9 ms·

I'm surprised to see this on HN. This should be called "Illegally download any song". I think the project is extremely cool and you have props from me - but I

by nadams 11y ago

I'm surprised to see this on HN. This should be called "Illegally download any song". I think the project is extremely cool and you have props from me - but I hate it when people try to skate the simple fact that stuff like this is illegal. ROMs and emulators have shown up on imgur many times as "free" - like as if the publishers have released the rights to the game(s).

curiousjorge 11y ago
how can downloading youtube videos be illegal? roms & emulators are perfectly legal. if it was illegal why would it still exist publicly? if something was illegal you bet your ass the USG will take it down.
- Namrog84 11y ago
  How is that troll behavior?
snx 11y ago
This is using youtube-dl, which downloads the youtube video and converts it to an audio file. Not illegal. At least in my country..
- zkhalique 11y ago
  How do you know youtube-dl is not illegal? And where can I find it?
  - silveira 11y ago
    I think the burden of proof falls under the one saying youtube-dl is illegal, doesn't? Also, because everything which is not forbidden is allowed, one would need to show that youtube-dl is illegal, and not that youtube-dl is not illegal.
    - kenbellows 11y ago
      I mean, not according to the law... my understanding is that in most jurisdictions ignorant != impervious. Perhaps burden of proof for a discussion is on the claimant, but it might behoove a user to check their local laws
    - zkhalique 11y ago
      That's not how it works. What your opinion is or even your lawyer's opinion is just an opinion. Ultimately someone can bring a case in a court and it's decided then. You can advance your legal theory as to why it is allowed, and it may be a sufficient defense, or it may not. There is no a priori certainty in these things... the closest you might get is precedent. The jocular saying is that, in England, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden" — and Russia where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed". While in North Korea it is said that "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory"
    - nadams 11y ago
      > I think the burden of proof falls under the one saying youtube-dl is illegal, doesn't? I kind of figured it would be obvious BUT.... > Two days after YouTube-MP3.org, a site that takes music videos and converts their songs into MP3 files, was blocked from accessing YouTube, the RIAA has asked CNET to remove software from Download.com that performs a similar function. CNET, which is owned by CBS, is the publisher of this news site. [1] Here is information on youtube-mp3.org [2]. Please do see my other post [3]. I want to make it very clear - I do NOT agree with the rulings and RIAA bullying. If you want to be upset at someone - call your representatives and ask them to start passing laws that are in favor of scraping. As an aside note - to expand on my original post. Emulators are not illegal by definition (unless they circumvent/bypass encryption - but that's a whole other ball of wax), downloading a free or open source community made ROM for the emulator is not illegal. It is, however, illegal to download a ROM for a copyrighted game. Now, Nintendo isn't going to come after you for playing an old NES game in the privacy of your home - it's still illegal but they aren't going to expend the legal resources and the amount of bad PR to make an example out of you. They may and probably will come after you if you sell or distribute said ROMS. [1] http://www.cnet.com/news/riaa-to-cnet-follow-google-nix-video-to-mp3-conversions/ http://www.cnet.com/news/riaa-to-cnet-follow-google-nix-vide... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-mp3-fights-google-with-lawyers-and-220k-signature-petition-120703/ https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-mp3-fights-google-with-lawy... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10355992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10355992
