This is using youtube-dl, which downloads the youtube video and converts it to an audio file. Not illegal. At least in my country..
> Although these are early scraping decisions, and the theories of liability are not uniform, it is difficult to ignore a pattern emerging that the courts are prepared to protect proprietary content on commercial sites from uses which are undesirable to the owners of such sites.
Straight from the youtube TOS [2]:
> Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
It's apparent the RIAA that is also against it [3]. If you ask the RIAA - they will most likely say you did not purchase a legal copy of it - so therefore you shouldn't own a digital copy of it. Thus making it piracy.
It appears my original stance got lost - I'm not saying I agree with it - but these are the cold hard facts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping#Legal_issues
[2] https://www.youtube.com/t/terms
[3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/01511613004/is-do...
It's about as illegal as violating a TOS.
The EFF's interpretation of the TPP makes it also seem like for any member country, it could also be liable for criminal penalties.
IANAL
...which in the US, due to the joy that is the CFAA, is pretty illegal and could result in jail time.
https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_%...
Also, because everything which is not forbidden is allowed, one would need to show that youtube-dl is illegal, and not that youtube-dl is not illegal.
The jocular saying is that, in England, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden" — and Russia where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed". While in North Korea it is said that "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory"
I kind of figured it would be obvious BUT....
> Two days after YouTube-MP3.org, a site that takes music videos and converts their songs into MP3 files, was blocked from accessing YouTube, the RIAA has asked CNET to remove software from Download.com that performs a similar function. CNET, which is owned by CBS, is the publisher of this news site. [1]
Here is information on youtube-mp3.org [2].
Please do see my other post [3].
I want to make it very clear - I do NOT agree with the rulings and RIAA bullying. If you want to be upset at someone - call your representatives and ask them to start passing laws that are in favor of scraping.
As an aside note - to expand on my original post. Emulators are not illegal by definition (unless they circumvent/bypass encryption - but that's a whole other ball of wax), downloading a free or open source community made ROM for the emulator is not illegal. It is, however, illegal to download a ROM for a copyrighted game. Now, Nintendo isn't going to come after you for playing an old NES game in the privacy of your home - it's still illegal but they aren't going to expend the legal resources and the amount of bad PR to make an example out of you. They may and probably will come after you if you sell or distribute said ROMS.
[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/riaa-to-cnet-follow-google-nix-vide...
[2] https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-mp3-fights-google-with-lawy...