Three music labels sueing German hoster Uberspace

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:


Pathetic from the labels, imo, but I also find it rather amusing how this is not targeted at Youtube instead. It should surely be on them to prevent ‘theft’ of content on their platform, and if labels have such a problem with pirated content on Youtube, perhaps the content should not be on the platform in the first place.

Uff. What a hell of a topic.

I dont have a clear opinion on that.

My rebellious inner self says: Perfect! I hope they get sued, youtube-dl (and all other alternatives, but 99% use youtube-dl as backend anyway) gets forbidden, and sometime if Sony, Universal, and others gets big balls, sue Youtube too that they must implement any kind of effective DRM/Protection. Why? Because my rebllious inner self hopes that then alternatives shows up to youtube (im aware of alternatives like lbry or odysee), where the Channels i watch, would likely use.

But that is of course totaly “wrong” (point of view).

The other one in me says: Hehe good luck. Because you must imagine: The Musiclabels havent any other options. The only thing what they really could do, would be to sue youtube, because youtube didnt protect the uploads of them (for movies and co they do). But they would never do that, because they know, that Youtube/Google have (attention, exaggeration) 9320573254908234 times more Money as they self. In comparsion, they only little “aunt emma stores”. And they would never win that. And if they actually win, then they lost anyway. Because youtube simply removes everything from them then.

Time would show, what happens. But it is much likely that nothing happens. You could say about Germany what you want, but if this goes high enough (court wise), the more competent and thorough they get. And it isnt the first time that nothing would happen. Because first, its open source, and secound, we already have expierence with that. In the late 90’s and early 00’s they already tried exact the same a hundred times (Alcohol, CloneCD, Nero, and many other tools) to forbid these programs. And they lost. Then they tried to block the Websites on DNS Level. And they sued the Hosters, and so long. And they lost everytime, because “Germany said” everytime: Only because you can buy Program XYZ, it didnt mean that the customer use this Program to make multiple copies (and to sell the copies. because you are allowed to make copys for your self anyway by law, but you arent allowed to share the copies).

But what makes me curious, is why they host the website on a another Hoster anyway. They could use github for that too (because it seems Github/Microsoft stands behind them).

Edit: @Celty didnt know why this post is a reply to yours. I must have missclicked :slight_smile:

Was just looking through to see if anyone had posted this, DT makes some really good points

1 Like

Yeah. Its true.

But in speciality to the end, he makes few dangerous statements. Because what we call DRM today, already exist since the stoneage in analog form.

DRM isnt actually a only Copyprotection. Its more a way to control that the Customer use the Product like described in the Terms and conditions. Because if you buy a Music CD, or a Movie on VHS, a Casette, a Software on a 1.44mb floppy, what ever, you have everytime Terms and Conditions you have to agree.

I have for example few Vinyls i buyed in the mid 80’s, and in they are little leaflet included, and on it is written what i am allowed to do with that vinyl and what not. And that i dont own the Music self, i own only the right to hear the music.

Same for old Amiga and C64 games. Long before the Internet.

It didnt matter if you have a physical copy or a digital one. You never have, and had, the product himself, only a aggrement/license that are you allow to use/listen/view the product.

1 Like

True, will respond better later when I’m behind the computer, my phones keyboard keeps freezing

One has to wonder what the point is. There cannot possibly be a cost benefit to this kind of stuff, and users who pirate 128kbps tracks from Youtube are not going to purchase a cd or subscription to Spotify, and lawsuits are expensive. I know there is another thread on piracy, and this has all been rehashed a hundred times, but we continue to see new piracy-related lawsuits decade after decade and none of them have a substantial effect on piracy. If you want to address the actual issue, provide a service or product which people can afford and find value in supporting. Spotify is such an excellent example of this, prior to its launch, music piracy was far more widespread than it is now.

1 Like

:brain: :hedgehog:


They should make all music licensed under Creative Commons, and make it really easy and convenient to donate to musicians.

And musicians should do more gigs and less recording, and work under patronage (either from the rich people, or from crowd funded sources). And the big record labels? They are parasites and nobody is any better off from their existence.

This is how it worked since the dawn of music. Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven… none of them had big record labels with an army of copyright lawyers, ready to destroy the life of every kid who copies an audio file and shares it with a friend.

1 Like