Ripping MP3's from YouTube Videos - Illegal?

Cafe Society
1

There are several freeware programs available that will convert the audio from YouTube clips directly into MP3s. I have several YouTube clips saved in my favorites which are live performances not available on CD. The only way I listen to these tracks is on my laptop while online - legal as far as I can tell.

My question is: how is ripping the YouTube audio into an MP3 any different from free file-sharing of the Napster days? Will the RIAA go after those who post copywrighted music on YouTube now due to these programs? Is there a legal loop hole at work here?

2

If its a copyrighted performance then the posting of the video itself is already a violation. I’m not sure, but I would assume that means that just watching it online (especially if you’re aware that its copyrighted) is also a violation. Ripping and keeping even just the audio portion would still be another.

One difference, though I’m not sure of the legalities, would be that on the old illegal Napster you were downloading MP3s that were of a much higher audio quality than the audio on most stuff on YouTube. Though I doubt that lawyers could care less about that.

Still, I doubt the RIAA will bother with YouTube as the content providers (Viacom, Paramount etc.) are already busy suing them.

3

Firstly, we’ll just assume that anything on YouTube is properly the property of the poster to begin with. Now the relevant bit of legalese on their website appears to be this:

(Bolding added by myself.)

Now, at the same time as granting YouTube users the right to reproduce and distribute any content on YouTube, it says that you need to do it through the functionality that they provide you to do so. YouTube does provide you with the functionality to embed YouTube content on your own webpage, thus allowing you to copy and distribute at your own discretion. But does simply providing you DRM-free content–i.e., content that allows MP3 ripping–constitute “provided functionality”? Personally, I would guess that if you wrote YouTube that their answer would be “no”, but the only factual answer to that could ever be found in a courthouse. Of course, if you don’t want to have to fight for your side in a courthouse, it is probably best to take YouTube’s word for it.

But, again I’m just assuming that YouTube would say “no.” The quoted text is probably not sufficient to make a qualified answer. So if you want to know, you would really need to mail them and ask what constitutes “provided functionality.”

4

Hail Ants, thanks for the response,

From what I’ve heard, the typical program samples the audio at 4.5 Ghz (or whatever, I’m not a scientist), which is above the rate allowable for some MP3 to CDA conversion programs. One needs to change the options to convert at 4.1 GHz to get a burnable MP3 (so I’ve heard). Still, my associates inform me that 4.1 GHz is pretty good quality.

So the content providers are suing the RIAA? I’ll be damned. But as soon as a loser is declared, I bet they’ll turn to the Universal Sucker™ to collect all lost earnings.

I guess the old saying is right: “If it feels wrong, it probably is.”

Dammit!

5

IANAL

Here’s how believe it goes.

Someone writes a song. The law recognizes their copyright to that song. It recognizes their right to create recordings of or publicly perform the song, or authorized others to do so, and to collect royalty payments for use of their copyrighted material, if they so wish.

Someone publicly performs the song, and someone else records sound and video of the performance. The recorder has a copyright on their recording. BUT: Since the recording contains a public performance of the copyrighted song, the copyright holder of the song has legally recognized control over that recording, so if the video was made without the song copyright holder authorizing public performance involving a recording, . I’m not sure what their recourse is: if they can order all copies of the recording destroyed, or merely limit their distribution, or merely demand royalties.

The video is put on YouTube. If this is done in accordance with the video copyright holder’s wishes and authorization, no problem. Unless of course the song copyright holder doesn’t want the video of the song on YouTube. I don’t know if the performer has a right to control distribution of a video recording of their likeness online.

You save a recording of the song off YouTube. If the recording copyright holder and the song copyright holder have authorized you to do this, you’re golden. Otherwise, it’s an illegal bootleg.

6

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Iscotandrsn

Here’s how believe it goes.

Someone writes a song. The law recognizes their copyright to that song. It recognizes their right to create recordings of or publicly perform the song, or authorized others to do so, and to collect royalty payments for use of their copyrighted material, if they so wish.

Someone publicly performs the song, and someone else records sound and video of the performance. The recorder has a copyright on their recording. BUT: Since the recording contains a public performance of the copyrighted song, the copyright holder of the song has legally recognized control over that recording, so if the video was made without the song copyright holder authorizing public performance involving a recording, . I’m not sure what their recourse is: if they can order all copies of the recording destroyed, or merely limit their distribution, or merely demand royalties.

The video is put on YouTube. If this is done in accordance with the video copyright holder’s wishes and authorization, no problem. Unless of course the song copyright holder doesn’t want the video of the song on YouTube. I don’t know if the performer has a right to control distribution of a video recording of their likeness online.

You save a recording of the song off YouTube. If the recording copyright holder and the song copyright holder have authorized you to do this, you’re golden. Otherwise, it’s an illegal bootleg.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your response IANAL,

Here’s a curveball for you, though.

Supposing the artist is Radiohead, a group with a demonstable willingness to be paid NOTHING for their latest effort. Can the end user assume Radiohead’s consent to download content from their current group or effort extends to non-CD relaesed or solo covers / remixes? I watched an interview in which Mr. Yorke explained his group’s departure from standard release practices as a response to Mom and Pop independent record stores being forced out of business by the RIAA (sorry, no better label to my limited experience).

Let me be honest here. I’m talking about a IMO superior YouTube covers of Mr. Yourke’s “Analyse”, “The Clock” and “Cymbal Rush” to CD versions. I don’t know if Radiohead is very smart or very crazy. They seem to be doing very well from their latest “free” release (I paid $15). But how willing are they to extend this model to solo / previous works? I believe it’s pretty limited.

I still think Gramma was right. If it feel wrong, it probably is. Dangit!

7

scotandrsn!, not IANAL!

however I am ALBD (a little bit drunk), so please - to forgive. Thanks.

8

[QUOTE=Pine Fresh Scent]
So the content providers are suing the RIAA? I’ll be damned. But as soon as a loser is declared, I bet they’ll turn to the Universal Sucker™ to collect all lost earnings.

[/QUOTE]

The content providers are suing YouTube, not the RIAA.