Recording Industry Going After YouTube Downloader Site
Recording Industry Going After YouTube Downloader Site
Posted 08/26/2011 at 12:28pm
| by Ryan Whitwam
28
Comments
Print
Legal battles over alleged copyright infringement are nothing new, but the recording industry may be blazing new trails with its most recent action. More than two dozen recording labels have gotten together in Japan to sue the owners of a YouTube downloader site called TubeFire. They are demanding more than $3 million in damages.
TubeFire not only allows user to download the video files for a YouTube video, but to extract the audio track as an mp3. The suit, filed on August 19, claims that this process of copying, converting, and distributing the content is an infringement. The $3 million number was arrived at by estimating the number of downloads processed by TubeFire, then working out what the licensing fee would have been.
This case is unique because the content, infringing or not, is already available free on YouTube already. TubeFire says it has worked to prevent piracy, but that it will close temporarily while the case proceeds. Really, that’s probably all the labels want. TubeFire is far from the only service that offers YouTube conversions. Do you think similar services are at risk as well?
More like this
28
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
ChatterboxChuck
August 29, 2011 at 8:06am
The irony is that on the one hand technology moves foward making digital distribution (legal or not) easier to do and harder to stop while on the other they are trying so hard to prevent this technology from being used. Right now every cellphone not only has the capability of internet and downloads but also of creating hotspots and with the new wifi technology that will alow devices to connect to each other by skipping the router will only make sharing music that much easier. Throw in having more and more hotspots all over the country and now trying to add wifi to cars, groups like the RIAA and the MPAA are ganna go nuts trying to stop people from sharing all kinds of stuff. Soon most sharing will be done off the Internet by people simply sharing files directly with each other thru cellphones, tablets anbd laptpops and just like one of the silly "send this to 10 friends" emails that spread like wildfire, this sharing ability will allow files to travel from one person to another skipping the Internet in most cases very quickly.
But this is just an idea.
eziegler81
August 28, 2011 at 10:46am
Before you know it, you will be getting sued for linking a music video to your facebook account
growler
August 28, 2011 at 7:47am
The record industry is not intersted in producing quality music. The only thing in their mind is making money, they have become so greedy. They stopped recording albums for the bands that used to sell records and instead contracted a bunch of bands for less money to produced garbage, that nobody wants to buy. They have a stupid mentality that lawyers are going to make them rich over night. The only once that are really getting rich over night are the stupid lawyers.
Ghok
August 27, 2011 at 12:02pm
Give it up guys. Provide a good product, and you will still get people who buy your music.
There are so many musicians and so much music out there. The industry is what's hurting the artform the most.
Scatter
August 27, 2011 at 9:15pm
I disagree. Are you insinuating that people are only downloading shitty music that they don't like? There are a lot of great artists out there even if you may have to look a little harder to find them. And guess what, people steal their music as well. the fact is that people will continue to steal stuff as long as they feel that they can get away with it from the safety of their own homes.
Ghok
August 28, 2011 at 6:23pm
No. You misunderstand. I don't think quality has anything to do with it. Everyone has a different idea on what good music is.
My point is that while some people will rip the audio off a youtube video to get an mp3, someone else will be happy to pay the dollar to download it legit. The top music downloads off piratebay are probably not too different from best sellers.
You could argue that those artists should be making more money (and are losing a lot through downloads)... my argument is that I don't think anyone has decided not to become a musican because Lady Gaga isn't as rich as she might have been twenty years ago (and then I'd go further to say that without the internet, Lady Gaga would never have built the kind of fan base she has... and then would maybe be making less again).
There are, like you said, a lot of great artists out there. It's a great time for music.
The RIAA has been pulling this kind of shit for over a decade, and all it's doing it proving how useless they now are. The industry has changed, and they shouldn't have the law's help in enforcing their out of date business model.
thetechchild
August 27, 2011 at 8:32am
This is completely unfounded. If the videos are available freely on a different site, then TubeFire can't be held liable for what users decide to download. That's not distributing at all, since you can already get the FLV just by watching it on YouTube. It might be found to be "illegal", but it couldn't possibly serious monetary losses for record labels.
rook
August 27, 2011 at 6:34am
I can understand my account getting suspended for saying something inappropriate (a while ago), but why isn't anyone doing something about the spammers?
gr3atl10n
August 27, 2011 at 2:43am
What about the free advertising Youtube does for these people, the 18-30 billion it has generated them over the course of its lifetime.
Phooey.
aarcane
August 26, 2011 at 10:23pm
What license fees need be paid to download freely available data? this site is providing a free service that's already freely available. anyone can download mplayer and dump the audio stream from an flv file then lame it, or extract the m4v audio to an m4a on newer youtub files losslessly. there's no basis for this lawsuit. if anything, the site is providing a service to the record labels in this suit by ensuring that there's a quality loss between the original source (youtube) and the downloader (m4v/flv to mp3 transcodes). With such converters you'd almost be better off using your cable to capture the audio stream as below suggested. (seriously, try it. transcode a flac to mp3 then to aac and see how much quality is lost.)
dragonfang18
August 26, 2011 at 8:47pm
This is like suing a gun manufacturing company because guns kill people. Same guns can aslo be used by cops, but just because a criminal used it means its bad!
bling581
August 29, 2011 at 9:57am
Exactly. It's somewhat pointless to target the "middle man" because once a website is shut down or a piece of software removed the pirates will just go and find something else to use. They're fighting a never ending battle.