  - snx 11y ago
    https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ making a local copy for my private use is legal in my country. So as long as you're not uploading you're safe.
- bduerst 11y ago
  The Youtube TOS basically says you can only stream content, and pretty much defines streaming as not downloading for offline or later consumption. It's about as illegal as violating a TOS.
  - yincrash 11y ago
    Well, in the US, it is also considered circumvention, so it's probably liable for civil penalties. The EFF's interpretation of the TPP makes it also seem like for any member country, it could also be liable for criminal penalties. IANAL
  - jeremysmyth 11y ago
    It's about as illegal as violating a TOS. ...which in the US, due to the joy that is the CFAA, is pretty illegal and could result in jail time. https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_%28CFAA%29#Access https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_%... https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew
- nadams 11y ago
  I don't know what country you live in - but in the US it's pretty clear on the court's stance on scraping [1]. I'm not saying I agree with it - but that is the legal precedent. > Although these are early scraping decisions, and the theories of liability are not uniform, it is difficult to ignore a pattern emerging that the courts are prepared to protect proprietary content on commercial sites from uses which are undesirable to the owners of such sites. Straight from the youtube TOS [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. It's apparent the RIAA that is also against it [3]. If you ask the RIAA - they will most likely say you did not purchase a legal copy of it - so therefore you shouldn't own a digital copy of it. Thus making it piracy. It appears my original stance got lost - I'm not saying I agree with it - but these are the cold hard facts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping#Legal_issues [2] https://www.youtube.com/t/terms https://www.youtube.com/t/terms [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/01511613004/is-downloading-converting-youtube-video-to-mp3-infringement.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/01511613004/is-do...
slig 11y ago
The song is downloaded from YouTube, so it's basically the same as if you went to youtube.com and played it from there, isn't it?
- Namrog84 11y ago
  I believe streaming vs downloading has slight implication differences. E.g if they choose to shut it off you can't stream anymore. Or force ads or view counts. Yet in downloaded form you are bypassing those things that have value
  - AUmrysh 11y ago
    How does that work with the "time shifting" laws that allowed VCRs to be used? Isn't this basically the same thing?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - swhipple 11y ago
      One problem is that you're not only time shifting but space shifting to digital media as well. And the laws as written are very specific as to what is permitted. Example: In the US, the AHRA that makes personal space shifting digital audio legal (relevant to the submission) is fairly limited in the media that can be used for copying. Though I agree that they're being used for basically the same thing, computer hard drives aren't covered. A relevant quote from Wikipedia [1] that sums up why I think this act falls short of its purpose: "In each case, the principal distinction between what is and is not covered by the AHRA is determined by whether or not the device is marketed or designed (or in the case of media, commonly used by consumers) to make audio recordings, not the device's capabilities." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Digital_Audio_Recording_Device_defined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Digit...
      - c22 11y ago
lcswi 11y ago
There are tens of thousands of creative commons songs on youtube.
- andrewguenther 11y ago
  That doesn't change YouTube's ToS

