are not purely digital recordings that suffer no loss.
There is nothing in the law that says only lossy recordings are allowed.

In any case we are talking about a on shot record here - not repeated recording of multiple generations. Analogue recording can be pretty good at one generation - and some of the recorders that were around when the law was written would have been better quality than current digital recordings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:54pm

Re:
When the laws were passed, perhaps. With modern technology? It's perfectly possible to make exact digital recordings of any radio broadcast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Annon, 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:21pm

Re:
Obviously you have no idea how that video got your on screen in the first place.
The entire contents of the video has to be completely saved onto your local hard drive before/during play. If you knew what you were doing, you could just rip it straight from your own browser cache.

Now, it being a video on your local drive, you can do whatever with it. And ripping the audio out of a video into an audio-only format is one of the easier thing to do.

This app does nothing but simplify the process for the average user who has no clue how his computer works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:22pm

Yes, it is an infringement
on Youtubes terms.

4. General Use of the Service�Permissions and Restrictions

YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service as set forth in these Terms of Service, provided that:

1. You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player).
2. You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service.
3. You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:35pm

Re: Re:
When I was an undergrad CS major we used to play Write That Code (like Name That Tune). We'd come up with a series of tasks and see who could do it most efficiently. Using any Linux distro with a few basic tools installed, I could do that in 3 lines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
While I believe some of the spirit of what you say is true and present in America, the ignorance is in thinking that things are that clear-cut. There is a good soul fuelling your country, but it's got its share of evil 'round the edges...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
teka (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 4:47pm

Re: Yes, it is an infringement
depends on how carefully put together the legalese is.

1. You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player).

The issue is not distribution.

2. You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service.

The "Service", which is probably defined in the terms, is likely the mechanism of the streaming and displaying. Not hacking Youtube = probably not altering "The Service"

3. You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.

"The Content" could be defined as the entire Audio/Visual/layered package delivered from youtube. Once re-created into an mp3, it is no longer "The Content" that was delivered. This seems to be more a provision to explicitly lock-out frame-grabbing overlays or "youtube ad-remover" scripts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 8 Feb 2011 @ 4:49pm

Re: Yes, it is an infringement
But I thought it wasn't their content.... Looks like another company that wants to have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aldestrawk (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 5:06pm

Just to point out something that not everybody may know here. MP3 is an audio only digital encoding format that is more formally known as either: MPEG-1 audio layer 3 or MPEG-2 audio layer 3 MPEG-3, like MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4 are each a group of video and audio encoding standards. I haven't looked at the code or actually used this software but from what I can gather from a CNET review http://download.cnet.com/MP3-Rocket/3000-2071_4-75337655.html the MP3Rocket software will convert both audio and video streams. I am guessing that it allows one to strip out the video portion and have a stand alone MP3 file for just the audio. It seems it's not limited Youtube but can download video or music from any website. I am not sure if the downloads are limited to just using HTTP rather than the old method of FTP under a P2P architecture. So, it's not really much different than before. They are emphasizing this Youtube time shift angle but if the software is capable of downloading an MP3 file and storing it on the computer as an MP3 file still, how is that different than before. It may be because websites are more vetted as to pirated content (via DMCA) than P2P sources. A separate point is that is has been true for a long time that one could digitally record music from the radio. Consumer DAT recording equipment was covered under the AHRA and had to include SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) copy protection scheme. That scheme was to prevent digital to digital copies but allowed home digital recording off analog sources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aldestrawk (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 5:17pm

duplicate comment but now formatted
Just to point out something that not everybody may know here. MP3 is an audio only digital encoding format that is more formally known as either: MPEG-1 audio layer 3 or MPEG-2 audio layer 3 MPEG-3, like MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4 are each a group of video and audio encoding standards. I haven't looked at the code or actually used this software but from what I can gather from a CNET review http://download.cnet.com/MP3-Rocket/3000-2071_4-75337655.html the MP3Rocket software will convert both audio and video streams. I am guessing that it allows one to strip out the video portion and have a stand alone MP3 file for just the audio. It seems it's not limited Youtube but can download video or music from any website. I am not sure if the downloads are limited to just using HTTP rather than the old method of FTP under a P2P architecture. So, it's not really much different than before. They are emphasizing this Youtube time shift angle but if the software is capable of downloading an MP3 file and storing it on the computer as an MP3 file still, how is that different than before. It may be because websites are more vetted as to pirated content (via DMCA) than P2P sources. A separate point is that is has been true for a long time that one could digitally record music from the radio. Consumer DAT recording equipment was covered under the AHRA and had to include SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) copy protection scheme. That scheme was to prevent digital to digital copies but allowed home digital recording off analog sources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aldestrawk (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 5:21pm

format problem
Hmm..... Apparently when posting a comment in html the formatting is lost despite seeing it in the comment preview.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:48pm

Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
Sorry, no.

It looks like 3 will trip them up.

Google V MP3Rocket coming soon...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:08pm

Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
"5. Your Use of Content

In addition to the general restrictions above, the following restrictions and conditions apply specifically to your use of Content.

1. The Content on the Service, and the trademarks, service marks and logos ("Marks") on the Service, are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the law.
2. Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a �download� or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content."
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms

It is a pretty big page and I did not feel like pasting it all here. I suggest you read the page through the link provided.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Buzz Saw (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:40pm

Who needs an app?
Running Linux is the way to go.

(1) Buffer YouTube video all the way.
(2) Copy file out of /tmp/ folder.
(3) Run file through sound converter.
(4) ???
(5) Profit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:54pm

Re: Re: How it'll be different....
NEVER WE REFUSE SINCE ONLY YOUNG PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO USE IT, AND YOUNG PEOPLE ARE EVIL HOODLUMS, IT MUST BE EVIL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How it'll be different....
lol "sightly", no we are all very ignorent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:07pm

Re: Re: How it'll be different....
lucky we were saved by gems as justin beaver, who was the only one who was untouched by the internet

just look at all the ruined musicians who spawned from the internet,
deamau5, abney park, steal 4 ram;(feel free to list more so we cant sue google when they link to them, and not u for linking them)
all for them releasing their work like commies tho peer to peer torrent sites like groove shark, and internet radio sites like the pirate bay(its like hell only worse)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:33pm

Re: Who needs an app?
You can't do that with MS?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 12:46am

Run audacity underneath as you stream video work fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 2:39am

Re:
"effective anti-piracy measures"

There are none (even more so none that US goverment would cook up) as you'll see when "piracy" continues unabated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 2:45am

Re:
My digital satellite receiver receives pure digital radio streams at 256 kbit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 4:05am

Re: Re: Who needs an app?
Have you tried searching for the tmp folder your browser uses inside Windows?

In Linux people would probably use strace to find out what the program is accessing because it shows you what folders it is trying to access along with other information, on Windows there are similar apps like StraceNT.

Google hint: system call tracer for windows

Also on Linux one could use Tomoyo which is really handy for that kind of thing since it shows in gory details everything a program try to do and access.

But people mostly don't care about that they just use one of the thousands of apps that sniff out the link to the flv or mp4 file directly and download that.

e.g.:

CNET: Youtube Downloader
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 4:29am

Re: Yes, it is an infringement
access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player,

Technical fail. The video playback pages are not a technology for accessing the services - arguably neither is the embeddable player.

The technology that you use to access YouTube is

1. Your computer

2. Your OS

3. Your browser

These are not mentioned - so either

a) The terms of service don't (strictly) actually allow you to access YouTube at all.

b) You are allowed to do more or less what you like within your own machine and the terms of service are apply only to pubic activities using YouTube content on the web.

The reason for this may be that they attempted to write a legal TOS that, for techinical reasons, is unwriteable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 4:50am

Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
You forgot mouse, keyboard, monitor, speakers and internet connection. :)

I intentionally included a link. I suggest people read the page, including section 5, instead of trying to pick apart a partial sentence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 6:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results?"

Stupidity actually ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 6:58am

Re: Re: Re:
Way to totally avoid responding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 7:27am

Re: Re:
Selling DRM-free music for low prices on iTunes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 7:32am

Re: Re: Who needs an app?
It is easier with Linux since you know it will be at /tmp and not <someobscurefolder>\temp.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:15am

Re:
Technically, it is different, in that that recordings from the radio (most radio, anyway) are not purely digital recordings that suffer no loss.
What the hell does that have to do with the price of hamsters?
Are you suggesting it's illegal to have a PVR box to record TV because it directly encodes a digital stream on a hard drive?

Or worse, before CDs I typically always used tape, but equally always had records and made my own tapes from them because the quality of the commercially produced tapes was so dire. Are you suggesting that because the quality of my recording was better than the commercial offering it suddenly because illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:00am

Re: Yes, it is an infringement
That wouldn't make it infringement, it would make it a violation of the Terms of Service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:08am

Re: Re:
"There is nothing in the law that says only lossy recordings are allowed."

Nor did I say otherwise, but if he's going to preface something with "technically," he should not say the exact opposite of what is technically accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 10:55am

Re: Re: Re:
Nor did I say otherwise, but if he's going to preface something with "technically," he should not say the exact opposite of what is technically accurate.

Unless, of course, his intent is to distort reality to advance his agenda. We all know Mike would never do that, though. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 3:31pm

Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
"...on Youtubes terms."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/01511613004/is-downloading-converting-youtube-vid eo-to-mp3-infringement.shtml#c596

Definition of INFRINGEMENT
1
: the act of infringing : violation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paschal Rousseau, 9 Feb 2011 @ 6:40pm

Recording Digital Music with DirectTV & DishTV DVRs
You can already record digital music with DishTV and DirectTV DVR services.

