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.
You can make infinite copies for personal use of copyrighted content that you have a **VALID** license to. You don't however have any valid license to ANY music that you rip and convert off youtube. The very act of ripping it off youtube means you violate the license requirements to use youtube means that anything beyond that is poisoned.
AKA, youtube isn't selling you a product which means anything you could do with a CD you own doesn't apply. Youtube provided a licensed service with a ToS that has to be observed in order to have a valid copyright license you use the works on youtube. Violate the ToS, violate the license, violate the copyright.
And no all IP law isn't the same as IP is a massive umbrella for Patents, Trademarks, Secrets, and Copyrights. It is a massively complex part of law. And there is nothing specific to music specifically beyond things like statutory regulated licenses (what things like bars and radio stations have been using for years with designated clearing houses and such).
Actually, its perfectly legal to rip a DVD. And even put it on your kids tablet. Loads and loads of copyright law and legal rulings support it. Its even legal to also make another DVD copy.
Youtube's TOS says you may not download the content without authorization, and that includes extracting the audio from a video. But that doesn't make it strictly illegal, just a violation of a provider's TOS. What does make it illegal is the fact that the original rights' holder(s) likely only granted Youtube the right to replay the content, not distribute it as if they had the fully bundle of rights, and regardless at no point does the TOS say any such rights are conveyed to the user. So that means you downloading the music from Youtube in whatever format is a violation of the content owners' right(s), and that is a copyright violation in the truest sense of the word.
But honestly, if you like the artist, support them. Pay for Spotify, Rdio, Amazon Prime Music, iTunes, whatever. I know only a small percentage winds up going to the artist directly, but that is still better than the 0% that goes to them when you rip a song from the web.
it's even illegal to download the nonconverted video to your device? It's only legal to view it from the YT site?
And when you say, "the original rights' holder(s) likely only granted Youtube the right to replay the content, not distribute it as if they had the fully bundle of rights", are you saying that from experience? Why would that be likely, because that seems pretty key here?
I know there've been cases where legal action was taken against ripping sites that store previous rips, and I can see where that would be distribution, but never heard of an individual being made an example of with legal action, like you hear about with movies.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious, and your post seems to address the issue with fact based on experience and training, rather than just opinion. Really, I thought most of the posts on this thread topic have been interesting and well thought out.
Thanks for the response. And because I feel like a bit of a killjoy, practically speaking this discussion is likely irrelevant. Youtube and the rights holders don't really need to waste time chasing after people who rip music from a site; they might do it out of spite or to prove a point, but it is an expensive procedure and the payoff is minimal. It's why lots of those Napster/Limewire/torrent lawsuits have fizzled out; it's bad PR and the payments, after appeals and the like, rarely cover attorney's fees, let alone any return to the rights holders. So in reality, copy away!
In a previous life I was an IP attorney, but it was mostly patent law so I'm a little out of my element. But based on my experience with contracts and TOCs for companies, typically they limit how media can be consumed. So with Youtube, they usually wrap the content in their viewer or limit it to certain apps as a means of tracking usage and limiting said usage to the terms they have with the content creators. There may be apps that allow non-streaming play via some agreement with Youtube, but I'm not aware of any that are legally on the market.
And technically speaking, you are always downloading the full media to your device when viewing; it gets stored in your browser or device's cache, usually with some super-weird name, but it exists and can be accessed outside of the player. Heck, I've written a test plugin for Chrome that did it because I was curious.
Most media providers do so (Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, etc.) as a means of limiting traffic and increasing playback. But that downloading in a technical limitation and is time-limited; oftentimes it is cleared out within a couple of minutes of the video loading, and even sooner if the connection closes. That isn't the same as downloading to your device for future playback intentionally, so that's one distinction that should be made.
When I say likely I am speaking a bit from experience (it's part of your typical copyright class, plus a bit of work experience with media rights for an marketing firm), but mostly just hedging my bets because I haven't read the agreement(s) Youtube has with rights holder organizations. But I'd be amazed if Youtube is granted anything more than is necessary to show the videos with some very light advertising/editorialization, and certainly not the right that would allow them to let users download the media without payment. So it's me making an educated guess. It doesn't mean that some rights holders wouldn't grant unfettered access to all of the media to Youtube, but if they did I think it would be made obvious and, it sounds like from skimming the TOC, you'd see a "Download" button or a similar link.
There have been music-sharing lawsuits, and that's how they catch people. Maybe Youtube keeps a log of views and they could use that information to track down when you viewed the media, but there isn't a way to show you downloaded it unless the app you used relayed and stored that information and then communicated that back to the app's creator and it was found/used by the attorney. It's a rabbit hole a company could go down if all those conditions were met, but realistically it is unlikely. But how they catch people is in distribution, because then they have a record of you giving/receiving the media, and that's usually enough because rarely are you and me given the right of distribution by copyright holders. Even if you "buy" a track from Apple, you are only allowed to use it for your personal use. You can't share it in most cases, which was the case with CDs, tapes, LPs, etc. in the past but obviously scaled up immensely with digital technology. So that's how they snag people, so, again, as long as you aren't wrapping these songs in a torrent you are probably good.
bronxblue, thanks for taking the time.
