recording sound vs downloading it

[thrasher_565]

so whats the difference from playing a song on say youtube and downloading it or recording it?

asking whats the law about it?

[Spotty]

Youtube has licence to broadcast it. You do not have licence to create a copy of it.

 

Think of it as an art gallery having a painting on the wall. People can go look at it and appreciate it in the gallery. You cannot take it off the wall and take it home because you want to look at it whenever you want without having to go to the gallery.

[thrasher_565]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

Youtube has licence to broadcast it. You do not have licence to create a copy of it.

 

Think of it as an art gallery having a painting on the wall. People can go look at it and appreciate it in the gallery. You cannot take it off the wall and take it home because you want to look at it whenever you want without having to go to the gallery.

so im guessing they wont allow you to take pic of the panting because they want to keep monetizing it?

so i guess the song on you tube can get some monetizing? so basically they can keep monetizing a song over and over even if you watched it more then one time?

[Wictorian]

Just now, thrasher_565 said:

so im guessing they wont allow you to take pic of the panting because they want to keep monetizing it?

so i guess the song on you tube can get some monetizing? so basically they can keep monetizing a song over and over even if you watched it more then one time?

Yeah. I guess they are not smart enough to show some ads when you download it.

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, thrasher_565 said:

so im guessing they wont allow you to take pic of the panting because they want to keep monetizing it?

A photo does not create an exact copy of the original work, depriving them of the revenue they would have otherwise received from people visiting the gallery to see the painting.

When you download a song off youtube you are taking the original audio files from youtube and it will match the quality of what is available on Youtube. If you were instead using on old tape recorder held up near the speakers to record the sound then it would sound like shit and you would still want to visit youtube to listen to the song even though you technically created a [crappy] copy of it on the tape recorder.

 

2 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

so i guess the song on you tube can get some monetizing? so basically they can keep monetizing a song over and over even if you watched it more then one time?

Pretty much, yes. The artist (or more often the publisher) receives money from their song being played on youtube through ad revenue and youtube premium share.

You can buy music to keep, though this seems to be dying off with more and more music services using a subscription music-as-a-service model ie. Spotify.

[thrasher_565]

well ok so i no there are streaming services were you pay a monthly fee and get access to more songs then buying each song for a $1 or w/e there worth as its impossibly to pay for each song....so i get that but they dont have huge libraries un like on youtube

[thrasher_565]

2 minutes ago, Spotty said:

A photo does not create an exact copy of the original work, depriving them of the revenue they would have otherwise received from people visiting the gallery to see the painting.

When you download a song off youtube you are taking the original audio files from youtube and it will match the quality of what is available on Youtube. If you were instead using on old tape recorder held up near the speakers to record the sound then it would sound like shit and you would still want to visit youtube to listen to the song even though you technically created a [crappy] copy of it on the tape recorder.

 

Pretty much, yes. The artist (or more often the publisher) receives money from their song being played on youtube through ad revenue and youtube premium share.

You can buy music to keep, though this seems to be dying off with more and more music services using a subscription music-as-a-service model ie. Spotify.

ok so what if its a remix of a song? (i listen to alot of techno) and there play list that use a song and other youtube videos also use the same song? who gets the add revenue then? i no remix falls in a gray area were its allowed to some degree i guess?

[Spotty]

10 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

ok so what if its a remix of a song? (i listen to alot of techno) and there play list that use a song and other youtube videos also use the same song? who gets the add revenue then? i no remix falls in a gray area were its allowed to some degree i guess?

That really depends. The person doing the remix might have even licensed use of the music for their version. Weird Al Yankovich doesn't get sued for his parody songs because he buys the rights to use the music first. 

If the original rights holders wanted to they possibly could claim the ad revenue on a remixed version of their song or even take the artist to court to pay for royalties.

 

Music copyright is quite complicated. You can copyright the lyrics, the sheet music, and the actual performance of it.

 

My advice to you for what you want to do is see if the remix artist has a soundcloud or whatever where they make the music available and allow people to download it freely.

