Is It Illegal to Record Music from The Net?

[Biggbuttmcgruff!!!!]

OKAY, here is my situation: I have a small music player. It isn't an ipod, but it does record and play digital music.
You know how when you go to Myspace or Purevolume, the artist has some of their songs available to listen to? Well, all I do is plug this little connection into my computer headphone jack, and connect that to my player. When I play a somg from the artist's page, I press RECORD on my player, and I have the song, with great sound and everything.
Is that illegeal? I pay nothing for the song. I figured that because an artists makes something available on myspace, it's okay to record it.
On the other hand, these songs usually have the download option disabled.
I have no qualms about buying music. I don't want to steal.

[Michael P]

On the other hand, these songs usually have the download option disabled.


And there's your answer. If the artists wanted you to have it for free, they'd give it to you up front, wouldn't they?

[GRANT!]

Can't you just buy the song from itunes?

[englishw]

This is a sticky situation. It is still legal to make analog copies of music as long as you are not making a profit off it. That means that you could make a cassette recording of an album and give it away to a friend. However, it is illegal to make a digital copy of any copyrighted digital work. This means duplicating a CD for a friend is illegal. It also means copying an mp3 and giving it away is illegal. It would also mean using any tool to digitally record those myspace songs would be illegal. You could, however, plug a cassette deck into your auxiliary out of your computer and make analog copies of any sound your computer makes, copyrighted music and all. Your only restriction with that is to not make a profit off it. And yes, you could in turn take that cassette and plug it into the input of your soundcard and make a digital recording of that analog copy.

I know it sounds dumb, but that is what is legal and illegal by the laws in effect today. They are old arcane laws that were never meant to be applied in this situation, but there they are. We can only hope that the RIAA and MPAA are not the only ones having an effect on lawmakers today.

So, in your situation, I think what you are doing is technically legal by the law. Your soundcard is outputting an analog signal and your mp3 player is converting that analog signal to a digital signal. I'm sure the RIAA would not be happy with it and would argue that you are making a digital copy, but technically, by the current laws in effect today, you are doing nothing illegal.

-Bill

[Shellhead]

Grant and Michael are right. The intention is for you to be exposed to the music at those MySpace pages, but not to download the songs for free there. If you like the music, you can take note of the song name and performer, then go to a legitimate download site and pay to download that song.

[englishw]

I wasn't arguing the intent or morality of what he is doing, simply giving the information on what is technically legal and technically illegal to do.

I would have to agree though, that the intent of those artists is to put their music out there for you to hear and then if you like it, for you to go buy it from a retailer (online or otherwise).

I won't comment on the morality of copying music because that is an entirely different subject.

Biggbuttmcgruff: Technically, by the letter of the law, you are not doing anything illegal. However, you are going against the intent of the artist. If it's going to keep you up at night or you have any doubts, music is relatively inexpensive. Small price to pay for a clean conscience.

[Sanagi]

Englishw is correct, the "analog hole" is still in effect. If you aren't breaking DRM, you aren't violating the DMCA, and the old fair use law applies. This is the fundamental flaw of DRM: the content must be made available to the consumer at some point, and so there will always be a way to record it, if nothing else then by pointing a camera or microphone at it. Legislation has occasionally been written that would universally sabotage analog recorders in order to partially close the analog hole, but thankfully Congress isn't quite dumb enough to pass it. As wellingtongrey.net (http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-12-04--DMCA/2007-12-04-on-the-digital-millenium-copyright-act.html) pointed out, if the DMCA applied to the physical world, scissors would be illegal.

Incidentally, if you've ever noticed DVD video fluctuating in brightness, it's due to a distortion effect that's intended to scramble the video signal when it's output to a VCR, but which also degrades the video to some extent no matter how it's watched. This is one example of the stupidity of these anti-analog schemes.

[englishw]

Congress, hand-in-hand with the RIAA, is well on its way to making a simple thing like enjoying music a major pain in the butt. The RIAA has been calling CD ripping making "unauthorized copies" of music (http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/sony-bmgs-head-lawyer-says-ripping-cds-is-stealing/). The RIAA claims that you do not purchase the right to listen to a song/album. Instead, you purchase the right to listen to a song/album on the medium that you originally purchased it on. Meaning, if you buy a CD and want the songs on your MP3 player, you need to re-buy the album for that medium. Fortunately congress hasn't approved anything to that effect yet, but just wait...the time is coming. It's ridiculous.

[SOGG]

Wait... so if I had an ADAC, I could copy anything I wanted with impunity? Or should it never be digital at any point in its existence?

[englishw]

Wait... so if I had an ADAC, I could copy anything I wanted with impunity? Or should it never be digital at any point in its existence?

By current US law, you can make an analog copy of a copyrighted digital work. You may then digitize that analog copy and use it for your own purposes as long as you are not turning a profit. DRM protected digital works are the gray area here. It didn't exist when the laws were written, in fact, neither did mp3's. They are old laws that are still in effect because the laws haven't caught up with the times. The RIAA would claim that an ADAC is wrong and making an "unauthorized copy" and SHOULD be illegal, but it's not technically illegal at this time.

