OT: Do you do mp3 ripping and do you think it's legal?
Recently I started to show a friend how to convert YouTube videos into mp3, and her first reaction she's get in trouble for pirating music.
Which got me thinking. I'm no attorney, and I'm sure the law here is arcane and probably muddy enough to even cause head scratching and debate among lawyers practicing more everyday law.
My take, it's okay to copy a song off of YouTube, as long as it’s only for personal use. The "fair use" allows one copy for personal use, just like when you record a TV show with your DVR, you are then creating one copy for your use. It does not become illegal until you start distributing that show, or music for profit, or passing on to friends for non profit use. Just the act of distribution is where it officially becomes illegal.
Where I think mp3 ripping crosses the line, or at least is legally challengable, is conversion services that also archive MP3s and store them on its servers for future downloads. So if a user visits the site and enters a URL that someone previously had, then instead of re-ripping the song, they could just go to its servers and give the user a copy of the MP3 that was already stored there. Which … is essentially a lot like illegally downloading music.
Now, whether mp3 ripping in any form is moral, is another question. The quality isn't that hot, I think most people are like me and do it for casual use and sampling, and that it leads to more licensed purchases, rather than to build a serious library.
Um, if you thought the music was worth listening to that you downloaded it, you have to pay for it. That's what an adult does. If you can't afford to buy the music, then you can't have it. If I didn't know better, I'd think this conversation is between me and me 19-month-old daughter, who is learning the exact same lesson about life.
1.) Your daughter is 1 and a half.
2.) She has iTunes? I'm impressed.
You gotta start them early.
Actually, most of our arguments revolve around wanting Elmo in every possible form, and me saying no.
Does the average adult have thousands of dollars to spend on music ? I sure don't.I don't understand this argument. First, I'm not sure the average adult has downloaded 5,000 songs, but if so, they've probably done so over like 10-15 years, so that's not much per year. Second, you sound like you are automatically entitled to a huge music collection, whether you can afford to pay for it or not. Do you feel this way about all consumer products? If not, why is music an exception?
I listen to a lot of obscure music that's not generally available in most stores, physically or digitally, so I only copy songs off YouTube that you legitimately can't get anywhere else. Old, obscure 45s I'm too busy to rip off of my own vinyl copies, or stuff for which there's only a few copies out there and which generally isn't available on CD or iTunes, etc. For that stuff, it's pretty useful.
Other than that, for new music, I generally buy physical copies for a lot of albums from artists I really care about, or if I go to a show and see a cool band I'll buy the album. I'm a vinyl guy, so buying stuff on iTunes is really only something I do for single songs.
prove that you can tell any difference between a high quality MP3, 16b 44khz red book CD, and 24b 192khz audio and we'll think about it. FYI, so far no one has actually been able to prove they can tell the difference between redbook audio and 24b 192khz audio. And very very very few have even been able to do it with high quality mp3s and redbook audio.
AKA 24b 192khz is basically the same as $10k audiophile optical cables!
There certainly is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to audiophile equipment, but there's unquestionably a difference between your garden variety MP3 and your average FLAC/other lossess lineaged file. When you're listening on headphones that aren't the 50-cent earbuds that come with your iPhone, the difference is astounding between the two.
Unfortunately for you're argument, repeated blind A/B testing proves you wrong. And I've been listening to music for decades using pretty much the same quality headphones that most music was recorded with, mixed with, and mastered with, fyi. (Sony MDR-V6s and Shure profesional IEMs).
In order to get an MP3 that is distinguishable in A/B testing vs redbook you have to use either a very bad encoder or an extremely low bit rate. 256-320 Kbs mpeg1 AL.3 (aka MP3) encoded with a "modern" encoder with proper psychoacoutstics is basically indistinguishable in blind testing from redbook.
between 44.1khz CD and 96 khz audio given ideal listening environment and equipment, beyond that it is more a matter of dynamic range (which is being squashed out of existence) and pushing the Nyquist Frequency up beyond being any sort of issue.
I record music every day at 88.1 kHz. It is very easy for me to tell the difference between that and 44.1, however I am a trained audio engineer and musician. Perhaps the general public cant do that.
However, how may people are really in a listening environment for where they can tell the difference? And...are they multitasking at the same time and not really paying attention to the music? In that case it doesnt make that much difference because it is pleasant background noise and beats to them.
So you can hear beyond 20Khz? You can distinguish music beyond 20Khz? Are you over 20 years old? Have you done actual blind A/B testing? Do you even have audio equipment that can regenerate sounds much beyond 20 Khz?
I'd bet good money that I can take your 88Khz recording, clip it to 44Khz and you won't be able to tell the difference.
no they can't. There is zero positive proof that people can and large quantities of negative proof from blind testing. And dynamic range is dependant on the number of encoding bits and not on sampling rate. Sampling rate controls peak frequency, 44.1khz redbook is limited to a peak frequency of 22khz which is well beyond the hearing range of 99.99% of the population and is extremely unlikely to even be heard by the artist, recording engineer, etc.
Now if you want to talk about people stomping all over the dynamic range of recordings, that's a whole different issue and has more to do with horrible mixing and mastering.
Simply put, you are stealing from the artist if you do not pay them for their work and they did not explicitly give away the song as "free".
What you are doing is the modern day equivalent of recording a song with a tape player being played off the radio. The difference is that the quality is exponentially better today. You are likely also not recording off YouTube the version of the song the artist put on YouTube, but rather a "lyric" version that has the song off the album.
Look, I'm not going to go all "holier than thou" on you. I was burning/ripping CDs before people even knew what MP3s were. I've also done exactly what you are doing (and may do so again in the future). But, I'm trying to walk the path of the righteous man and nowadays the free music services aren't bad. I even ponied up a few bucks a month for one of the services and I'll still buy albums from artists I really want to support.
(Separately, I don't really care how others obtain their music, but I've always liked the idea of supporting artists by actually paying for their music. Piracy may not alter the lifestyle of the Rolling Stones or Taylor Swift, but it does affect the ability of smaller artists to make a living producing music.)
According to the study I posted above, it helps "smaller artitsts" make a living.
I refuse to pay for compressed mp3's, so I buy the CDs and then rip them myself and put the CD away for archival.
I will admit that I got quite a bit of milage out of my Napster account back in the day, as well as Limewire after that. As for YouTube, I actually like the audio / visual experience of - if possible - having the music video on screen while I play the music as well (or live concert footage or whatever goes with it), so I have several libraries that I rotate through and a rather nice set of speakers I can play it through.
That being said, I have ripped a few MP3s for the in car collection for the same reason others have mentioned - it isn't generally available (not sure about the legality, but I have a feeling it is not). I also collect music media, so I have the physical copies (mostly on CD, but some vinyl actually) for the lion's share of my collection.
I think there's something to be said for supporting artists, if you can. If you have the money and you like a band that isn't enormously famous to begin with, it just seems like a nice thing to do. They've given you something that makes your life a little more enjoyable, so give something back if you can. And, if you have the chance, see the band live and buy some merch.
But even the most well-intentioned consumer has to make exceptions. Here's the easiest one for me: When you want to own a piece of music that is currently out of print, and what physical copies exist are going to cost you a shitload of money and it's going to go to some private collector/resaler anyway and not the band themselves (because, again, it's out of print.) I can't find anything immoral in downloading something for free when the very record label that published it initially has decided that it isn't worth the trouble to produce any longer.
There are other exceptions of course, and other gray areas. But I don't agree that downloading is ALWAYS wrong no matter what. I am happy to support artists I like when I can, but it's more out of kindness than out of some sense of moral obligation, because it's hard to find a logically consistent argument for what is OK to listen to for free and what isn't.
No one objects if you:
Borrow a CD from a friend and listen for free, pick up a CD from the library and listen for free, listen on YouTube or other internet service for free, listen on the radio or streaming internet station for free, buy a copy of an album used (even though neither the band or the label receive a penny this way,) etc. If you want, there are a ton of albums out there on YouTube that you could listen to hundreds of times if you chose to do so and no one would object. But if you download a copy -even if you NEVER listen to it at all, that's considered theft? That's never made sense to me.
Very interesting ideas, I guess most people are not critical thinkers like you.
There are protected uses which you are piggybacking on here to extend your argument. To some degree, some of what you are stating already is legal and has a form in the Internet Archive (if you've never gone to that site, you should).
You asked for a logically consistent argument as to what to listen to for free, so here it is:
1. If the artist puts up their material (through their own website, their record label, or their permission with a streaming service/internet radio/radio) then it is legal to listen to that for free. Artists generally do not put their entire album on YouTube (unless they are nobody's hoping for a break); even Radiohead did it differently.
2. Borrowing physical media to listen to is not illegal. This includes books, tapes, CDs, etc. That is fair use.
The downloading of music doesn't feel like stealing because you are merely storing bits and bytes of data. This seems different than picking someone's pockets or stealing their car or jewelry. It's nothing physical. But it's not a victimless crime.
I understand the argument you are trying to make, but this just feels like rationalization.
People around here keep talking about these incredibly rare copies of songs that they can't locate anywhere, and yet I have a hard time believing that there isn't some source, somewhere, where you can get a copy legally. I'd love to see an example of a song that is impossible to find legally.
The Harry Fox Agency has the rights to millions of songs, and they love money, so if you dig around a bit most bands have licensed enough of their material somewhere that you can get a digital copy. If you want a physical copy then it might be harder, but that's not open for debate.