[The Flying Sloth]

1 hour ago, thrasher_565 said:

ok so what if its a remix of a song? (i listen to alot of techno) and there play list that use a song and other youtube videos also use the same song? who gets the add revenue then? i no remix falls in a gray area were its allowed to some degree i guess?

What you really need to research is the concept of Fair Use, 
I can play anything I want in a youtube video legally so long as it satisfies the concept of fair use, that is, that my content is transformative (not a replacement for the original content), that I am providing commentary or critique (no, a react channel does not automatically qualify for fair use under this one) and many other factors. Take a look at the Hoss V H3 lawsuit if you need further information, it is the precident for all fair use defenses.

[thrasher_565]

7 hours ago, The Flying Sloth said:

What you really need to research is the concept of Fair Use, 
I can play anything I want in a youtube video legally so long as it satisfies the concept of fair use, that is, that my content is transformative (not a replacement for the original content), that I am providing commentary or critique (no, a react channel does not automatically qualify for fair use under this one) and many other factors. Take a look at the Hoss V H3 lawsuit if you need further information, it is the precident for all fair use defenses.

what dose this have to do with music? i no they tried to sue 2 people for close to a million but all that happened was they when in to bankrupted for i think 9 years? instead of paying the fine... there's people that get charged say $3000 and most pay it.

 

as it sits it alegal to download music but its up to the owner to catch and sue so its just like speeding it alegal but people do it all the time.

 

there are tools that you can get your song that gets played demonatied or all ad review gos to the owner i dont no how that works with remixes thow

Edited September 30, 2021 by thrasher_565

[Spuriae]

None of the following should be construed as legal advice. The following is provided for informational purposes only.

 

A prima facie case of copyright infringement is established if a third party violates one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder. These rights include reproduction (copying), distribution, creation of derivative works, and public display/performance. 17 U.S.C. § 106.

 

Youtube's license allows you to view content on the site but not download it. If you download (copy) it, you violate their license, which violates the rights of the copyright holder, who gave Youtube permission to display the work on their platform subject to that license. This establishes copyright infringement. Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, but none of its factors will apply favorably to wholesale copying of a work for the purposes of personal consumption. 17 U.S.C. § 107.

 

Copyright infringement is not criminal unless it is committed "willfully" (intentionally, without genuine belief by the infringer that they had permission or another legal justification for doing so), and one of the following applies:

• it was committed commercially or for financial gain
• more than $1000 worth of works were reproduced or distributed within a 180 day period (reading this cynically, it's not criminal to pirate 2000 iTunes songs per year, as long as they're evenly spaced in time)
• a pre-release commercial work was spoiled before its release date

17 U.S.C. § 506. Technically Youtube or a rights holder can sue you for downloading Youtube videos, but they basically never do because it's not worth their time. You're generally not a criminal for downloading Youtube videos unless one of the §506 conditions applies.

21 hours ago, Spotty said:

When you download a song off youtube you are taking the original audio files from youtube and it will match the quality of what is available on Youtube. If you were instead using on old tape recorder held up near the speakers to record the sound then it would sound like shit and you would still want to visit youtube to listen to the song even though you technically created a [crappy] copy of it on the tape recorder.

This is only one factor of the fair use defense in the United States. Although a low quality recording is unlikely to spoil the copyright holder's market, this is still almost definitely copyright infringement because it would fail the other factors of Fair Use entirely.

 

 

21 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

ok so what if its a remix of a song? (i listen to alot of techno) and there play list that use a song and other youtube videos also use the same song? who gets the add revenue then? i no remix falls in a gray area were its allowed to some degree i guess?

A remix is a derivative work. Creation of a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, and thus establishes a prima facie case of copyright infringement if done by anyone other than the rights holder or a licensee.

 

However, Fair Use may protect the creator of a derivative work. 17 U.S.C. § 107 specifies that a party has not committed copyright infringement if their use constitutes fair use. Fair Use is determined on a case-by-case basis by the courts, applying four factors, which are "not intended to be exhaustive … or to single out any particular use as presumptively a ‘fair’ use. The drafters … structured the provision as an affirmative defense requiring a case-by-case analysis.” Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 561 (1985). No single factor can determine fair use; a court will decide fair use based on their impression of all of the factors:

• The purpose or nature of the use
  • If a work was reproduced for research, news reporting, criticism, teaching, etc. the courts tend to look favorably upon that.
  • If the purpose of the infringement is commercial, courts tend to look less favorably upon that.
  • Courts tend to weigh heavily in favor of fair use if the derivative work is transformative, i.e. it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the [original work] with new expression, meaning, or message” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).
• The nature of the original work
• The portion of the original work used by the derivative work, relative to the original work as a whole
• The effect of the derivative work on the market of the original work
  • The test is usually not whether the derivative work will harm the market for the original (if this were the case then criticism would fail this factor), but rather whether consumers would be likely to use the derivative work as a substitute for the original.

Remixes are a gray area, but I would say they are generally not fair use. The purpose of the remix is generally commercial. A remix may be transformative, but remixes generally are not extremely transformative, as they do not alter the meaning or message of a song (a remix that changes the message of a song may be a parody, which is much more likely to succeed at a fair use defense). The original work is a song, which is usually heavily protected by copyright. The remix generally uses the entirety of a song, or its most important parts (the "heart" of the original). Finally, a remix may displace sales of the original if the two versions of the song are similar enough. Overall, most remixes are unlikely to survive a Fair Use analysis.

 

Generally commercial remixes are done with a license from the copyright owner. Many electronic music artists allow remixes of their work or act in ways that create implied licenses of remixes. If a license exists, then a copyright holder has transferred their rights to the person creating the remix, and the remix is no longer copyright infringement.

20 hours ago, Spotty said:

Weird Al Yankovich doesn't get sued for his parody songs because he buys the rights to use the music first.

<I had a bit too much of a knee-jerk reaction to the word "parody" in my first version of this response. Edited a bit.>

 

He doesn't have to get a license for creating parodies. Parodies generally survive fair use. See generally Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994). If he changes the expression, meaning, and message of the songs (transformative), tends to not sample the originals and writes significant sections of new music (portion used), and the new work is not used as a substitute for the original work, it is likely fair use.

 

He gets a license because he doesn't want to offend any of the original artists and doesn't want to deal with legal issues, even if he would normally prevail in court. For a commercially successful artist it's generally easier and cheaper to get a license than worry about the possibility of lawsuits, even meritless ones.

 

That said, many of Weird Al's works are closer to covers or satire than parody. Generally a Fair Use eligible parody must provide commentary on the piece that it imitates.

20 hours ago, Spotty said:

My advice to you for what you want to do is see if the remix artist has a soundcloud or whatever where they make the music available and allow people to download it freely.

A license to create a single copy is unlikely to be construed in court as a license to freely create derivative works.

19 hours ago, The Flying Sloth said:

look at the Hoss V H3 lawsuit if you need further information, it is the precident for all fair use defenses.

The case applies existing fair use analysis, and was a district court holding that does not qualify as binding authority in any US courts.

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by Nimrodor
Clarified point on parody

[thrasher_565]

7 hours ago, Nimrodor said:

None of the following should be construed as legal advice. The following is provided for informational purposes only.

 

A prima facie case of copyright infringement is established if a third party violates one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder. These rights include reproduction (copying), distribution, creation of derivative works, and public display/performance. 17 U.S.C. § 106.

 

Youtube's license allows you to view content on the site but not download it. If you download (copy) it, you violate their license, which violates the rights of the copyright holder, who gave Youtube permission to display the work on their platform subject to that license. This establishes copyright infringement. Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, but none of its factors will apply favorably to wholesale copying of a work for the purposes of personal consumption. 17 U.S.C. § 107.

 

Copyright infringement is not criminal unless it is committed "willfully" (intentionally, without genuine belief by the infringer that they had permission or another legal justification for doing so), and one of the following applies:

• it was committed commercially or for financial gain
• more than $1000 worth of works were reproduced or distributed within a 180 day period (reading this cynically, it's not criminal to pirate 2000 iTunes songs per year, as long as they're evenly spaced in time)
• a pre-release commercial work was spoiled before its release date

17 U.S.C. § 506. Technically Youtube or a rights holder can sue you for downloading Youtube videos, but they basically never do because it's not worth their time. You're generally not a criminal for downloading Youtube videos unless one of the §506 conditions applies.

This is only one factor of the fair use defense in the United States. Although a low quality recording is unlikely to spoil the copyright holder's market, this is still almost definitely copyright infringement because it would fail the other factors of Fair Use entirely.

 

 

A remix is a derivative work. Creation of a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, and thus establishes a prima facie case of copyright infringement if done by anyone other than the rights holder or a licensee.

 

However, Fair Use may protect the creator of a derivative work. 17 U.S.C. § 107 specifies that a party has not committed copyright infringement if their use constitutes fair use. Fair Use is determined on a case-by-case basis by the courts, applying four factors, which are "not intended to be exhaustive … or to single out any particular use as presumptively a ‘fair’ use. The drafters … structured the provision as an affirmative defense requiring a case-by-case analysis.” Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 561 (1985). No single factor can determine fair use; a court will decide fair use based on their impression of all of the factors:

• The purpose or nature of the use
  • If a work was reproduced for research, news reporting, criticism, teaching, etc. the courts tend to look favorably upon that.
  • If the purpose of the infringement is commercial, courts tend to look less favorably upon that.
  • Courts tend to weigh heavily in favor of fair use if the derivative work is transformative, i.e. it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the [original work] with new expression, meaning, or message” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).
• The nature of the original work
• The portion of the original work used by the derivative work, relative to the original work as a whole
• The effect of the derivative work on the market of the original work
  • The test is usually not whether the derivative work will harm the market for the original (if this were the case then criticism would fail this factor), but rather whether consumers would be likely to use the derivative work as a substitute for the original.

Remixes are a gray area, but I would say they are generally not fair use. The purpose of the remix is generally commercial. A remix may be transformative, but remixes generally are not extremely transformative, as they do not alter the meaning or message of a song (a remix that changes the message of a song may be a parody, which is much more likely to succeed at a fair use defense). The original work is a song, which is usually heavily protected by copyright. The remix generally uses the entirety of a song, or its most important parts (the "heart" of the original). Finally, a remix may displace sales of the original if the two versions of the song are similar enough. Overall, most remixes are unlikely to survive a Fair Use analysis.

 

Generally commercial remixes are done with a license from the copyright owner. Many electronic music artists allow remixes of their work or act in ways that create implied licenses of remixes. If a license exists, then a copyright holder has transferred their rights to the person creating the remix, and the remix is no longer copyright infringement.

He doesn't have to get a license because he creates parodies. Parodies generally survive fair use. See generally Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994). He changes the expression, meaning, and message of the songs (transformative), tends to not sample the originals and writes significant sections of new music (portion used), and his style of parody is rarely used as a substitute for the original work.

 

He gets a license because he doesn't want to offend any of the original artists and doesn't want to deal with legal issues, even if he would normally prevail in court. For a commercially successful artist it's generally easier and cheaper to get a license than worry about the possibility of lawsuits, even meritless ones.

A license to create a single copy is unlikely to be construed in court as a license to freely create derivative works.

The case applies existing fair use analysis, and was a district court holding that does not qualify as binding authority in any US courts.

 

the problem is there's no really way to tell if a song on youtube is cc or is copyright protected. (sometimes even hard to find the original song maker) im assuming the people that run a music channel that they no a thing or too about re posting a song. i no there are like hour long mix that they make and i no for the cc as long as its not the same as some one els video its fare use. that's why there so many to 10 videos of say work out fails and so on. i dont no if that is for music as well i would think not?

 

you would think a like to the video would count as monetization as it helps the video be seen by more people.  but that money gos to the person posting the video not the song maker. its posably that they do buy the rights to make theses lists but there no documentation that they do. and rests in the song maker to go after the person witch they rarely do.

 

apple will give some ones info (data) out but at a cost of say $50.000 witch most people cant make back sueing the person. so no one sues or rarely do. and i think they go after people that run say web sites. or mas produce it to make money instead of one person using it for there self.  not selling it. and not only that its helps to reused stress.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by thrasher_565

[Spuriae]

None of the following should be construed as legal advice. The following is provided for informational purposes only.