by nadams 11y ago

curiousjorge 11y ago

how can downloading youtube videos be illegal? roms & emulators are perfectly legal. if it was illegal why would it still exist publicly? if something was illegal you bet your ass the USG will take it down.

Namrog84 11y ago
How is that troll behavior?

snx 11y ago

This is using youtube-dl, which downloads the youtube video and converts it to an audio file. Not illegal. At least in my country..

zkhalique 11y ago
How do you know youtube-dl is not illegal? And where can I find it?
- silveira 11y ago
  I think the burden of proof falls under the one saying youtube-dl is illegal, doesn't? Also, because everything which is not forbidden is allowed, one would need to show that youtube-dl is illegal, and not that youtube-dl is not illegal.
  - kenbellows 11y ago
    I mean, not according to the law... my understanding is that in most jurisdictions ignorant != impervious. Perhaps burden of proof for a discussion is on the claimant, but it might behoove a user to check their local laws
  - zkhalique 11y ago
    That's not how it works. What your opinion is or even your lawyer's opinion is just an opinion. Ultimately someone can bring a case in a court and it's decided then. You can advance your legal theory as to why it is allowed, and it may be a sufficient defense, or it may not. There is no a priori certainty in these things... the closest you might get is precedent. The jocular saying is that, in England, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden" — and Russia where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed". While in North Korea it is said that "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory"
  - nadams 11y ago
    > I think the burden of proof falls under the one saying youtube-dl is illegal, doesn't? I kind of figured it would be obvious BUT.... > Two days after YouTube-MP3.org, a site that takes music videos and converts their songs into MP3 files, was blocked from accessing YouTube, the RIAA has asked CNET to remove software from Download.com that performs a similar function. CNET, which is owned by CBS, is the publisher of this news site. [1] Here is information on youtube-mp3.org [2]. Please do see my other post [3]. I want to make it very clear - I do NOT agree with the rulings and RIAA bullying. If you want to be upset at someone - call your representatives and ask them to start passing laws that are in favor of scraping. As an aside note - to expand on my original post. Emulators are not illegal by definition (unless they circumvent/bypass encryption - but that's a whole other ball of wax), downloading a free or open source community made ROM for the emulator is not illegal. It is, however, illegal to download a ROM for a copyrighted game. Now, Nintendo isn't going to come after you for playing an old NES game in the privacy of your home - it's still illegal but they aren't going to expend the legal resources and the amount of bad PR to make an example out of you. They may and probably will come after you if you sell or distribute said ROMS. [1] http://www.cnet.com/news/riaa-to-cnet-follow-google-nix-video-to-mp3-conversions/ http://www.cnet.com/news/riaa-to-cnet-follow-google-nix-vide... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-mp3-fights-google-with-lawyers-and-220k-signature-petition-120703/ https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-mp3-fights-google-with-lawy... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10355992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10355992
- snx 11y ago
  https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ making a local copy for my private use is legal in my country. So as long as you're not uploading you're safe.
bduerst 11y ago
The Youtube TOS basically says you can only stream content, and pretty much defines streaming as not downloading for offline or later consumption. It's about as illegal as violating a TOS.
- yincrash 11y ago
  Well, in the US, it is also considered circumvention, so it's probably liable for civil penalties. The EFF's interpretation of the TPP makes it also seem like for any member country, it could also be liable for criminal penalties. IANAL
- jeremysmyth 11y ago
  It's about as illegal as violating a TOS. ...which in the US, due to the joy that is the CFAA, is pretty illegal and could result in jail time. https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_%28CFAA%29#Access https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_%... https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew
nadams 11y ago
I don't know what country you live in - but in the US it's pretty clear on the court's stance on scraping [1]. I'm not saying I agree with it - but that is the legal precedent. > Although these are early scraping decisions, and the theories of liability are not uniform, it is difficult to ignore a pattern emerging that the courts are prepared to protect proprietary content on commercial sites from uses which are undesirable to the owners of such sites. Straight from the youtube TOS [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. It's apparent the RIAA that is also against it [3]. If you ask the RIAA - they will most likely say you did not purchase a legal copy of it - so therefore you shouldn't own a digital copy of it. Thus making it piracy. It appears my original stance got lost - I'm not saying I agree with it - but these are the cold hard facts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping#Legal_issues [2] https://www.youtube.com/t/terms https://www.youtube.com/t/terms [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/01511613004/is-downloading-converting-youtube-video-to-mp3-infringement.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/01511613004/is-do...

slig 11y ago

The song is downloaded from YouTube, so it's basically the same as if you went to youtube.com and played it from there, isn't it?

Namrog84 11y ago
I believe streaming vs downloading has slight implication differences. E.g if they choose to shut it off you can't stream anymore. Or force ads or view counts. Yet in downloaded form you are bypassing those things that have value
- AUmrysh 11y ago
  How does that work with the "time shifting" laws that allowed VCRs to be used? Isn't this basically the same thing?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - swhipple 11y ago
    One problem is that you're not only time shifting but space shifting to digital media as well. And the laws as written are very specific as to what is permitted. Example: In the US, the AHRA that makes personal space shifting digital audio legal (relevant to the submission) is fairly limited in the media that can be used for copying. Though I agree that they're being used for basically the same thing, computer hard drives aren't covered. A relevant quote from Wikipedia [1] that sums up why I think this act falls short of its purpose: "In each case, the principal distinction between what is and is not covered by the AHRA is determined by whether or not the device is marketed or designed (or in the case of media, commonly used by consumers) to make audio recordings, not the device's capabilities." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Digital_Audio_Recording_Device_defined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Digit...
    - c22 11y ago

lcswi 11y ago

There are tens of thousands of creative commons songs on youtube.

andrewguenther 11y ago
That doesn't change YouTube's ToS