Piracy of copyrighted content is one of the most controversial issues on the entire Internet, since not everyone agrees, in many cases, where the limit is between legality or illegality when talking about certain actions carried out by Internet users and that could be considered piracy.

This is the case, to speak of one of the hottest topics in this regard, of the extraction of music files in MP3 format from video content that is available on the popular streaming portal owned by Google, YouTube. On the Web we can find a good number of websites, with their corresponding applications, which are responsible for providing us with this type of tasks, portals that in many cases are widely pursued by anti-piracy groups and the music industry.

However recently, in a new case related to these websites to which we mention you and following a request submitted by several labels and groups of the music industry, an Australian judge has issued a ruling with which he wanted to leave Of course the circumstances in which the extraction of music from these YouTube videos is legal, and the one that is not, which for many has been an interesting read.

Over the past few years and at the request of many companies related to the music industry, among other fields, the courts have been requested to block and close several of these Internet sites that facilitate the download of this music from the URL of a particular music video, for example, in many cases successfully. At the same time it has been threatening and warning individual users that the actions in this regard are illegal, before which a judge recently published the reasoning of his decision to close several portals of this type, so that it is clear to the rest.

When is it legal to extract content uploaded to YouTube, and when not
Thus, based on his arguments, in principle this judge places special emphasis on the difference between what is the transmission and download from YouTube. That is why he has argued that the main difference between the legality or not of these actions is that the former could be considered as a temporary or temporary process, while the latter goes one step further by retaining the data processed.

Therefore, it is clear that while the first of the actions is completely legal, as regards the second, it is where the problems come into play. Thus, this judge indicates that it is not the end user who decides whether the download is lawful or not, but that the decision is made by the entity that uploads the videos to YouTube, in addition to the streaming site itself. It is intended to make it clear that a person who uploads content to YouTube must, as part of the process, determine who can see them and under what circumstances, since at the same time it is possible to grant permissions to allow downloading files, so in that case “extraction” would be legal.

However, this assumption is not the most common, since in most cases the upload of videos is done after the user or company selects the “YouTube Standard License”, so it only allows end users Play the corresponding multimedia content via streaming, but do not download it. In other words, that both end users and operators of websites that “rip” MP3 from YouTube videos, are infringing the copyright of the music and could face legal problems.