It all boils down to outdated laws. So, yes, technically it would be legal, but it would be frowned upon by those in the industry and my guess is that it won't be legal 5 years from now. But that's just my opinion. The RIAA has a pretty strong influence and our lawmakers seem to be getting dumber, not smarter, where technology is concerned.

[SOGG]

That's really strange.

Esp. since analogue is the superiour format.

But cheers. The tip was.... pleasantly surprising.

[MKTerra]

Congress, hand-in-hand with the RIAA, is well on its way to making a simple thing like enjoying music a major pain in the butt. The RIAA has been calling CD ripping making "unauthorized copies" of music (http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/sony-bmgs-head-lawyer-says-ripping-cds-is-stealing/).Some have pointed out (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/30/1835210) that calling the copies "unauthorized" (as opposed to "illegal") is technically correct, but the negative connotations are tripping false alarms.

...

They ARE unauthorized copies. There really has NEVER been any debate about that. The label didn't specifically authorize them therefore they are unauthorized. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

That said, the ENTIRE POINT of fair use is to legalize 'unauthorized copies' in limited 'fair use' circumstances. Fair use, by definition, operates on unauthorized copies. You have to make an unauthorized copy in order for fair use to apply. If the copy was authorized you wouldn't need fair use -- because you've got explicit authorization directly from the rights holder.

The RIAA calling these cd rips unauthorized is about as salient as when they 'over' identify the defendant... if they mention that Jane Doe is a 35 year old woman who works as a bookkeeper, they are not suggesting that being 35 years old, a woman, or a bookkeeper are issues in the case, they are merely identifying the defendant.

Similiarly identifying the unauthorized songs ripped from CD by the defendant merely identifies the songs in question. The fact that they are 'unauthorized' vs 'authorized' is as irrelevant as the fact they were ripped from CD instead of Sirius/XM-Radio.

The judge certainly knows this. The lawyers certainly all know this. Maybe the defendant isn't aware, but that's why he should have a lawyer.

...Or more cynically,
When "unauthorized" is automatically equated to "illegal" we have a problem in our society. Are we required to ask for authorization from someone to do everything now?

[Shellhead]

I have close to a thousand songs on my PC. Most of them were "ripped" from CDs that I own, just because I like the ability to use play random songlists on my computer. However, I admit that I have also ripped songs from about a dozen albums that I checked out from the library, and I have also downloaded a few albums from the internet. I'm not going to rationalize it, I stole things that I should have paid for. But I do resent the idea of having to buy music again just to use it on my computer, so I hope that I will always have the ability to rip my own CDs onto my computer.

[Paul McEnery]

Some have pointed out (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/30/1835210) that calling the copies "unauthorized" (as opposed to "illegal") is technically correct, but the negative connotations are tripping false alarms.


Negative?

I'm rather liking the deconstructive angle on it. The work has been deauthorized, like detraining or depillating. I'm not along for the ride anymore; and I've taken off the unsightly blemish. Now the music exists as a floating text, a living thing in its own right, godless and free and just dying to mutate into recombinant forms.

And I think it says something about the property-grubbing whores of the music biz, the way they let slip that in their minds authorship and authorization are the same thing, because they don't own a single thing in their control, except for the authorizing signature on a piece of legal paper.

Treat it like what it is: an autograph for a fanboy that changes nothing except in the minds of the money men.

[Dan Apodaca]

And there's your answer. If the artists wanted you to have it for free, they'd give it to you up front, wouldn't they?

Maybe. Of course, this is MySpace, which is a really buggy website. For example, a friend of mine tried to make his music downloadable, and it took months of trying to get the site to switch it.

[Paul McEnery]

Maybe. Of course, this is MySpace, which is a really buggy website. For example, a friend of mine tried to make his music downloadable, and it took months of trying to get the site to switch it.

Incompetence is the best security.`

[Dan Apodaca]

If you like the music, you can take note of the song name and performer, then go to a legitimate download site and pay to download that song.

Unless you can't. We're not all John Mayer, you know. iTunes doesn't even have some of the studio-signed music I like.

[MartinRedmond]

Why not? I don't see the big deal when it's super rare import singles at 20$ for that one exclusice new song. I would've loved to have had the net back when I was a teenager. Didn't you ever tape radio shows? Who cares.

[zuludelta]

I would've loved to have had the net back when I was a teenager. Didn't you ever tape radio shows? Who cares.

I remember when I was a kid, my friends and I would phone in requests of songs we liked (but couldn't afford to buy singles of) to the local radio station and then record it onto tape when they played them. The sound quality was pretty poor, but hey, it was better than nothing.

[StoneGold]

Just thought I'd add this hear, the Pirate Party (who knew there was one) is supporting Barack Obama, because he's the one presidential politician to at least be a little more supportive about possibly changing copyright law, and has taken an actual stance on net neutrality.

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-endorses-obama-080103/