recording live radio through internet

[Salmon Trout]

eh, put down the pipe buddy - I'm pretty sure that it isn't the way the law works.

For the second time:

In Europe and the US it is legal to record, for your own use, broadcasts that you have a right to listen to in the first place, whether they arrive via radio waves, or cable or the internet. It is not legal to resell, redistribute, or rebroadcast the recordings without the permission of the copyright owner.

So put your pipe down, "buddy". 

[Quantos]

For the second time:

Aye, and I feel great when people actually comprehend what I am writing.

In Europe and the US it is legal to record, for your own use, broadcasts that you have a right to listen to in the first place, whether they arrive via radio waves, or cable or the internet. It is not legal to resell, redistribute, or rebroadcast the recordings without the permission of the copyright owner.

That's not what I am contesting.

So put your pipe down, "buddy". 

I SO wish I had one going, hmmm - Hash...

[Salmon Trout]

I SO wish I had one going, hmmm - Hash...

Me too... 

[BC_Programmer]

Aye, and I feel great when people actually comprehend what I am writing.

Quantos. He comprehended it just fine. I can see you're attempting to forcibly misinterpret his reply in an attempt to play a game of "gotchya!"


first you said:

I'm so glad to hear that you 'think' something, therefor it must be the way the law works.

Person thinks something -> the law works in a certain way as a result

follow? that's what the sentence structure implies.

however, you are interpreting ST's response intentionally vaguely; he said "but the law does work that way"; which is to say, it does work that certain way the other poster thought, the fact that they happen to think it works that way is however purely coincidental. Your response to that was as if your post previous had a structure that said that the law works the way people think; however, you never said anything like that.

That is, when ST responded with "that's the way the law works" you purposefully interpreted as a response to the latter, unsaid quotation, and therefore that he was saying that the law is based on the way people think; this is implied by your response:

eh, put down the pipe buddy - I'm pretty sure that it isn't the way the law works.

Clearly, you are (as I noted) quite intentionally misinterpreting your very own previous post so as to change the context of his latter post so that you can provide a sufficiently clever quip of this nature; note that you make no attempt to actually explain that you are purposely changing the meaning of your previous post to suite a new purpose.


The end.

[Salmon Trout]

Clearly, you are (as I noted) quite intentionally misinterpreting your very own previous post so as to change the context of his latter post so that you can provide a sufficiently clever quip of this nature; note that you make no attempt to actually explain that you are purposely changing the meaning of your previous post to suite a new purpose.

Agreed; a clear cut case of trolling.

[2x3i5x]

is this post now finally at a dead end?

I guess we know that in the US and the UK, you may copy, rip, record radio or TV that you have the rights to, provided no reselling, rebroadcasting or uploading to internet without copyright holder's consent.

[Salmon Trout]

is this post now finally at a dead end?

I guess we know that in the US and the UK, you may copy, rip, record radio or TV that you have the rights to, provided no reselling, rebroadcasting or uploading to internet without copyright holder's consent.

Not just the UK, also the British Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, etc) and the whole European Union. Those we know of. Probably most other countries as well.

[talontromper]

So even if it was uploaded to Youtube via RCA, its not illegal to copy the video to your HDD, provided that you don't distribute it? Because basically that is a work-around for p2p sharing, which is illegal.

[BC_Programmer]

Because basically that is a work-around for p2p sharing, which is illegal.

When did Peer to peer sharing become illegal?

Either way, uploading copyright content to youtube is against their terms of use.

[talontromper]

As far as i knew, the various music companies were shutting down file-sharing programs and websites, based on the sharing of copy righted content being circulated on the programs/sites. The copy righted content I'm referring to is videos loaded by the record labels.

[2x3i5x]

p2p (the technology itself) is not illegal. But it's the fact that people were using p2p to share things illegally.