I always feel welcomed on this site as a rival fan. I actually post as much here as my Husker sites, because I like the people, the wit, and variety of topics and viewpoints. Always something interesting going on here, I just try to add a little something once in a while while minding my manners as a guest.
I think the upshot of what you're saying is, technically it's probably illegal, but so trivial no one would ever bother pressing the issue. And impossible to detect an individual unless they get into distribution. Passing on content beyond your own private use seems to be the tipping point between harmless and harmful.
BTW, good recent case and article from Ars Technica on a related topic, where IMAX threatened legal action for copyright infringement, then backed down, that you might enjoy. Thanks again for the great comments.
I pirate music all of the time. I listen to a lot of indie punk rock bands, so when I find something I like I go to their band camp page and buy the albums. I also gladly pay the $10 a month for spotify.
Other media is catching up now that there is Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc. but they're still not as comprehensive as the audio libraries, so I do find myself pirating the occasional TV show or movie despite paying for all 3 streaming services.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Couldn't live without it. I still buy albums from independant and up and coming artists though.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Download them as a wav, much better quality that way. Only barbarians use mp3s.
Regardless of your stance on downloading, the artist is only losing money if the downloader would have purchased the music if he couldn't get it for free. That's not the case for everyone; for some people it's either get it for free or go without. So unjust enrichment sure, but there was never a sale there that the artist is being deprived of...
Are there really songs out there that you wouldn't download for one dollar, but would download for free?
The musical artist is getting dicked by everything: All of you pirates, Youtube, Spotify and the other services, piracy download sites etc.
It is ALL illegal... but at this point it makes no difference whatsoever because the artist is fucked and will not make royalties other than a very very few at the top, or a huge legacy act like the Beatles.
Artists these days have been forced to turn to other areas to try to make a living. Selling records is over. They are nothing more than promotional tools.
Its a shame because it cheapens the music. Artist pours thousands of hours in to making a record and thousands of dollars...
and you get it for free.
If there is an option to buy the music, you should do so. Reward the artist if you can. It's not like it's hugely expensive to download a song through a legitimate site. Remember when you used to have to pay like $14 to buy a single at the record store?
Now if you can't find the music through any legal channel (which has been an issue for me for some older stuff and non-U.S. music), that's a little different.
is that they or their label or representative willingly post the music video on a popular site in a format that can easily be ripped. There has to be an easy way for the artist or YT, who they work with, to prevent this.
The fact that they don't implies to me it's either legal, or they don't care, or both. The only legal action I've ever heard of is conversion sites that archive rips, whicj=h to me is more akin to traditional pirating.
So, never heard any noise about legal action against individuals ripping, and it seems an easy thing to stop with technical barriers.
Am I missing something?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I'll buy it no problem. But I want it in whatever format I want it in. This might not be the rule, but the way I see it is if I purchase it then I should be able to convert it to any format I want.
Back in the 60's i purchased LP's, then in the 70's 8 tracks and cassettes, and then CD's after that and now MP3's. I have purchased some of the same songs four or five times. I feel very strongly about feeding the musicians because they do deserve it and I do appreciate them. Plus, being a musician myself I empathize (i am not what you call a successful musician). I love the fact that a person can now purchase two or three songs off a ....LP/CD whatever now, because there a very few LP/CD's where I like (enough to spend money on) more than two or three songs.
My problem is remains bit rate. I am one of those idiots who have high end equipment--for instance, my PBS M4U 1 over he ear headphones, and i will gladly take the Pepsi challenge for anyone who thinks I cannot tell the difference. Hey, maybe I am wrong and can't but I do think I can--and I have tested myself in this regard--it was actually quite easy to discern the difference. I listen to music--just don't use it for background chatter. Further, from what I understand digital music can deteriorate over time so --and maybe I am wrong here--- i would think the more bit rate I start out with the longer the integrity of the music will last. Maybe I am just a moran on this but it does smack somewhat of Spock type logic.
Finally, I have read numerous biographies of musicians/groups I can't remember a single one with flattering content about music middlemen. Those guys will sell their mothers for a dollar so it seems. And, I don't hear about too many record executives in the food stamp lines.
I just wish all artists would bypass the bloodsucking middlemen and throw all their stuff up online. I would much rather pay them directly. From what I understand the artist get about a nickle an album when they go through record companies. Hard to feed a family on that unless you are the Stones or something. Kind of funny reading all the law talkers takes on this because you know they are just after their end and otherwise wouldn't care less.
In the end, is it really too much to ask for 320 bit rate for my 99 cents?
Need some FLAC up in that bitch.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
thinking no one would really comment, especially to answer "yes". Yikes, it's a big thread. There is this thing called the FBI you know, right? Every now and then they round up a few thousand music stealers, right? Just to make an example, right? You heard about that, no? Okay. G-bye.
August 16th, 2015 at 9:22 AM ^
downloading mp3 or ripping mp3 without permission is not legal. legal authoruty can take any action against the downloader. be carefull about doing this job. Layfield Wallace
April 23rd, 2016 at 11:27 AM ^
Hi here is goos website for songs lyrics . jut open the link and saerch any song .
September 17th, 2016 at 4:39 AM ^
According to the www.riaa.com it's acceptable to make a copy of an original CD as digital music files or to burn a single copy for your own private use, but not to share with others. The main thing to remember is, never distribute music from your legally owned original CDs in any form.