 

42 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

the problem is there's no really way to tell if a song on youtube is cc or is copyright protected. (sometimes even hard to find the original song maker) im assuming the people that run a music channel that they no a thing or too about re posting a song. i no there are like hour long mix that they make and i no for the cc as long as its not the same as some one els video its fare use. that's why there so many to 10 videos of say work out fails and so on. i dont no if that is for music as well i would think not?

Copyright is created by default at the time an "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". 17 U.S.C. § 102. For a specific audio clip, this usually occurs at time of recording (or saving, if not recorded). By "CC" are you referring to Creative Commons licenses? There are a variety of Creative Commons licenses, and all of the common ones retain at least some type of restriction on derivative works.

 

If a song is licensed CC-BY, and then incorporated into a third-party compilation, Fair Use does not apply because a prima facie case of copyright infringement was not established in the first place. By bundling a work with a CC-BY license, an artist allows others to reuse it as long as they get attributed; if that condition is met, anyone is free to do (almost) anything with the work. If a work is copyright protected (if there is no license, it is protected by default), nobody can legally use that work without obtaining a license or proving fair use.

 

You're partially correct about the way copyright applies to identical compilations. The "selection" and "arrangement" of compilations are themselves copyrightable aspects; if someone copies your "Top 10 List" there's a good chance that they've violated your copyright. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Because a prima facie case of copyright infringement will not be established for a compilation where the selection and arrangement were not infringed, the analysis in such a case will not reach Fair Use evaluation.

 

This is a different issue than downloading from Youtube, though. Downloading from Youtube is always a violation of Youtube's license. Whether or not there is inherently a copyright claim arising from improper access to a website (as in, is the data on the website subject to Youtube's copyright?) is still an evolving field. Regardless, even if there is no copyright claim, there is still liability to Youtube; all that has changed from the average user's perspective is the types of damages that can be assessed.

 

1 hour ago, thrasher_565 said:

you would think a like to the video would count as monetization as it helps the video be seen by more people.  but that money gos to the person posting the video not the song maker. its posably that they do buy the rights to make theses lists but there no documentation that they do. and rests in the song maker to go after the person witch they rarely do.

I am not familiar with this particular application. Youtube does have Content ID, which is a system for copyright holders to share the income from videos that use their copyrighted materials. As far as I know, using this system is now more common than issuing takedown notices for music by smaller artists.

 

1 hour ago, thrasher_565 said:

apple will give some ones info (data) out but at a cost of say $50.000 witch most people cant make back sueing the person. so no one sues or rarely do. and i think they go after people that run say web sites. or mas produce it to make money instead of one person using it for there self.  not selling it. and not only that its helps to reused stress.

I have not heard of such a program. However, any copyright holder can obtain a federal subpoena compelling an internet service provider (legally defined to include almost every online service; distinct from an ISP as they are normally imagined) to reveal the identity of an alleged infringer for free. 17 U.S.C. § 512(h). Getting someone's data is all but guaranteed by law and costs basically nothing. The only thing preventing entities from suing is that it costs time and money to bring a suit. This will only get easier next year, when the Copyright Claims Board is implemented. This system is intended to reduce the costs of small copyright disputes significantly, and is likely to allow copyright holders to regularly sue individual infringers cost-effectively.

[mariushm]

On 9/30/2021 at 8:07 AM, thrasher_565 said:

so whats the difference from playing a song on say youtube and downloading it or recording it?

asking whats the law about it?

 

When you play a song on Youtube, the song was licensed to the author of the video, or the music studio that released the song gets some money from the playback, either as revenue from ads or directly from Youtube. 

 

Recording it ... it may be illegal depending on the license of the video and/or the songs - if the license allows reuse for free or under some conditions (like creative commons attribution where you have to clearly say in the video somewhere the author of the song and title of the song used) then you could record or download the song. 

 

If there's no available information about the copyright of that song, assume it's copyrighted and that you need a license to download or record it and that you may not reuse it in your own works. 

