Three music labels sueing German hoster Uberspace

Time again :
Musikindustrie verklagt hoster von youtube-dl
(music industry sues hoster of youtube-dl)

Non German speakers can easily translate using e. g. DeepL, if interested in reading.

Gier, Gier, Gier … das alte Lied von der verarmten “Musikindustrie” … :roll_eyes:

Greed, greed, greed … the old song about the impoverished “music industry” …


If it was up to me, YT would be avoided all over the place. There are alternatives like Odysee for example. Just avoid all those greedy bastards and switch to Fediverse.


With YT, I am increasingly disturbed by this rigorous deletion and blocking behavior, especially when it comes to critically adjusted channels. For me, YT is becoming less and less important. However, the behavior of the “music industry” is also related to this. Greed meets dictatorship …


Ask der dunkle Parabelritter, As far as I know, he had a lot of trouble after releasing his video about illegal dog trading. This is content that, in my opinion, should be supported, not be fought against. I assume, we all know why they do it.

1 Like

In any case, Uberspace boss Pasche finds it bizarre that a Google search for “youtube download” first displays an info box separate from the search results with a marker for the Wikipedia entry from youtube-dl. “If YouTube is so keen to prevent downloads, at least Google as the owner could make sure that it does not prominently refer to what is probably the most common download tool,” says Pasche.

What is the difference between watching a video and downloading it? If downloading itself is forbidden watching videos should be also forbidden.

Saving as a file …? watching does that already in cache at least…
sharing copies is forbidden yes but this is all tricking only… may only to make YT a better … money machine?


There are at least two major differences:

  • Control - When you stream something, the host has full control of the content. They can remove it or modify it at any time
  • Ad Revenue - When you download it, you more or less destroy any potential ad revenue

yes sure… I was looking at it from the other side of the matrix.
From my perspective, there is technically no difference, same as a text on a website, if I can copy-paste it this is not my fault as a user.

If I want to protect my artwork I need to take care to properly save it.

If I let my artwork say around on a side road in a big city I can not say someone providing a map with locations of all stuff staying around in the city is the culprit that my artwork gets stolen.


What a bunch of… :clown_face:


Not taking sides here, but to answer the question, when I last read the terms back (in 2016 or 2017), YouTube didn’t mention about “downloading”. Of course, they know you need to transfer those packets to your device so as to be able to view a video. They mentioned that it’s against the terms to view content hosted on YouTube via a software or player that is not provided by YouTube. I haven’t gone through the latest copy of their terms, so I don’t guarantee they haven’t changed it.

(This is not a literal copy paste, but i clearly remember this is what it meant)

I guess the opposite analogy would be if you rent your art to a museum where many people are allowed to look at, that doesn’t mean you are giving them the right to take it off the wall and bring it home.

Of course, I am now lost in analogies and have lost the thread of what we were talking about in the first place. :sweat:

1 Like

my goal is reached :wink:


indeed exactly that :partying_face: :clown_face: :rofl:


After the unsuccessful DMCA takedown on github, suing in Germany is probably their best shot to find someone ignorant and dumb enough to judge in their favour.

1 Like

Exactly! You have to download a video in order to watch it. How else would the pixels on your screen know which colour to be at what moment and how else would the membrane of your speaker know which way to oscillate? What they don’t want you to do is to keep a local copy of what you’re downloading – they want you to delete it, the moment you’re done watching it.

Screw them, what goes on in my computer is none of their business. I own my hard drives, and I delete files on my computer when I decide to (or by accident, when I mess up :rofl:), they can’t force that on me.

If you too want to watch videos the Krešimir WayTM, this script could be useful to you: Post your handy utility scripts! - #147 by Kresimir


Is this supposed to be an insinuation? :wink:
The guys want to fight back.

If I was in their shoes, I’d try to get some financial support using crowd-funding or GoFundMe. I assume there are quite some people out there willing to help in this fight. This can easily cost quite some money.
The industry tries to get a precedent.

Just tried to point out that our public servants still live in the darkest digital stone age. :wink:

1 Like

Sad but true. For our politicians, the Internet is kind of uncharted territory. To put it in Star Trek terms : A place where no one has gone before.

1 Like

I’m with @Kresimir on this. I download videos occasionally for my own purposes. I don’t understand what difference it makes. Watch it streaming or download it first and watch it. It’s not like when i download it the video is gone and they aren’t making money off it. Normally i wouldn’t be watching it over and over again so they can get money. It’s maybe a one time thing and i may not even watch all of it. I may start a video and not like it so i turn it off. Same with music! I don’t save anything. I may download something and then i usually delete it after. I don’t like streaming period! But, i don’t agree with someone trying to profit off of someone else’s work. I’m not doing that just because i downloaded it and watched it. BTW I’m not a public servant! :laughing: