• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Moral/Legal Question ? Recording Streaming Music

JP said:
YouTube monetization would compensate the rights holder for that single play only, which would be far, far less than what they'd get from a song or album purchase. That it's 'paid for' for one usage doesn't necessarily make them whole for a different usage.
Click to expand...
Most people wouldn’t use tape anyway unless there at a place they normally couldn’t stream so I stand by what I said earlier you can split hairs but why ?and if the music is heard by another and they like it they might buy a hard copy or stream it thus bringing in more revenue
 
doctor fuse said:
I recall a colleague in my orchestra stating that it was not illegal to tape radio broadcasts. Something about public domain airwaves (IANAL, obviously).

The illegal/immoral part is about profiting from these recordings.
Click to expand...
I agree the artist may not profit directly from radio but the music put out to the masses leads to concert revenue downloads and hard copy sales,
 
ernieb1536 said:
Most people wouldn’t use tape anyway unless there at a place they normally couldn’t stream so I stand by what I said earlier you can split hairs but why ?and if the music is heard by another and they like it they might buy a hard copy or stream it thus bringing in more revenue
Click to expand...

I don't think it's splitting hairs. It's a bit like deciding to take your Uber drivers car home when the agreement was a ride across town for $20. The rest is just post facto justification.
 
JP said:
I don't think it's splitting hairs. It's a bit like deciding to take your Uber drivers car home when the agreement was a ride across town for $20. The rest is just post facto justification.
Click to expand...
I use utube and do not subscribe to paid streaming service witch operates like commercial radio paid for by commercials ,for the record I don’t mind the commercials which allow me free access to the music and I do buy albums that I like , the music I’ve listened to for free , this how I know what music to buy , but I have no problem if somebody makes a recording off a free media not bound by contract for personal use only and not to sell or make other copies to give away , somebody else hearing homemade tape may like the music just like radio and decide to buy the album or cd of better quality just like radio artist are not paid for their music ! But they gain access to masses of people who attend concerts ,buy related merchandise and cds albums or streaming services and most people prefer to stream anyway
 
JP said:
I don't think it's splitting hairs. It's a bit like deciding to take your Uber drivers car home when the agreement was a ride across town for $20. The rest is just post facto justification.
Click to expand...
Not quite accurate. It is like taking the Uber driver's car, but he still has full and complete use of it. And he can lend it to someone else while still driving for Uber.
 
Semanon said:
Not quite accurate. It is like taking the Uber driver's car, but he still has full and complete use of it. And he can lend it to someone else while still driving for Uber.
Click to expand...
That’s worse than my bad analogy.
 
ernieb1536 said:
just like radio artist are not paid for their music !
Click to expand...


In fact, under industry collective bargaining agreements between radio regulatory bodies and artist advocacy groups like the AFM, radio stations DO pay royalties to artists (or their licensing management), just like streaming on the internet. The rates are abysmally low; Spotify pays somewhere in the vicinity of $0.0022933-$0.0043 per stream.
Support your favourite artists' struggle to get a fairer share of streaming revenues for THEIR creative art.
 
You shouldn't feel bad at all about recording streaming (or radio) if you've bought some new albums or gone to concerts in your lifetime, as long as it's for personal use and you're not being a distributor of this recorded material. Feel good. :) You've almost certainly done more than the average person to support musicians and the music industry.
 
JP said:
That’s worse than my bad analogy.
Click to expand...
But more accurate.

What is being taken, and the only thing being taken, is the services' ability to make money from YOU, and the people with whom you share the recorded file. Everyone else can still get the music and the service loses nothing but their customer returning to listen after the subscription ends.

Not meant to be a justification, just some context for my bad analogy.
 
Last edited:
So, let's put a different spin on it. If I record a stream from the service and I'm still a subscriber, is that theft of service? I'm still paying to listen to unlimited music, does it matter if it is from their servers or mine?
 
Here's another wrinkle. I don't stream. I have over 2700 songs residing on a USB drive playing through a computer. The songs were either ripped from CD's I purchased, or purchased through an online service (I paid for all of them)

I manage mail/print operations at a small university in MN. I have set up 2 speakers & BT amp in the lobby area of my department to play the music for anyone passing by to hear.

No ads are played, the artist isn't being compensated per play and no one pays to listen to the song.

Illegal/immoral?
 
Semanon said:
So, let's put a different spin on it. If I record a stream from the service and I'm still a subscriber, is that theft of service? I'm still paying to listen to unlimited music, does it matter if it is from their servers or mine?
Click to expand...

You’ve completely missed the point of the analogy, which was how the rights holder is compensated, not the streaming service itself.

Mystic said:
Mix tapes made at home were neither immoral nor illegal. Accept it.
Click to expand...

The OP isn’t asking about mix tapes.

CraigVMN said:
Illegal….?
Click to expand...

Yes. The mechanical license doesn’t convey the right to public performance.
 
ernieb1536 said:
I use utube and do not subscribe to paid streaming service witch operates like commercial radio paid for by commercials ,for the record I don’t mind the commercials which allow me free access to the music and I do buy albums that I like , the music I’ve listened to for free , this how I know what music to buy , but I have no problem if somebody makes a recording off a free media not bound by contract for personal use only and not to sell or make other copies to give away , somebody else hearing homemade tape may like the music just like radio and decide to buy the album or cd of better quality just like radio artist are not paid for their music ! But they gain access to masses of people who attend concerts ,buy related merchandise and cds albums or streaming services and most people prefer to stream anyway
Click to expand...
JP said:
You’ve completely missed the point of the analogy, which was how the rights holder is compensated, not the streaming service itself.



The OP isn’t asking about mix tapes.



Yes. The mechanical license doesn’t convey the right to public performance.
Click to expand...
agreed and use of that music in a public setting is iffy , that’s why most restruants or public business will use a music service , rather than just radio, as far as the artist compensation they don’t get paid when their song is played on the radio so even if they miss a few cents per download they still have access to the masses which will hopefully buy their product or exspose some one else to it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom