Comments on: Google moves to snuff sites that rip music from YouTube videos

By: nana

nana — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 01:41:52 +0000

this is interesting. The thing that bothers me is what about the songs that aren’t sold on Itunes?

Sometimes DJ’s, post their remixes on Youtube but for some reason don’t put their work on Itunes, and if you ask for a copy, they may suggest ripping it off their youtube vid with one of the online rippers.

And like the people below me, what about the videos that are ripped from the tube?

“Protecting Uploaders”- Fat. They’re acting like they own everything on there. It should be up to the user whether or not their stuff can be ripped from their own video. And what if it goes into users having to pay for videos that they rip?

Lets be honest- who the heck is going to pay .99 cents to download a 30 second cat video, when they can rip it for free and watch it just fine?

Those uploaders will still make money regardless of a user ripping their vid, simply because whenever their page is viewed (whenever you go to see their videos of course) you see the ads. They get money based on the traffic on their site. I don’t think the sky will fall from their pockets just because someone ripped a vid from their channel after viewing it at their leisure.

Not saying its right or wrong.. But these are all instances where I think this whole copyright mumbojumbo is more grey, then just black and white.

By: Thor Lanes

Thor Lanes — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:56:39 +0000

Lame!

By: David Kesterson

David Kesterson — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:44:47 +0000

This is one side of a story is what this is. There are hundreds of ways to locally store Youtube videos in various formats. Google isn’t cutting it’s own throat here or anything. This sotry is biased and non inclusive of all the facts, if there are even any facts in any of it to begin with.

By: Jeff John Roberts

Jeff John Roberts — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:35:03 +0000

Thanks for the insider’s insight, Tim. I wonder, though, whether “protecting sources of content” and “acting like a content owner” are that different. And is Google’s thinking being shaped not only by the revenue share from ads, but also by the hundreds of millions it is investing in new content channels?

In the past, Google/YouTube sought a more passive role based on staying DMCA-compliant. It feels like there’s a shift afoot (but again, that’s just speculation on my part).

By: Tim Hyland

Tim Hyland — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:25:58 +0000

Could the interpretation be different? Maybe Google/YouTube is simply protecting their clients — the users who produce content. These content-producing users (bedroom singers and record labels both, to be clear) are YouTube’s bread and butter. Rev share from ads on these videos keeps YouTube running.

Seems to me, YouTube is simply looking to protect their sources of content, not acting like a content owner.

Full disclosure, I was employed by YouTube/Google from 2007-2009. I have no vested interest in the company, but do have insight into the thinking that goes on behind closed doors.

By: ahem

ahem — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:49:41 +0000

ssshhhh

By: JP

JP — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:01:10 +0000

That’s not a shoe video. It’s a shoe ad — you enter the link of the video you want to rip in the box above it. No video ever plays on the site.

By: jossmolders

jossmolders — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:01:48 +0000

I find it very very funny, both on the part of Google and the sorry guys and girls going through these motions. The sound quality must be apalling. Their ears must have been shattered already if they cannot appreciate a good original any longer.

By: Tara Richards

Tara Richards — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:09:43 +0000

Why doesnt Google finally stop Socialcam.com from taking its videos off its site and claiming them as their own?

By: icesnakefrostfyre

icesnakefrostfyre — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:08:59 +0000

“Do no evil?” Ahem.
Freemake Video Converter will download the whole video to many formats, including MP3. Might be hard to stop that.