 

As for recording/downloading for your own personal use, it's a gray area, I guess it depends from country to country.  Imagine it as inserting a cassette tape or a CD in a boombox and recording the music on FM radio for your own use...  technically you don't have a license for those songs, those songs were licensed only for radio broadcast,  but I doubt anyone would sue you for recording for your own personal use. 

 

[thrasher_565]

21 hours ago, mariushm said:

 

When you play a song on Youtube, the song was licensed to the author of the video, or the music studio that released the song gets some money from the playback, either as revenue from ads or directly from Youtube. 

 

Recording it ... it may be illegal depending on the license of the video and/or the songs - if the license allows reuse for free or under some conditions (like creative commons attribution where you have to clearly say in the video somewhere the author of the song and title of the song used) then you could record or download the song. 

 

If there's no available information about the copyright of that song, assume it's copyrighted and that you need a license to download or record it and that you may not reuse it in your own works. 

 

As for recording/downloading for your own personal use, it's a gray area, I guess it depends from country to country.  Imagine it as inserting a cassette tape or a CD in a boombox and recording the music on FM radio for your own use...  technically you don't have a license for those songs, those songs were licensed only for radio broadcast,  but I doubt anyone would sue you for recording for your own personal use. 

 

would recording it be detestable thow?  technically im not downloading it so the net cant tract that im recording it.

[thrasher_565]

On 9/30/2021 at 8:18 PM, Nimrodor said:

None of the following should be construed as legal advice. The following is provided for informational purposes only.

 

Copyright is created by default at the time an "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". 17 U.S.C. § 102. For a specific audio clip, this usually occurs at time of recording (or saving, if not recorded). By "CC" are you referring to Creative Commons licenses? There are a variety of Creative Commons licenses, and all of the common ones retain at least some type of restriction on derivative works.

 

If a song is licensed CC-BY, and then incorporated into a third-party compilation, Fair Use does not apply because a prima facie case of copyright infringement was not established in the first place. By bundling a work with a CC-BY license, an artist allows others to reuse it as long as they get attributed; if that condition is met, anyone is free to do (almost) anything with the work. If a work is copyright protected (if there is no license, it is protected by default), nobody can legally use that work without obtaining a license or proving fair use.

 

You're partially correct about the way copyright applies to identical compilations. The "selection" and "arrangement" of compilations are themselves copyrightable aspects; if someone copies your "Top 10 List" there's a good chance that they've violated your copyright. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Because a prima facie case of copyright infringement will not be established for a compilation where the selection and arrangement were not infringed, the analysis in such a case will not reach Fair Use evaluation.

 

This is a different issue than downloading from Youtube, though. Downloading from Youtube is always a violation of Youtube's license. Whether or not there is inherently a copyright claim arising from improper access to a website (as in, is the data on the website subject to Youtube's copyright?) is still an evolving field. Regardless, even if there is no copyright claim, there is still liability to Youtube; all that has changed from the average user's perspective is the types of damages that can be assessed.

 

I am not familiar with this particular application. Youtube does have Content ID, which is a system for copyright holders to share the income from videos that use their copyrighted materials. As far as I know, using this system is now more common than issuing takedown notices for music by smaller artists.

 

I have not heard of such a program. However, any copyright holder can obtain a federal subpoena compelling an internet service provider (legally defined to include almost every online service; distinct from an ISP as they are normally imagined) to reveal the identity of an alleged infringer for free. 17 U.S.C. § 512(h). Getting someone's data is all but guaranteed by law and costs basically nothing. The only thing preventing entities from suing is that it costs time and money to bring a suit. This will only get easier next year, when the Copyright Claims Board is implemented. This system is intended to reduce the costs of small copyright disputes significantly, and is likely to allow copyright holders to regularly sue individual infringers cost-effectively.

i jut cant imagine a mix of songs and most if not all revanew gos to the creators whats the point in making it? unless they do it for the love of music?

hears an example

 

 

 

[thrasher_565]

if there was a really good platform were there was lots of techno and they pay the song creators then i probably would pay a motley fee but there no bigger list of music then youtube as far as i can tell. 99% shor most of the music was never put on cds so i cant buy thow ether. its good that i do have unlimited internet if i didnt with be diffrent were downloading it will be the only option.

