Simplify your laptop buying
Digital music: is copying a radio stream illegal?
is copying a radio stream illegal?
by josl - 10/4/05 12:49 PMI have been spending a happy couple of hours scouring the forum, and reading up on the issues related to downloading muisc from P2Ps - I do not wish to stoke the fires again with that.
However I am confused and would like some clarity on the
legality of copying streamed output onto ones harddisk / CD whether audio - speech, music or video - TV program etc.
If for any reason this is not the place to ask this question - could a Moderator please advise me.
many thanks
That's currently a grey area...
by John.Wilkinson
- 10/4/05 4:09 PM
In reply to: is copying a radio stream illegal? by josl
The issue of legality over copying streaming media is currently being questioned, and for the time being there is no set of clear, universal laws governing such. Thus, the general rule of thumb is that that unless you had to pay for (or access to) it and/or the owner/distributer specifically forbids such, it's up for grabs. (Be sure to check the begining, and sometimes the end, of each broadcast, as well as the Terms of Service/Distribution of the site/program/company if obtained digitally.) However, most would also suggest refraining from the distribution of said broadcasts, as those are more treacherous waters.
Hope this helps,
John
P.S. The above information is based upon the current American legal situation. Laws for other countries/territories may vary.
BBC encouraging "listen again" & downloads
by josl - 10/5/05 2:14 PM In reply to: That's currently a grey area... by John.Wilkinson
thanks for the reply. It is certainly an interesting area, for example the BBC is positively encouraging download of all broadcasts. Initially they imposed a a 7 day window in which to download a program, but now they have really opened up. This included recently broadcasting all 9 Beethoven symphonies specifically for download. They are now starting to experiment with making TV programs available for download but only at present in the UK (with a DRM restriction), on the assumption that UK downloaders have paid the licence fee. I think one point in favour of download of a broadcast, is that one should not be restricted to listening / watching when the broadcaster deems, but at a time and place appropriate to the audience (and of course as often as one wishes).
Is there a licence fee in the US?
UK vs US...
by John.Wilkinson - 10/6/05 1:10 PM
In reply to: BBC encouraging "listen again" & downloads by josl
I find the British method of providing television service fairly interesting, as we in the US have nothing like it. Here purchasing a television is as easy as purchasing a toothbrush...you simply go to an electronics/department store, pay for it (retail price plus applicable sales tax), and take it home. Unless you pay by check or credit card you don't have to tell them anything about yourself. Personally I think that having to report your purchase to a branch of the government in the UK is outrageous. I can understand the licencing of automobiles and firearms with the government (which the US does), but having to do so with TVs?? I'm sure it's probably not as bad as it sounds, but that's how I took this Wikipedia article.
In the US, once you have your TV all you need to do is purchase an antenna (starting around $5) to pick up the free, local, public channels. Typically these are ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS, with occasionally a few others. These stations are nation-wide, but have studios in each average-sized city that provide local news/programming. The funding comes from commercials and, in PBS's case, pledge drives. If you want additional programming you have to pay for cable or satellite service. The average monthly fee for standard service is $35 for around 60 channels, but ''specialty'' channels, digital service, and ad-free programming costs extra. While it appears as though you don't have access to ''free'' programming, it looks like you have a definitive edge on pricing. According to the BBC's website you only pay £10 for 60+ channels, 8 of which are interactive and an undisclosed number are digital. Personally I'd have no problem if the cable company offered a deal like that. 
But, of course, they never will. 
As far as offering broadcasts up for download, I too like the idea of being able to watch a program when I want, not just when a station airs it. Although we can currently order a movie on PayPerView (you pay $3-$5 to watch select movies on cable shortly after they are dropped by the local movie theater), rent/buy the movie download or DVD, or record it on a TiVo/PVR, this is still an interesting concept. I've read that a couple of US stations are flirting with the idea, giving it a test run, but it hasn't had much fanfare. In the mean time I'll take advantage of any offers I can. (I too downloaded Beethoven's symphonies, as well as the recent space shuttle launch.)