Scatter
August 27, 2011 at 9:18pm
The RIAA is sueing individuals as well yet people whine about that too. So how should the RIAA attempt to stop people from getting their product for free? And don't say to make a better product. Its against the law to steal music whether its quality or not.
mysterymantis
September 16, 2011 at 7:06pm
I don't want to get into the logistics of how the RIAA makes money. I just want to offer a metaphor....
I see the RIAA as the captain of a large boat. This boat sails back and forth from one side of the sea to the other. One day, the captian notices a small leak in the hull. He yells, "We're taking in water! Avast, ye mateys! Prep the lifeboats! All hands prepare to be capsized!" But yet, upon inspection, it turns out that the leak generates less than a glass of water per day. The captain then decides that at next port, he must raise his ship from the water, and dedicate all his resources to repairing this leak. When asked, "Why are we fussing over a trifle of a problem, one that would take moths of being unmanaged to even begin to do any harm at all?" The captain replies, "Because, I can." Meanwhile, the crew slaves away, and makes no income whilst in port.
Then on the way back to the other side of the sea, he spots another leak.
Yes it's illegal to pirate music. Yes it should be enforced when possible. But is it worth it to dump the amount of resources into they have? I doubt it. Especially since the "statistics" they try to use to back their arguments often are exaggerated, or not logical. And think of all the tax payer dollars that have been wasted trying to enforce it. Go after the largest offenders, leave the small time stuff alone. There shouldn't be more than 1 LE per state investigating this crap, and that's stretching it. Maybe 5 for the entire country. That would ensure only the most damaging of offenders would be sought after. F the RIAA, F them in the A.
Cleaver
August 26, 2011 at 7:13pm
With a male-male audio cable (like for headphone/mic jacks) anything that plays from my sound card I can capture.
1. Plug one end into the headphone jack and the other into the microphone jack.
2. Open Windows Sound Recorder (you know, that cheapo tool included with every version of windows since Windows 95)
3. Find what you want to record.
4. Hit record on the sound recorder.
5. Hit play (in this case, on the YT video)
6. Wait for song to finish. Save as mp3 or whatever.
7. ????
8. Anything but profit.
Not the greatest quality audio but its doing the same thing essentially as what they are trying to stop. If something is playing on my hardware and I want to capture it, I damn well can if I damn well please.
majorsuave
August 27, 2011 at 6:33pm
If you used the blue jack (aux in) instead of the pink (mic) you would get much better results for your sound recordings. As the green output's a line level signal which is what the blue jack expects, the pink jack expects a mic signal and is only mono.
Most sound cards today offer you to record the output of your sound card directly which is even easier.
Oh and this is 2011, Windows recorder is outdated, grab Audacity, it's free and offers enough options to satisfy anyone
Roll Tide
August 26, 2011 at 4:21pm
Record companies are just getting upset because their is no such thing as Elvis anymore or a Ray Charles or the Beatles. Its all autotuned pop trash. So they need a way to make their trash scarce to artificially create demand...
mysterymantis
August 26, 2011 at 3:19pm
So let me see if I'm following this logic correctly...
A company that makes a product that can be used for the purpose of copyright infringement, is responsible for that use. No matter that it is the individual that commits the act, and the product can be used for ligitamate purposes as well.
How long do we have to hear this crap? How long can these A-holes keep this up? Should I be alowed to sue Sears if someone breaks my leg with a Craftsman hammer? Of course not!
These large companies, like the RIAA, have so many more resources than a small company like Tubefire, so they can lean on them, just like the a poker player with the largest amount of money at the table. There isn't anything that the small guy can do. There needs to be a backlash, some form of jeopardy that these cases can present. But there isn't.
It's BS. F the RIAA. F them in the A.
r6srider
August 26, 2011 at 2:41pm
What a bunch of whiny babies the record industry is, they just need to face the facts that cd sales are failing to downloads, and no matter what piracy is possible. If I really want a song from a youtube video, I'm going to get it, but I just use audacity and record my audio out. Sure it's not cd quality, but neither is the quality the this tubefire offers I'm sure. This is just my opinion, but music companies should just let you download the videos for free anyway, because besides youtube, where the heck do they even play? MTV hasen't played an actual music video in over a decade, and MTV2 is just as bad, as is VH1. It's almost to the point of why do bands even make videos anymore. Just my thoughts though.
Happy
August 26, 2011 at 6:45pm
I was wondering that JUST the other day! Why DO artists make videos these days, MTV and VH1 don't really play videos much anymore. And considering how expensive it often is to make a music video (a million dollars is not unheard of) it doesn't seem to make financial sense to spend that kind of money on a video that won't be seen all that much (especially considering profits from music are dropping because of falling CD sales).
TheZomb
August 26, 2011 at 4:06pm
SHHHHHHHHHH, they will sue audacity if they find out.... I mean seriously we don't sue camera makers for allowing you to record movies in theatre's then why should we sue this company for transcoding video and audio.
fellowleo
August 26, 2011 at 1:16pm
They won't go up against Youtube aka Google so they are going after the little guys. That Videodownload plugin is next to get sued then everybody and their grandmother who dares to link their site/blog/twitter/google+/myspace/facebook to any video that contains any fair use music.
Basically this a a new revenue stream for them.
Emgtek
August 26, 2011 at 12:55pm
They Can have Tubefire never used it anyway, Videodownload helper Firefox plugin FTW!!!!
Holly Golightly
August 26, 2011 at 12:57pm
Gosh, I hope my favorite YouTube converter is not in risk. But when 1 collapses, 2 will rise. Plus, most record companies do not even offer music videos to download legally, so what does that say in regards to damages?
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy2 days 1 hour ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj2 days 1 hour ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 22 hours ago