How is personal non-commercial recording digital music from an Internet broadcast legal different than recording music from a satellite broadcast?

Does the RIAA get to make up new rules as they go along?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:57am

Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
Thanks...I think. I didn't know that I needed those two links in one place, but I guess I did.

But it doesn't really answer my point... unless I missed yours... were you saying that this is Copyright Infringement, or were you using "infringement" to mean a violation of TOS and not CRI?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
Yes, it is infringement of Youtubes terms.

I never mentioned copyright.

I used to think that I couldn't care less about copyright, but I was wrong, I care less about it everyday.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is an infringement
My bad... I saw "infringement" and thought CRI.

I'm with you now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nunya_bidness, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:13am

How it'll be different....
I agree with you. The good soul in all countries are the people and the evil round edges are the government(most). But also there is evil in those who try to be amusing by making statements about planes and buildings and things like that, many good and innocent people were killed that way. They are the pussies I am really referring to, it is not funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vilig?, 22 Jun 2011 @ 2:52pm

looks
look like you need a newer judicial system
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jack, 22 May 2012 @ 5:35am

just cus
ok im just saying this aritcal waz not what me were looking up so ummmmm.. hi peeps im a gurl and i agree with all you guuys
[ link to this | view in thread ]
barney, 2 Aug 2012 @ 9:09am

YouTube to MP3 conversions would be a popular item, but YouTube currently opposes this practice. There has been a petition posted online with over 770,000 signatures on it to try and reverse this decision, but ultimately it is YouTube�s decision to do as it sees best fit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 22 Sep 2012 @ 9:20pm

downloading music from youtube
Well, I've been fined $200 just because i downloaded music from youtube but luckily i found a method to get rid of that "FBI virus". I am not sure if it was a hacker, because i was reading a article about hackers charging people money for no exact reason so be careful guys
[ link to this | view in thread ]
topn01, 26 Oct 2012 @ 9:39am

Re: downloading music from youtube
The "FBI" thing is a virus with a rootkit called TrojanRansom. It has nothing to do with the content on your computer but a GREAT DEAL to do with the content you choose to VIEW on your computer. In other words, stay away from the more "obscure" porn sites..........:P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 20 Oct 2014 @ 11:36pm

Stupid Internet
My internet occasionally tries to warn me of copyright infringement with mp3rocket downloads, and next time they do, I am going to refer them to the betamax ruling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Audrey, 1 Feb 2015 @ 9:18pm

The final YouTube to MP3 downloader
You forgot XetoWare's Free YouTube Downloader. http://www.xetoware.com/free-youtube-downloader.html. It is truly awesome.

It downloads HD1080p videos and 320kbps MP3s.
Downloads videos with its built in download accelerator, achieving speeds of 3 to 5 times faster than your default web browser.
Also let's me trim the downloaded MP3s, so I can cut the nonsense dialogue out so I am only left with the actual song. Guys who download from YouTube to MP3 know what I mean!

Seriously, check it out!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2015 @ 11:29am

Re: lol cosplay
"...speeds of 3 to 5 times faster than your default web browser."

Therefore, we (me and my worms) call bs. Have a vote!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Valeriya, 14 Apr 2015 @ 2:46am

youtube downloader
i always use http://www.flvto.com/youtube-downloader/?utm_source=lera
it is fast and even cool for long video
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JuliaSoftorino, 24 Dec 2015 @ 7:39am

Re:
Yes, it`s totally legal if you convert YouTube for your personal use and not for distributing
We`ve had this issues when we launched Softorino YouTube Converter (http://softorino.com/youtube-converter/best-site-downloading-youtube-videos-mp3-files) so there`s no problem if you use it yourself only
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sarah15, 27 Jan 2016 @ 12:58pm

Download YouTube Videos
I've switched to http://www.converttoaudio.com because of more options and not a ton of ads that are sketchy. I'm not worried about copyright issues, because I'm just downloading videos and not sharing. I like to watch them offline sometimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joseph, 19 Jan 2018 @ 12:35am

RE : free mp3 downloader
I tried all these and it worked well but later i found mp3converter.zone as one of the most prominent and promising free youtube to mp3 converter. It is free secure and easy to use and downloads in fraction of seconds without any hindrance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
josephmiller (profile), 19 Jan 2018 @ 12:53am

Youtube to Mp3converter
I am a Music lover. I use a freindly Mp3converter to convert Youtube to Mp3,Mp4,3GP formats.
It is a fast way to convert and download all types of videos from YouTube and other websites, for free of cost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
josephmiller (profile), 19 Jan 2018 @ 12:55am

y
[ link to this | view in thread ]