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
John
BBC need funding
by josl - 10/12/05 1:03 AM In reply to: UK vs US... by John.Wilkinson
This licensing is I believe fairly common in Europe. I am British but live in Germany. In both countries Public Broadcasters levy their funding via licensing, which is probably better than direct Govt funding which would imply the possibility of control. The BBC does not carry advertising, which avoids the possibility of commercial control - product placement etc. In the UK a govt dept (it was the Post Office) perform the task of checking to see whether one has a licence, and levying fines etc if not.
It is an area always rich for debate, at the moment the BBC are requseting that the Govt increase the licence in a couple of years time -howls of protest as you can imagine.
I may be wrong but I look at it this way...
by ahtoi - 10/6/05 8:08 AM In reply to: is copying a radio stream illegal? by joslIf radio stream is free to begin with (just like radio over the air), then I don't feel guilty copying it.. but not for redistribution though.
Home of the Free...
by FrostyBluesMan - 10/6/05 10:40 PM In reply to: I may be wrong but I look at it this way... by ahtoiMessages, images and music sent freely through the airwaves without encoding to prevent unauthorized reception is fair game in my book too. The limiting of access by charging fees and requiring descramblers set conditions by those who hold rights. Circumventing their controls, no matter how easy is wrong. Some paid access includes rights to record so check with your sources for their restrictions.
same
by nickn751 - 10/15/05 7:38 PM In reply to: I may be wrong but I look at it this way... by ahtoiits not illegal to copy radio over FM, why isit different on the internet?
Fair use recording
by 10082005 - 10/8/05 6:09 AM In reply to: is copying a radio stream illegal? by joslI use Stationripper to record music. As stated, it falls into the grey area of ''fair use''. I record net radio stations for my own use, I don't share them, I don't sell them. The Stationripper software even separates songs out into each MP3 song.
Sometimes I get station ID's at beginning or ending of song or I get a commercial at beginning or ending of song, but I can live with that.
(stationripper.com)
Happy Trails
Check the legal sources
by foureyes - 10/8/05 5:41 PM In reply to: is copying a radio stream illegal? by joslhttp://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/fair_use
Clearly illegal. Do they prosecute every violation. Hardly but the answer to your question is that if you copy an entire piece (probably even a portion) without obtaining a license giving you the right to copy (hence, "copyright"), you are in violation with the exception for those situation which don't herein apply.
"Section 107 [of the copyright law] contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair use,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. 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.
Copying tunes from the radio runs counter to factors 3 and 4.
Counter-examples...
by John.Wilkinson - 10/8/05 8:57 PM
In reply to: Check the legal sources by foureyes
Those sections of the copyright act are extremely broad, and can be eternally argued under certain circumstances. For instance, click here, then scroll down to § 110, where it lists exceptions, including:''(B) communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission, or, if an audiovisual transmission, by a cable system or satellite carrier, if —''.
Then, in § 114, it states ''(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(g)): Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public.'' You can scan the site for dozens of other passages concerning the recording of broadcasts.
A second counter-example is this article, in which Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, stated ''The legality of exchanging files of radio programs between friends would depend on whether that content was considered ''fair use'' under the law. [...] It would depend as to what extent it has hurt the market. If you had a friend who was interviewed on a news program and you sent him a copy of it, I think there's a pretty strong chance that would be considered fair use. On the other hand, if you taped all the top singles off the top 40 stations and sent it to all your friends that is more likely to be illegal.''