 

its like when i use to download game back in the day but with steam and there cheap sales there was not much point and was a pain so i just buy game now when there %75 off...althow i dont like the drm thing...

 

Nintendo is making it vary temping on going digital ... witch suxs i like having a game that i can sell or trade thow not having to insert the game is nice...

[Spuriae]

47 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

i jut cant imagine a mix of songs and most if not all revanew gos to the creators whats the point in making it? unless they do it for the love of music?

hears an example

Depending on the channel, there are a number of possibilities.

 

As far as copyright goes, many smaller creators send their songs to compilation channels to promote their music. Some compilation channels skim songs on Soundcloud and hope that none of the songs they take are important enough for any of the artists to notice. The channel you linked to likely does both.

 

1 hour ago, thrasher_565 said:

if there was a really good platform were there was lots of techno and they pay the song creators then i probably would pay a motley fee but there no bigger list of music then youtube as far as i can tell. 99% shor most of the music was never put on cds so i cant buy thow ether. its good that i do have unlimited internet if i didnt with be diffrent were downloading it will be the only option.

If you really like a piece of music, try Bandcamp. No DRM, 90% of profits go to the artists, and lots of smaller artists sell there. It's more of a storefront than a music discovery platform, though. Alternatively, check Soundcloud for downloads. Some artists may not be monetizing or providing downloads because they don't even know they have an audience. You might make their day by asking permission nicely.

 

Downloading from Youtube is technically illegal but it's not criminal unless you do a lot of it (or do it commercially). Technically many of the things people do on a daily basis are probably illegal; copyright law was written before anyone knew what the internet was going to look like. Making memes, sharing images without express consent, reposting others' content; these are all technically illegal in many cases, but people rarely get sued because it's not worth the effort for the copyright owners to enforce their rights (and often they don't know or care).

[thrasher_565]

7 minutes ago, Nimrodor said:

Depending on the channel, there are a number of possibilities.

 

As far as copyright goes, many smaller creators send their songs to compilation channels to promote their music. Some compilation channels skim songs on Soundcloud and hope that none of the songs they take are important enough for any of the artists to notice. The channel you linked to likely does both.

 

If you really like a piece of music, try Bandcamp. No DRM, 90% of profits go to the artists, and lots of smaller artists sell there. It's more of a storefront than a music discovery platform, though. Alternatively, check Soundcloud for downloads. Some artists may not be monetizing or providing downloads because they don't even know they have an audience. You might make their day by asking permission nicely.

 

Downloading from Youtube is technically illegal but it's not criminal unless you do a lot of it (or do it commercially). Technically many of the things people do on a daily basis are probably illegal; copyright law was written before anyone knew what the internet was going to look like. Making memes, sharing images without express consent, reposting others' content; these are all technically illegal in many cases, but people rarely get sued because it's not worth the effort for the copyright owners to enforce their rights (and often they don't know or care).

well i guess ive done so much illegal stuff i guess it dosent really matter. ya my download history is in the cloud and at some point they will go after me i guess. the crime is done.

 

if they make a new law can they go after you for stuff be done before the law? some one said there make it easier to go after small offenders witch will happen.

 

with how much music i got it wont make a difference if i payed for some i still cant pay for it all. i only make $2000 a moth $1050 in rent, $85 bus, $67 phone with leave me $800 a moth left and still need to buy food so say $500-$600 left.

[Spuriae]

9 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

well i guess ive done so much illegal stuff i guess it dosent really matter. ya my download history is in the cloud and at some point they will go after me i guess. the crime is done.

It's not a crime (unless you satisfy the stringent requirements of § 506). Nobody's going to throw you in jail (because criminal penalties legally don't apply). 99.9% chance nobody's going to go after you trying to collect money either. It's not worth the time of the copyright holders.

 

9 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

if they make a new law can they go after you for stuff be done before the law? some one said there make it easier to go after small offenders witch will happen.

The Constitution says that Copyright is governed by Federal Law. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. The Constitution also prevents Congress from passing any "ex post facto" law. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3. Taken together, that means Copyright laws cannot be applied retroactively.

