Off-air recordings: to share or not to share?

[5against4]

A record label has today got in touch with me expressing concern about the prevalence on my blog 5:4 of off-air recordings of music broadcast by the BBC. As it happens, this label is soon to record a work featured in one of the recent Proms concerts, so perhaps they're worried it'll hit their CD sales negatively.

In the three-&-a-half years i've been sharing off-air recordings on 5:4, not once has anyone complained (although one said he'd have preferred to be asked first); in fact, numerous times composers have got in touch to express thanks for being featured on the blog, & for the opportunity of their work to be discussed & shared more widely. The BBC recordings, after all, disappear after a week, almost always never to be heard again.

i'd be interested in other people's views on this; i know full well how appreciative people have been over the years to be able to hear pieces they otherwise wouldn't be able to (many of the pieces featured are not available on CD), but does anyone think it's a bad thing to be doing? Of course, if the BBC was ever to wade in & insist i remove the recordings, i'd have little choice but to comply - but i would also hope they have better things to worry about than this.

[Amfortas]

I have posted a large number of stream-capture recordings I made from BBC3 and other sources on a membership website. Never had any problems. I enjoy sharing the stuff, which often has excellent audio. As you say, most of these recordings will disappear into the ether. Also, I find that it's mostly standard repertoire that gets issued on CD, and most my uploads are off lesser-known works, although often performed by prominent musicians. I have yet to have any problems (knocking on wood).

[Brian]

I can see the record label having a strong case if the work in question is more obscure and having one recording already would convince people they need not acquire another. For example, if a casual listener scored a ticket to the 'Gothic' prom to see what the fuss was about, enjoyed the music enough to want a copy, and then downloaded your broadcast file, then any record label seeking to issue that performance on disc - let alone any record label seeking to record a brand-new 'Gothic' - might be slightly distressed by this. (Of course, most Havergal Brian enthusiasts will buy any and every CD anyway, as we all know. Bad example. )

But if it's a more popular work - say, the 'Ma Vlast' prom - I would consider your use completely valid because a single blogger's upload is not likely to affect sales of a new 'Ma Vlast' CD, let alone, say, a prom of Elgar or Brahms.

[Daverz]

Sounds like you need legal advice.

[5against4]

Thanks to everyone for their initial thoughts. i think i'm going to take the same approach as that used by the Avant Garde Project; namely that if a work is commercially available, then i'll remove my off-air recording & instead provide a link for the commercial recording. Hopefully that will appease the label that got in touch with me. i can't see it being a problem with pieces that lack a commercial recording - which is the case with virtually all the pieces i write about on 5:4. i very much hope Daverz's opinion proves to be unnecessarily apocalyptic...

[Daverz]

i can't see it being a problem with pieces that lack a commercial recording

AFAIK, the commercial status of a recording has nothing to do with its copyright.  Copyright is still implied, and the copyright owner still has rights over the distribution of the recording.

i very much hope Daverz's opinion proves to be unnecessarily apocalyptic...

I didn't mean it to be that ominous, now was I making any ethical judgements.  But I think you have some misconceptions about copyright that you should get cleared up by consulting an attorney, not some dudes on a web site.

[Amfortas]

I'm just asking: if we're not making any profit out of sharing these recordings, isn't it like the way people used to record TV shows to tape and then pass on to someone else to watch?.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm just asking: if we're not making any profit out of sharing these recordings, isn't it like the way people used to record TV shows to tape and then pass on to someone else to watch?.

Yes, it is exactly as illegal as that was. Despite that I never heard of a copyright holder coming after anyone over that, it was still a violation of "fair use".

[Grazioso]

I didn't mean it to be that ominous, now was I making any ethical judgements.  But I think you have some misconceptions about copyright that you should get cleared up by consulting an attorney, not some dudes on a web site.

Second that. When the recording industry decides to make an example of someone, are you sure you want to be the example?

[starrynight]

Not a bad thing to do whatsoever!!  Anyway record companies are like King Canute against the tide.

[Amfortas]

Actually I think it is slightly different.  Perhaps because part of my business offers products for sale by download.  If one person rips off one of our products for his own private use - well obviously that's one sale we haven't made, but probably one sale we weren't going to make anyway.  The effect on our business is probably negligible.  There is even an argument that a certain amount of illicit copying can stimulate sales activity by raising a product's profile.  However if he then offers that rip-off free-of-charge to the whole world, then effectively that kills our product stone dead.  We take precautions to protect ourselves against anyone ripping off our products, but acknowledge that even so it may still happen.  It would not be cost-effective for us to try to hunt down every lone private hacker, but we certainly would take action against someone effectively pirating our products in competition with us.  Whether he is acting for personal gain or out of his idea of altruism is irrelevant.  We are the ones who have invested the time and resource in developing the product, and we own the copyright.

I understand. But to put it another way, if something is initially offered for free and then NOT made commercially available. What are ethics of sharing something like that? The BBC3 webcasts, for example.

[starrynight]

Sharing is impossible to stop, record companies have never been able to face up to the truth and have never readily moved with the times.  Blank CDs and DVDs and the recording apparatus are available and so people will obviously use them just like they did tape recorders.  People know many companies want to extend copyright forever instead of producing good new stuff.  Now if people try and make a profit from something they haven't made that can be more detectable and enforcable and is morally far less acceptable to me anyway.