Finally, this Q/A from the MPAA includes two key passages: ''Can I record broadcast digital TV programs to my PVR (personal video recorders) such as TiVo? Yes, in dedicated PVRs with no digital outputs, such as TiVo. However, digital TV tuner cards in Personal Computers using PVR software will need to insure that any recordings of flagged TV programs on to the PC’s hard drive are securely protected to prevent unauthorized redistribution to the Internet.'' Also: ''I know people offer Buffy the Vampire Slayer and other programs on the Internet now. Is this illegal? Why? Yes, it is illegal. Current laws state that redistribution of copyrighted materials without express permission from the copyright holder is illegal. Buffy is a copyrighted program that 20th Century Fox produces and UPN broadcasts for its audience’s personal use and have not authorized the redistribution of their programming via the Internet. If unauthorized copies of programs are widely available on the Internet they cannot be sold in ancillary markets and the owners cannot cover the costs of production.''
Thus, the general consensus is that you may record broadcasted material for your own personal use as long as the author/producter/broadcaster didn't specifically forbid such and you didn't commit a crime to gain access to it in the first place. However, there are no clear laws stating such. In addition, since the laws don't specifically mention internet radio, there is much room for dispute. The RIAA, MPAA, and others have been contemplating what they should do about this for some time, and the fact that digital broadcasts are becoming widely available simply increases their concern. However, until a law is passed one way or the other...
John
Apples and candy bars
by foureyes - 10/12/05 9:45 PM In reply to: Counter-examples... by John.Wilkinson
"For instance…scroll down to § 110…''(B) communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission…."
The poster asked if they could record from a stream not "establish a transmission".
"The exclusive rights of the owner of…do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds…. …do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio…distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities."
The poster said nothing about recording their own but similar tunes nor did they indicate they were a public broadcaster making educational recordings.
"The legality of exchanging files of radio programs between friends…. If you had a friend who was interviewed on a news program…."
No conflict there. It’s clearly covered under 107…the potential market or value for such interviews is near zero because most can be duplicated on any street corner.
"…since the laws don't specifically mention internet radio, there is much room for dispute."
The language is inclusive not specific.
the fog thickens
by josl - 10/13/05 3:51 AM In reply to: Apples and candy bars by foureyesI (the original "poster") asked about the legality of copying radio streams (and any other media streams for that matter. I dont think that the last contibution takes the discussion further forward.
I suspect copyrighting legislation could never envisage the complexities brought about by the new transmission, recording and distribution technologies (hard & soft), the the global ramifications.
To me it is not logically sustainable to forbid copying a stream for ones own later non-commercial use. I suspect that the reason behind the industries attempt to ringfence these activities, is because this new technology has introduced vast brand new market possibilities, which "they" do not wish to lose out on. In part this is understandable and justifiable when it means copyright owners losing out on legitimate sales, income. In part it can be far over the top especially when blocking the copying of material for ones own later (non commercial use).
Surely this is no different to the use of our old friend the Video Recorder.
I feel the "industry" should spend more time on imaginative approaches to gaining from the new global and technological marketing possibilities, and less on pursueing stupid, greedy restrictive practices.
(NT) I agree wholeheartedly.
by John.Wilkinson - 10/13/05 6:29 AM
In reply to: the fog thickens by josl
Common Sense Usage
by SPFeld - 10/21/05 11:15 AM In reply to: Apples and candy bars by foureyesThe question posted by josl is a good one. Lets use sound reasoning here.
The laws that have been thoughtfully posted for our reading have shown that when a broadcast is emminating from a licensed entity (a.k.a. Radio or television Staion) for public usage (this means that it is broadcast on free air waves) can be copied for personal use.
The copying of any braodcast and redistribution of said broadcast for profit or to harm the protential monetary gain of the original copyright holder (The person or corporation that legally owns said material) is in violation of the law and can be prosecuted.
Common sense tells us that we can make copies of these broadcasts for our usage only. To share that with others in ones own home is legal. To charge a fee to view the copied broadcast even in ones own home would be in violation. To give a copy of it to anyone would be in violation of the laws.
The fact that it would not be finacially feasable to prosecute just about every person in the U.S. or the world is why people are having trouble understanding this. When you make a copy of a broadcast you still do not own the right to distribute this info. You just own the right to possess it.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