 

However, the new system is a merely a new venue for pursuing copyright claims, so the rule for them is copyright claims within the last 3 years can be taken there. That said, it's still probably not worth the rights holders' time to go after individuals (unless they do a lot of copyright infringement). Because of Constitutional jurisdiction limitations, this system must have an opt-out option. This is not legal advice (contact an attorney if this happens to you), but if you ever do get a notice from the CCB (very unlikely), you can opt-out within 60 days, at which point the copyright holders can no longer use the new system against you. The danger is that most people won't know this and will either be spooked by the official-looking government document and try to settle, or will ignore the document, get automatically opted-in after 60 days, and likely lose by default.

 

9 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

with how much music i got it wont make a difference if i payed for some i still cant pay for it all. i only make $2000 a moth $1050 in rent, $85 bus, $67 phone with leave me $800 a moth left and still need to buy food so say $500-$600 left.

Put kindly, you're probably not worth suing. A copyright litigation costs as much per hour as you take away per month; suing you wouldn't be profitable. Most likely if you do get caught they'll ask you to stop (probably through a notice to your ISP). In the extreme low chance that you get sued, the most likely scenario is that they file a claim with the CCB, the CCB sends you a scary-looking notice, the rights holders contact you and say that you've been sued and that you should just settle now to avoid legal costs, you opt out of the CCB, and the rights holders give up because they couldn't profitably go to court in the first place anyways and just wanted to scare you into paying up. If this does happen to you, please do ask an attorney for help; this explanation is purely hypothetical and meant to be informational, not legal advice.

[tikker]

14 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

with how much music i got it wont make a difference if i payed for some i still cant pay for it all. i only make $2000 a moth $1050 in rent, $85 bus, $67 phone with leave me $800 a moth left and still need to buy food so say $500-$600 left.

It'll make a difference to the artist you in that case buy from instead of not paying for it. Unfortunately things cost money and you'll have to budget your lifestyle around that. The I can only afford to buy 2 songs per month, so instead I'll just download 100 argument doesn't really float. You don't walk into a car dealer and steal a Ferrari just because you can only afford a Fiat Panda. The blind eye they typically turn on piracy apart from uploaders is what keeps this going. Nobody's going after you for simply downloading a song from YouTube though.

[HenrySalayne]

If you really want to support artists, use services like Bandcamp to purchase a DRM-free copy. It's a lot like Floatplane and the majority of the revenue goes directly to the artist.

 

In most countries (for example Germany), you are allowed to record everything for personal use if you don't need to circumvent any copy protection. For example, a broadcasting on the radio or on television would be fine but using a device to circumvent HDCP and record an HDMI stream would be illegal. This doesn't apply to downloads from Youtube but you could still record the analogue audio. You can get a decent audio interface and just hook up the output and the input.

There is some work involved to process the recordings into a music library, but why not? You are listening to the music anyway.

[thrasher_565]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

If you really want to support artists, use services like Bandcamp to purchase a DRM-free copy. It's a lot like Floatplane and the majority of the revenue goes directly to the artist.

 

In most countries (for example Germany), you are allowed to record everything for personal use if you don't need to circumvent any copy protection. For example, a broadcasting on the radio or on television would be fine but using a device to circumvent HDCP and record an HDMI stream would be illegal. This doesn't apply to downloads from Youtube but you could still record the analogue audio. You can get a decent audio interface and just hook up the output and the input.

There is some work involved to process the recordings into a music library, but why not? You are listening to the music anyway.

ya i guess the will be an back up plan. at lest then they have to get a hold of my storage drive to get the info. would that work for video as well?

 

ya it will be alot more work instead of 2 clicks and i download a full you tube channel. but i still have to listen to it to see it i even like it thow.

[The Flying Sloth]

Look, I think this thread has been pretty clear, you know what's right and what's wrong.
If you can't afford to pay for the music the right thing to do is to listen to the music on your streaming service of choice and support the artist that way but depending on your jurisdiction downloading for personal use may be permissible.

If you don't have the appropriate license, don't retransmit the audio, if you choose to do so anyway be aware you could be breaking the law and could potentially face penalties.

In the end, nothing we say will change your mind, so do whatever.