True, but Choice states:
We want your voice to be heard loud and clear when it comes to anything consumer-related, from saving money to choosing the best products and services for your family, and we’re constantly on the look out for dodgy or misleading practices that might stop you from getting the best deal.
While a particular music CD may not be a ‘fault in manufacture’, it is a consumer product which may be purchased by others and would fall into ‘anything consumer-related’.
Thank you for your response
@beings_nobody, I use some software from Abelsoft that cost me around $20 that searches YouTube, downloads music, video and audio, or just the audio, in whatever format I need to play on whatever device I have. Deletes the ads too. Beats your iTunes cost by a large margin I reckon.
@JennyMc, if you think that $42 for a CD of music, when the same content is available for a much lower price or indeed free, is not a ripoff, then you are missing the point of consumer sites such as Choice.
The original creator of this topic was sending out a “try before you buy” warning. Very good advice.
It is worth checking before downloading or recording any streams whether the action breaches copyright laws. Generally if content is subject of copyright, like most commercially made content such as movies, music videos, TV shows etc, downloading of such content may breach copyright laws.
Does YouTube enforce digital copyright of all audio content?
It seems a little unreal to think content that is commercially available and needs to be paid for is available totally free on YouTube.
Something needs to be better explained.
The music I listen to on YouTube is licensed and supplied by Vevo. So it is a music service along the same lines as Spotify and iTunes.
That is true, but YouTube conditions prohibit download. Specifically:
The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:
- access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;
- circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
…
I suspect that removing ads is also not allowed.
While it is free to view, the artist/copyright holder earns income from views…
If one subscribes, this replaces the advertisement revenue otherwise gained through the free service.
Youtube is like a broadcast service (radio for example), where content can be looked at/listened to but copyright is retained by the owner. Buying gains a license to hold a copy for one’s enjoyment, but as outlined in other threads, digital licences can’t be transferred nor can the content be reproduced/copied and given to someone else.
YouTube Music has three models:
Free, but you get ads. If you access using a Google account you can skip the ads after a few seconds. Most content is available in offline mode.
Basic subscription, and premium subscription. Both have no ads, and all content is available in offline mode.
The music is properly licenced and the ads or subscriptions pay for the content providers.
Hi all, I’ve changed the title of this post to better reflect the nature of the comments and ongoing discussion.
As someone who works in the tech sector, specifically websites and apps… I’ve tried every streaming service there is. Apple, Spotify, Google… plus all the video streamers.
And in the past few years, I have gone back 100% to buying CDs or vinyl (and DVDs and Blu-rays for films). I bought about 10 albums this Christmas.
Sure, 10 bucks a month gets you access to a large catalogue of media. But you’re paying that fee for the rest of your life. And sure, the subscription cost for the rest of your life might still be cheaper than buying CDs of all the albums you like (although it depends on the diversity of your taste)…
But there’s more to it than that.
Musician royalties have been decimated by streaming platforms. Unless you’re one of the big artists getting millions of streams, the royalties are rarely enough to serve as a full income. There are countless music press articles detailing this - go have a look, and see what artists say about the “money” (lol) they make from Spotify and others.
There’s also something to be said for music ownership. Owning an album, looking at the lyrics, sitting down to play it on a hi-fi system and actually listening to it (not playing on your phone). It’s not the same thing as streaming music like tap water. And it’s regrettable that many people’s relationship with music has changed and become… less important. Less respectful. Until the 2000s, everyone was compelled to have respect for music. Because to own it you had to pay for it. Now, music is virtually free - and with ease of access, comes a certain disregard.
One useful website is Bandcamp - where you can easily buy digital or physical albums, thereby fully supporting the artist. Many major artists now use it, not just the indie ones.
Use Youtube and others to sample music. But support musicians where you can. Or else - nobody could blame artists if they went off and did something else entirely. Instead of making the music you like.
You do realise @phb, that “downloading” is what you do in the digital world. Whether it is watching a TV show, or recording it onto a PVR, or streaming a movie off Netflix, or getting music off any of the various sites, you are “downloading” files from a server to a client. Even playing a CD or DVD is “downloading”.
The issue is whether in doing so protections are circumvented, such as DRM or anti-copy, which is not legal.
My understanding is that downloading and streaming, while functionally similar, are slightly different.
The key difference is that a streaming file is simply played as it becomes available, while a download is stored onto memory. Both processes involve the act of downloading, but only one leaves you with a copy left on your device that you can access at any time without having to receive (or download) the data again (source or this one).
The action of having a copy (and other unauthorised/unapproved uses) causes copyright infringement. Copyright is also more than protections being circumvented. This legal website explains what copyright infringement is.
Streaming is seen differently to downloading. While @Gregr’s point that all content is downloaded some streaming does not download the entire contiguous file and then play it, rather it is often a progressive download that does not contain the entire content.
Most people understand that when someone says they downloaded a file that they made a copy of the entire file and when they say they streamed content that they use a progressive download that at any point does not contain the entire file but rather a portion that allows for smooth play.
Some streaming services specifically forbid the capture of the entire content, some use DRM and other means to ensure that only the portion currently playing is “playable” and does not contain the entire stream. Some streaming services make content available on the basis that the ads they use to produce income are not removed or blocked. To use a program that alters this is a breach of their service terms and can lead to legal action. So users are to be warned just because you can do something does not always mean that you may do something. Remember can only means you have the ability and may means you also have the right to as well as the ability to.
It is a long established principle that having a copy of copyright protected material is acceptable, as long as it is not for commercial purposes.
The various industries producing content have come to realise that the Digital era is here, and the Internet enabled distribution models are all pervasive.
I suspect you are getting confused with the principle of playing recordings of copyrighted material. One can play recordings of music for which one has purchased a licence. You are not permitted to broadcast the music, or to play it in your shop without paying the appropriate licence fee.
You are also, as of a few years ago, entitled to create a copy of music that you have licensed as a backup.
No @postulative, I am not confused. The principles of “fair use” or “fair dealing” when it comes to copyright material, is pretty much world-wide. Check out the Australian Copyright Laws.
No, they are US principles.
https://www.copyright.com.au/about-copyright/fair-use/
You will note that there are specific exceptions in Australia, and the principle is discussed in more detail on the Australian Law Reform Commission website.
Wikipedia has a decent summary of Australian copyright law as it currently stands.
Just in relation to copyright and music, the Music Rights website provides in plain language the current situation in Australia.