Listening to music is fine. If you want to run Youtube in the background all day, looping through playlists of songs, go for it. It might still be illegal for that material to be on Youtube, but that's Youtube's responsibility in my eyes, and so while there are legal doctrines against the use of materials you know aren't legally available (i.e. I can watch a decent amount of Jurassic World via shaky cam scenes on Youtube), you can make some assumptions based on its availability at the time.
But the vast majority of people aren't ripping rare B-sides to bands from the 60's on Youtube; they're ripping the new Jamie xx CD or a Taylor Swift single because they don't want to pay for it. And while I'm open to someone making an objective argument why the content creators shouldn't get paid for that work, all I've ever heard are these weak "well, the record labels get most of the money" and "artists make their money touring" arguments that just feel like justifications.
TL;DR: Just pay for music. Chances are no matter how "unique" and rare your tastes are, there's somewhere you can obtain the music legally.
There are lots of examples of songs that are, at the very least, very difficult to find a copy of that you are paying the original artist (or even original label) for. My concern is first and foremost with the artists, not with the legality. I don't feel particularly obligated to pay The Harry Fox Agency or whoever else because they have the "rights" to something they didn't create in the first place. This is especially true for music that was made several decades into the past. Call it a rationalization or an excuse or whatever, and maybe it is. But I don't feel the need to pay some company for music that was written, recorded, and produced by a bunch of dead people. I don't feel obligated to pay an artist's grandkids royalties. That isn't in the same neighborhood to me as failing to pay a hard-working, mid-label band that is currently touring and making new music.
Also, what the "vast majority" of people are doing isn't really pertinent to my argument. I'm speaking for myself, not for the teenager ripping off Taylor Swift (who is still doing very well for herself.) I'm not looking to write a law here. Given where we're at technologically, people can download almost anything for free, and are ultimately going to have to decide for themselves where the line is. All I'm doing is explaining where mine falls.
But again, this is a binary argument that you are trying to make more subjective. It's against the law to copy something you don't have ownership rights to in this manner. You can draw whatever line you want, but the black line of legality is the one being discussed here. That line can change, but trying to sermonize that away isn't what the OP was asking, and isn't what my point is.
So I'll attack it this way. You say you don't find a need to pay companies who own rights for music they didn't create and whose original artists are dead. I assume, then you'd be fine downloading a book or a movie from someone who is dead, based on the same logic? But those artists have estates and families, and oftentimes they benefit from those ongoing payments just like landowners and other rights holders. You are making some arbitrary decsion not to pay someone because you've decided they've had enough, which is perfectly fine as a rationalization but isn't particularly fair or logical unless you want to completely upset both copyright law but also large swaths of property law in general.
In a different world where these laws don't exist, then go for it. But we live in a world where those laws apply, and so breaking them makes it illegal. As perhaps a bit of an extreme argument, if we didn't have litter laws I'm guessing people would throw trash everywhere. If we didn't have restrictions on hunting, we'd have destroyed even more species than we already have. If we didn't have the SEC, for all it's neutered power, we'd have financial instititions with even less oversight and, I'm guessing, even more corruption and missteps that would cost everyone. If you want to change copyright laws to allow users to not pay for works once the creator dies (which was the case at one point if my memory of copyright law class is correct), then by all means do so. But that's not the case, and there are a number of good reasons why we would want to maintain the rights of those creators once they are dead.
Functionally speaking, this is a dumb argument we are having. Youtube isn't going to knock down your door and nab you for copyright violations for a couple of songs from the 1950s and 1960s, and in some cases the rights holders probably allowed those rights to lapse into the public domain, which might explain why they are available without being taken down. But in general, people who create works of art are entitled to protections against uncompensated reproduction, and that extends beyond their death. That's been my point, and whether or not you feel that should be the case is a personal choice I'm not here to sway you from, only point out that doing so violates the law.
What If? by L-Fudge (circa 1998, Rawkus Records).
12" single that is only available through discogs or e-bay ranging anywhere from $10.00-$30.00. A single that was released on a now-defunct record label by an artist who hasn't made music in over 10 years.
If I purchase that thing online neither the artist nor the label are seeing a dime of my money. Sure, it's available legally, but it's absurd to pay upwards of $30.00 for one song when the only person whose pockets I'm taking money out of is some e-bay lister.
I can come up with more examples if you'd like...
I've done the same thing with old computer games that I never got around to playing when they were released. I feel absolutely no obligation to pay for a copy of something that the publisher no longer bothers to sell...
Well, I never said the market was reasonable. But I looked on eBay and found a bunch of prints around those price points for the song, and so it isn't like it was that hard. And not to play a free market proponent, but if the market dictates that $10-$30 is the going rate for a rare song, then you have to pay for it if you want it. I'd love a '64 Shelby Daytona Coupe, but I don't have $7.25M, so I gotta slum along with a Dodge Caliber.
