RIAA takes on stream-ripping in copyright lawsuit targeting YouTube-mp3

This isn't recording Spotify or Sirius XM. If I want to listen to a song 100 times on youtube, then how is that different from converting it to an mp3 and listening to it 100 times? Youtube is free. Should whoever posted the song have exclusive rights to the exact format you listen to something in? The only argument I can think of besides controlling distribution is getting rid of the ads.

On one hand, I can see the popularity of sites like these since they require no additional software beyond a browser. On the other hand, since they have to themselves download the video and then you download it from them, there is quite a lot of bandwidth waste and they&#x27;re centralised easily targeted single-points-of-failure.<p><i>Cary Sherman, chairman and CEO of the RIAA</i><p>I wonder if people like him live in constant fear of being targeted by pranksters, or worse...

I had no idea this even existed and I&#x27;m excited to try it. Streisand Effect in action -- thanks RIAA for the tip!

I equate this to recording a song off the radio onto cassette when I was a kid. It&#x27;s futile trying to stop this.

Hope they never hear of youtube-dl.

There&#x27;s a lot more you can do by ripping mp3s off YouTube than just using it to get music for free. Sad that they&#x27;re trying to stop people from using this for legitimate purposes because they&#x27;re afraid of the tiny percentage of people who download music off YouTube. Also, how does this deal with people using the new YouTube Go app in India, since that has an option to download the videos?

A very interesting excerpt, apparently from the site&#x27;s owner himself[1] regarding copyright and ad revenues:<p><i>&quot;For years, I’ve had to watch how invisible frames have been attached to many websites that load my site. Such ‘malicious’ traffic has increased immensely and is becoming an increasingly large problem, because ads cannot be displayed to those users.“ Usually, Matesanz’ portal monetizes the site via imbedded ads. If these happen to be loaded in the background on third-party sites, they cannot be clicked. Fake traffic doesn’t generate any money and damages campaign performance on the site in the long term.&quot;</i><p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.onlinemarketingrockstars.de&#x2F;philip-matesanz-youtube-mp3-english&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.onlinemarketingrockstars.de&#x2F;philip-matesanz-youtu...</a>

I feel like one of the biggest market failures here is that the average 16-18 year old doesn&#x27;t have their own credit card, so they&#x27;re excluded from legal ad-free methods of getting music, even if they make money at a part-time job.

<i>SIGH</i>

DMCA works only in US, right? So if website owners move their company to any other country, their service would become 100% legal.