Owner Of YouTube Ripping Site Settles Lawsuit With RIAA

R

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,943
Last year YouTube-ripping site YouTube-mp3.org was sued by record labels who were seeking the website's permanent shutdown and $150,000 per violation. Today court filings are pointing towards a settlement between the record labels and YouTube-mp3.org. The website's owner has agreed to pay a settlement, though the details of that haven't been released, and a proposed injunction prohibits anyone associated with the website from having anything to do with a "streamripping" website in the future. The website domain name will also be given to one of the record labels.

We originally covered this story last year when the RIAA filed the suit. I'm curious as to what the settlement amount was, as $150,000 per violation is just absurd. And I don't know how I feel about the domain going to one of the record labels, that seems overstepping a bit, in my opinion it would be better off to just let it die.

The proposed judgement and injunction haven't been approved and ordered by the court yet and the website is still up as of writing, but similar sites and apps are already being taken down.
 
I bet The record label is going to keep the site up, and use it to "catch pirates" in the act.
 
Oh. I thought RIAA was paying the settlement to the site for dicking them around and being assholes.

I bet they'd shit if they saw me copy a song to cassette. $150K... Fuck you RIAA. It's not even about protecting the artists at all. It's about funding their own shitty organization and the suing of others. Keeping lawyers employed. Fuck em all. It's things like this that make me not want to support artists. I don't like funding legalized crime organizations.
 
What bothers me about this case is how close it is to the principle of recording a song off a radio onto a cassette. When will a program like Freemake's Youtube to MP3 Boom be a target of the RIAA? If they target such a program and win, then I see it as the Sony Betamax case and the Audio Home Recording Act being nullified.
 
NeghVar said:
What bothers me about this case is how close it is to the principle of recording a song off a radio onto a cassette. When will a program like Freemake's Youtube to MP3 Boom be a target of the RIAA? If they target such a program and win, then I see it as the Sony Betamax case and the Audio Home Recording Act being nullified.
Click to expand...

"ripping" from any online stream, is like recording stuff from TV. They need to get this into their heads sooner or later. It not just should be legal, but DRM should be illegal that's preventing you from recording the programs.
 
2v8fvkl.jpg
 
My present way of acquiring music is to use an audio stream ripper program on my PC on all those Vevo music videos. Plus others. I see nothing illegal about it because it is all taking place in my home and thus is protected by the Audio Home Recording Act.
 
Pringle said:
Sometimes I'll run into a really good live acoustic set of a song I like and want to rip it to MP3.
Click to expand...
Another scenario is if I just want that one song. I'm not always interested in the entire album.

Maybe there's a better way to do it, but I don't know. Going to look in to Freemake program now.
 
lol these guys are still playing cat and mouse.

There are 100 ways to rip audio from Youtube.

When will these old fat cats learn, give the people what they want or they will take it.
 
I'm really not familiar with these laws, as I understand (poorly), if we purchase a song, we purchased the rights to listen to the song (?), but not the song itself. That's a whole load of crazy there.
 
Nanogrip said:
I'm really not familiar with these laws, as I understand (poorly), if we purchase a song, we purchased the rights to listen to the song (?), but not the song itself. That's a whole load of crazy there.
Click to expand...

A buyer owns a copy of the song, in which they can use for personal purposes...it's legal to copy it as many times as desired as long as it's for the original purchaser's personal use. Copying it to give to someone else violates the copyright (hence the name).
 
DejaWiz said:
A buyer owns a copy of the song, in which they can use for personal purposes...it's legal to copy it as many times as desired as long as it's for the original purchaser's personal use. Copying it to give to someone else violates the copyright (hence the name).
Click to expand...

Thanks DejaWiz, I was told years ago, that if you own a music CD, you can legally have one copy of contents in the CD in a digital format. I also recall that you cannot share your music, but you can transfer the (rights to listening to the) music to the new owner, but what happens to the CD that I still have? Man, I'll look more into it. It's just not like pressing record on a tape player and sharing anymore.
 
Nanogrip said:
I'm really not familiar with these laws, as I understand (poorly), if we purchase a song, we purchased the rights to listen to the song (?), but not the song itself. That's a whole load of crazy there.
Click to expand...

You think you can buy a cd change one thing on a song and resell it under your own name and call yourself a musician?
 
ZeqOBpf6 said:
You think you can buy a cd change one thing on a song and resell it under your own name and call yourself a musician?
Click to expand...

I meant if I owned a JayZ cd, and made a digital copy of it, then if I shared one digitally copied song to a friend, then I shouldn't have that one song that I just shared, this was during Zune years ago and was why I didn't buy one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top