Okay, here's a more practical counter-example; I love wrestling video games. When I was in college, I heard about this wreslting game for the Playstation called Fire Pro Wrestling G. It was only released in Japan, and so I saved up my money and paid something like $60 (in early 00's money!) to have it shipped locally and buy it at some mom-and-pop game store. It had been out in Japan for years, but getting it to America was costly and since the company that made it had stopped creating games, they were becoming scarcer and deemed by some as a collectible. And I'm sure had I snooped around online, I could have found an ISO rip of the disc and burned it for playing on my modded PS had I wanted to.
But I wanted the original game, in its original format, and the only legal way to do so was by paying. So I did, and then I played it for a couple of weeks, realized I couldn't read Japanese and that severely limited the immersion elements, and I kind of forgot about it. My point is that while I'd have loved to have those $60 back, there was a legal way for me to procure the game, so I did.
I downloaded gigs of songs of Napster when I was at UM, and at the time I rationalized it away by saying Metallica had enough money so why should they care. But it's still illegal, and as I've gotten older and seen friends make works and get screwed out of money because of illegal "sharing" and the like, I've come to seen the unintended victims of not paying for stuff you want. because you can find it for free elsewhere. So by all means keep doing what you feel is right, but no amount of "this stuff is expensive" is going to sway my opinion that you should pay for stuff you want if you can and that not doing so is stealing.
to my knowledge buy from any online music service the same quality music you get from ripping a CD (320 bit rate). Amazon, for instance gives you 256 VBR (variable bit rate). I tried talking with Amazon about this and they blew me off. Will never go back.
if you ask me that is robbery. i have no sympathy whatsoever for the music industry middlemen who rob both the artist and the consumer--yeah, i did say rob.
I have rather high end equipment and CAN tell the difference. It pisses me right the hail off. They bitch about pirates, but that is exactly what they are. fawk em all.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Pfft, I only listen to music recorded live in a private studio on a modified vintage analog system with latinum-core wires end-to-end and re-sampled at 176kHz onto custom zirconium disks.
I only listen to music filtered through diamonds. I throw the diamonds away afterwards.
libaries legally purchasing your work and freely distributing it to the general public?
The Internet is killing the old business model for music. Someone said it above that the business model has flipped -- using tours to support CD sales versus using CD sales to support tours.
I personally think the artists complaining about this are big friggin babies who don't want to tour as much as they need to to compensate for the loss of CD sales. So their response.....raise ticket prices. The cost of going to a concert is ridiculous! Pretty soon they are going to price themselves out and start to see a decline in attendance.
I liked hoe Dave Mathews Band did it. They made their music available to everyone and put all their focus on touring. It seemed to work out well for them.
So if I'm reading your post correctly, basically, you want music to be free, and when artists want you to actually compensate them for their music, they're "babies".
I used to "pirate" a lot of music when I was younger, but I rarely do nowadays. As Gucci Mane has pointed out pirating music rips off the labels way more than it affects the artists (generally speaking), but I do feel morally wrong about doing it which is why I have largely stopped.
As others have mentioned, spotify premium is a pretty good deal. You get access to tons of music, can save it to your phone or computer and with a student discount I'm only paying $5.00/month which is damn near a steal. That being said, spotify is limited in its selection of stuff, especially considering that I listen to a lot of underground/old-school/out of print stuff.
As Bando mentioned, if it is out of print I will either torrent it or get it off youtube. It's ridiculous to pay an arm and a leg when I just want the B-side of some 12" (phrasing?). There used to be a ton of blogspots with rare singles available for download, but since they also offered current albums for free download they got shut down. :(
I collect vinyl, but it can be a bitch to rip to your computer, so any time I buy vinyl that doesn't offer an acompanying MP3 download I will usually torrent an MP3 version. I figure I've already given the artist money and often times the vinyl is more expensive than the CD/MP3 version. I will also torrent any CD that I have previously purchased that is no longer playable due to overuse (this hasn't happened in years).
If there is an artist that I really like (find their album playable from front to back), I will purchase their album as a show of support, especially if they are on an independent label. The most recent albums I felt were worthy of purchase were Logic's Under Pressure and J Cole's 2014 Forest Hills Drive.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
being an IP attorney you obviously know more than me.
I honestly thought 1 copy for personal use was legal, that pirating only applied if you distributed to others. And all IP law isn't the same, is it? Thought there were some things very specific to music.
I'd appreciate more of an explanation, not because I'm challenging your opinion, but to be better informed.
You can make a copy for yourself as a backup if you own the media. But you don't own the video on youtube, so even one copy is deemed a violation. I've heard arguments about time-shifting and the like with respect to the old Sony decision regarding Betamax, but that doesn't apply in this context IME.