And of course all this off air recordings stuff is similar to people recording things off TV which people have been doing for over 3 decades.  Video recorders were available and so people used them, as you would expect intelligent people to do.   Indeed some people even ended up saving programs that stupid TV companies had thrown away.  This is a sign of what is happening, the public is becoming the store of information and not big corporations, a good thing if you want less control of what is available to you (such as silly outdated regional controls that they still try).  Some classical listeners seem to have a skewed vision of music now and actually are more fans of record companies than of composers.  Music flourished well before record companies and will in the future however it gets to people.  Of course some sheep-like ultra conservative classical listeners who aren't up to do with the internet might not realise what is happening and may instead go around insulting people on the internet while on their high horse.  That's all I have to say.

[haziz]

Sharing is impossible to stop, record companies have never been able to face up to the truth and have never readily moved with the times.  Blank CDs and DVDs and the recording apparatus are available and so people will obviously use them just like they did tape recorders.  People know many companies want to extend copyright forever instead of producing good new stuff.  Now if people try and make a profit from something they haven't made that can be more detectable and enforcable and is morally far less acceptable to me anyway.

And of course all this off air recordings stuff is similar to people recording things off TV which people have been doing for over 3 decades.  Video recorders were available and so people used them, as you would expect intelligent people to do.   Indeed some people even ended up saving programs that stupid TV companies had thrown away.  This is a sign of what is happening, the public is becoming the store of information and not big corporations, a good thing if you want less control of what is available to you (such as silly outdated regional controls that they still try).  Some classical listeners seem to have a skewed vision of music now and actually are more fans of record companies than of composers.  Music flourished well before record companies and will in the future however it gets to people.  Of course some sheep-like ultra conservative classical listeners who aren't up to do with the internet might not realise what is happening and may instead go around insulting people on the internet while on their high horse.  That's all I have to say.

We will expedite the death of classical music recording and possibly of the genre itself (though I doubt it would be that extreme) if we remove any profit, or at least the ability to break even, from artists, composers and record companies. Sadly this is happening already as it is. Artists, composers and record companies do have the right to make a living from their work. Except for a real handful of superstars, very few artists are making a lot of money playing, or composing classical music. You can be a world class musician and be not far from poverty, at least by western standards. Many artists and composers are already resigned to the fact that recordings are often prestige items, effectively advertising, making them more marketable, but that should not prevent them from trying to make some semblance of a profit, or at least to break even, should they choose.

And to the OP, yes the copyright holder does have the right to ask you to stop, and does have the right to pursue it via legal channels should they choose, though whether it is worth their time and effort and money, only they can decide. Though from your description I am not sure it is the copyright holder for that work that approached you. The BBC certainly has the right to ask you to stop, if they so wish, though I would have hoped they could sell recordings from their considerable archives as either CDs or downloads (preferably lossless).

Sincerely,

Hany.

[Maciek]

I used to share a lot of off-air recordings myself (mostly through this forum), but after giving the matter a lot of thought, I finally decided to stop. I felt I simply did not have any right to do that. I think it is reasonable to give the ones who actually own the rights to a recording the prerogative to decide how it is distributed (after all, producing a performance costs money). It's not like the moment a performance is broadcast the right-owners automatically lose their rights (they don't lose their rights to a CD when it is released either - in my view, that's generally a very similar situation, even though there's a difference of medium and a difference in some technicalities associated with that).

[Maciek]

I guess my main concern would be this question: when does a desire (not even a need) constitute sufficient grounds to take something without asking?

(And then there's the other one: what constitutes a situation when there is "no other way"?)

(Unless, of course, one already knows from some credible source that the copyright owners in those specific cases do not mind if their stuff is distributed freely...)

I hope we're not straying too far from the initial off-air recordings question...

[mc ukrneal]

I'm of the exact opposite point of view to the person above.

I've been forced to the torrent simply because there was no other way to get access to the film I desired to see, the music I desired to hear, etc.

You've not been forced to do anything. You have chosen to do so, perhaps breaking the law (if that is in fact what you are doing, meaning dowloads of copyrighted content without permission or purchase)!

[Amfortas]

I think if someone has put something up on the internet for free, and others take it and share with others, it's fair game, there is no harm done. How is that different from sharing the link to that material?

If the originators wanted to protect their content, they could easily do so. I don't think it's at all the same thing as copying a CD or DVD and sharing it.

[mc ukrneal]

I think if someone has put something up on the internet for free, and others take it and share with others, it's fair game, there is no harm done. How is that different from sharing the link to that material?

If the originators wanted to protect their content, they could easily do so. I don't think it's at all the same thing as copying a CD or DVD and sharing it.

Ah, but what you are implying is that if they don't protect their content or enforce protection of their content, they are thus indicating it is permissible to take it. I would not necessarily agree. Unfortunately, it is a bit nebulous and it would be interesting to heard from someone who is expert in the area.

[mc ukrneal]

It's actually pretty difficult to protect content.

By protect, here, I don't mean software or other systems of protection, but rather the intent of a person/group to enforce their copyright (that is, not make it freely available). Just clarifying...

[canninator]

I suspect that the Name that Piece thread is illegally distributing music and is an infringement of copyright. Don't worry if you disagree, I've told the Feds and they'll be in touch soon to clear it up, there is nothing that annoys the music business more than people posting obscure clips of third rate 19th century hacks