[Geek-9pm]

Many years ago I worked in a few small radio stations.
At that time all radio stations were required to have a license from BMI and from ASCAP. These are organizations that represent the music copyright holders. And this may seem hard to believe, that they actually did made  surveys to find out what music was being played on the radio stations. This was a real bummer for DJs. You had to log every song you played and make a note if it  was BMI or ASCAP.
Now what about Internet radio? Are they complying with this rule? It is hard to imagine that these organizations would give someone permission to play their music all over the world.
In some parts of the world it is very hard to enforce the copyright laws. Some have stated that if a copyright law is not strongly enforced then the copyright  is no longer valid. That is not true. Copyright law in United States is very strong, stronger than ever. But us it  strongly enforced? No, but that does not make it legal to break the law.

[Salmon Trout]

that does not make it legal to break the law.

It can never be "legal to break the law".  However, Geek, recording from the radio for personal use is not breaking copyright, and not illegal, as we have already established.

[Geek-9pm]

It can never be "legal to break the law".  However, Geek, recording from the radio for personal use is not breaking copyright, and not illegal, as we have already established.

On can challenge a specific law or application of it by doing what appears to be a violation of the specific law in special circumstances. Then in a trial it would be determined that the law was either valid not. And then someone could appeal it.

Yes, recording for personal use is inside the law, as it has been interpreted. Before that ruling was made, some pundits claimed is was not lawful to record even for your your own use.*  But at the present time you are not allowed to make recordings for your own use while attending a concert. Unless they give you permission.

 What t I wonder is how how the web sites get permission to broadcast copyright material. Is that not a case of 'public performance for hire'?

* Footnote. A law may be found invalid. Criminals in prison for violation of  that  law at an earlier time must still serve there time in prison. To let them free would be a violation of law.
So if they gave you 60 years in jail for recording the  copyrighted sound track of the
Lawrence Welk TV show on a wire recorder in your garage,
 - you might would still be in the can.

[BC_Programmer]

On can challenge a specific law or application of it by doing what appears to be a violation of the specific law in special circumstances. Then in a trial it would be determined that the law was either valid not. And then someone could appeal it.

In the U.S in a trial the Jury decides both the facts of the case as well as the laws involved. The Law system is "scared" of this ability so they often tell jurors that they are only to determine the facts of the case. This is not the way it works.

Yes, recording for personal use is inside the law, as it has been interpreted. Before that ruling was made, some pundits claimed is was not lawful to record even for your your own use.*

Fair use law, as per Copyright law of 1976:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106
 
and 17 U.S.C. § 106A
 
, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

       1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
       2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
       3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
       4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

But at the present time you are not allowed to make recordings for your own use while attending a concert.

Yes, you are. That's fair-use. There was a time you weren't:

In 1994, as part of the implementation of the GATT Agreement, the United States passed legislation that permitted a performer or record company to prevent the unauthorized recording of a live performance. Under this law, performers or record companies did not have to register with the Copyright Office in order to receive protection and there was no time limit for how long the protection lasted. In 2004, a federal court struck down the anti-bootlegging statute stating that the law appeared to provide "seemingly perpetual protection for unfixed musical performances." As such, the court ruled, it violates Congress' authority to regulate under the Copyright Clause. (United States v. Martignon 346 F. Supp 2d 413 (S.D. NY 2004).

What t I wonder is how how the web sites get permission to broadcast copyright material. Is that not a case of 'public performance for hire'?

Live365 and related tools are used by Internet radio stations to keep compliant with the DMCA.

* Footnote. A law may be found invalid. Criminals in prison for violation of  that  law at an earlier time must still serve there time in prison. To let them free would be a violation of law.
So if they gave you 60 years in jail for recording the  copyrighted sound track of the
Lawrence Welk TV show on a wire recorder in your garage,
 - you might would still be in the can.

True, but since you would have never been "put away" to begin with it's sort of moot.


I'm focusing on U.S law because geek had either conveniently forgotten that other countries exist or is only familiar (or should I say, thinks he is familiar) with the U.S laws on the subject.