# Recording software?



## mf (Sep 25, 2009)

Anyone knows of a free/cheap recording software (Mac) able to record youtube in realtime into an audio file?


----------



## dinerdog (Sep 25, 2009)

There's a couple things. You can use AudioHijack to record any source audio on your Mac:

http://www.rogueamoeba.com/audiohijack/

Or record the whole movie and extract the audio with Tubesock:

http://stinkbot.com/Tubesock/


----------



## bryla (Sep 26, 2009)

It is illegal to record youtube audio that is not licensed or owned by you - just so you know


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 26, 2009)

Download Real-Player

It works great on PC and you can dowload anything. When you look to a video then comes a small widow asking you: Do you want do download this video? 

bryla, I think the most uploads on youtube are illegal too. :-D


----------



## nikolas (Sep 26, 2009)

bryla @ Sat Sep 26 said:


> It is illegal to record youtube audio that is not licensed or owned by you - just so you know


Which brings us to the question...

Watching youtube: Legal or illegal?

You are streaming the video, thus not saving it into your hard drive. And since you are not uploading anything as well, it's not exactly the clearest case of piracy.

HOWEVER if youtube is ok to watch then what about.. southparkstudios, or simposonslive, or watchtvforfree, or tv-links (which WAS shut down about a year ago, only to reopen), etc...

I pay my tv license which specifically says that I can watch the telly, whether ground, or cable, or satelite, or through the Internet (bingo!). So I'm clear to watch... anything, right? 

mf: Google youtube to mp3/wav/whatever you want. There are websites that do exactly what you want!


----------



## bryla (Sep 26, 2009)

You can't take responsibility for who's uploading what. Danish law states that it is LEGAL to stream videos no matter what the licensing says. The technical details don't matter to me - to me it is legal and I don't care about the rest.

Downloading! : You have to be sure.


----------



## horselesspaul (Sep 26, 2009)

Wiretap Studio by Ambrosia.


----------



## mf (Sep 26, 2009)

Thanks folks!

Since it is not illegal to record TV programs, I don't see why should be illegal to record what is played on the net. My contract with my IP doesn't say it's forbidden to record what they provide. Also, I didn't see any law that prohibits recording what's on the net.


----------



## bryla (Sep 26, 2009)

Maybe you can't see it, but as I say: You have to be sure.


----------



## mf (Sep 26, 2009)

bryla, thanks for your concern. If there was such a law, I'm pretty sure my IP contract would have mentioned about it. I have read it. It doesn't.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 26, 2009)

mf @ Sat Sep 26 said:


> YouTube, and any other site, when posting something on the net, implicitly agrees



There is no such thing under the law. It is either written or not written..."implicitly agrees" would not hold up in a court of law...



mf @ Sat Sep 26 said:


> that I, THE USER, have the right to copy anything that's there on the net: text, pictures, music, etc., for my personal use.



Nope! Especially not since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.



mf @ Sat Sep 26 said:


> In this age and times it is ridiculous to forbid anyone the right to record what is put out there in the open.
> Is it forbidden to take screenshots of MY monitor? Like, say, 24 screenshots per second? Is it forbidden to use an external recording device to record what THEY play through MY speakers?



Yep.



mf @ Sat Sep 26 said:


> Well, I don't think it is. If it is, then let them arrest me for doing that.



Just because the law is written, does not mean they will necessarily spend the resources needed to bust you...an individual...doing this for your own private purposes. But as the law is written in the US anyway...since the DMCA...all those instances would be a violation of the copyright law as written. I also do not believe the internet is legally considered free and open "public" space like standing on a public street corner would be considered in the "public." 

So in the event of, just so you know...you would not have a legal leg to stand on. But in reality...unless you were redistributing those recordings on a mass scale to others via the amazing distribution channel that is....the internet...where you didn't have the rights to distribute via the internet and the copyright claimant could show that financial damages were done...you are probably ok. But that does not mean some administration in the future or even a group like the RIAA would not have the attorney general start making examples of people in court either. That has already been seen in a few cases.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 26, 2009)

So in the near future it will be forbitten to make a photo in the real world. And it will be forbitten to tell things what you have heared.

Without joking, when I like a video on youtube I download it, but never would share it.


----------



## mf (Sep 26, 2009)

Brian Ralston @ Sat Sep 26 said:


> mf @ Sat Sep 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it forbidden to take screenshots of MY monitor? Like, say, 24 screenshots per second? Is it forbidden to use an external recording device to record what THEY play through MY speakers?
> ...


Is it, really? 
If there is a law that denies me the right to record the movements of the air molecules floating around in my bedroom, or to use my camera to take snapshots of the light rays coming from my computer screen, well, then, fuck that law. Air and light are, and should remain, free. At least the air and light inside my (your, and anyone's) house. I think you will agree with that, yes?


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 26, 2009)

You are not just recording



> the movements of the air molecules floating around in my bedroom,



or using your



> camera to take snapshots of the light rays coming from my computer screen



...when it applies to intellectual property that you do NOT own the copyright on. The medium for which it is delivered to your eye or ears..whether that is the internet, the broadcast airwaves, the radio, the lightwave transmissions or the speakers from any audio source you can think of has no bearing on the intellectual property those delivery mediums are delivering to you. The old copyright law use to say that you could make a copy of a tape for your own personal use as long as you did not distribute it commercially. But with the DMCA...this is no longer the case with anything in these new digital mediums you describe. The law has changed and it is more strict.

In regards to your computer screen example...there have even been lawsuits over the "look" of an operating system "skin". Apple has pressured individuals who have made skins that look like OSX because the "look" of the operating system is a copywritten design. So even in the case of screen shots of your computer...there is precedent under the DMCA. 

Ever watch reality TV shows where posters, billboards, T-Shirts are blurred out? Sure these images were captured in many cases on public streets, but the nature of the program they were captured in is not a news report or show. Hence...it does not fall under a fair use clause. So...there is a lot of stuff blurred out in these reality shows due to copyright issues. With a news program reporting on something...that is the only exception really as they are not held to the copyright law in that one circumstance. 

Copyright law has changed, so unless you have created the material in question, any method by which you make or even possess a copy, personal or otherwise of material that you do not own is technically and you did not pay the "license" to possess and watch that material, a copyright violation. Even having it in ones possession is a felony even if you did not create it. (How about that one :wink: ). But again...unless you are distributing the stuff via some bittorrent network or something...no one is really going to spend the LARGE money needed to prosecute such an individual like that. So really only the bigger fish get targeted.


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 27, 2009)

Think about this: 

You buy an instrument, lets say a guitar, and the builder company says: "It is forbitten to use this instrument for creating a guitar sample library".


----------



## Stevie (Sep 27, 2009)

Youtube pays money to collecting companies. They pay for the right to broadcast it.
Therefore they have the right to show it on their platform (all the movies and music videos). 
The companies who don't have a contract with Youtube 
can of course forbid the showing of certain videos.

Is it forbidden to record a movie on tv or a song on the radio? NO.
That's what VCRs and cassette recorders were made for back then.
I think the same applies here. Of course this is all for personal use.
The one who broadcasts has to pay the fees.
It's up to the broadcaster how he finances it.
In the case of TV and radio the viewers/listeners have to pay fees. 
On Youtube you have to bear with ads. Easy as that.
If downloading YouTube videos was illegal, I'm sure all those developers of
YouTube downloaders would already have been sued.


----------



## Hannes_F (Sep 27, 2009)

Oh well.

Since copyright issues directly affect our business I suggest we try to follow Brian's thoughts and have a second look at

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mi ... yright_Act

The EU Copyright Directive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive

The Electronic Commerce Directive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic ... _Directive

I did not come to a conclusion yet but it is obvious that these three things do not have to be identical: law by the written letter, common sense and good practise. For a professional it is certainly essential to know the differences, they could work for the better or worse in an individual situation.


----------



## Hannes_F (Sep 27, 2009)

To give a current example:

- It is legal to pay and download a DRM protected song onto your computer
- It is illegal to share this file
- It is illegal to outsmart the DRM protection for playing that file on devices without the proper DRM authorisation
- It is legal to record the audio output of this file and copy the result on a CD for personal use.
- It is legal to play that CD in a club but only if you are a DJ and it has been declared by the owner that legal copies will be used at the event which requires a higher mechanicals fee.
- All the above is true for Germany.

So, the original question may be tricky in the detail.


----------



## mf (Sep 27, 2009)

Brian Ralston @ Sat Sep 26 said:


> any method by which you make or even possess a copy, personal or otherwise of material that you do not own and you did not pay the "license" to possess and watch that material, is technically a copyright violation.


Scary. Welcome to 1984.



> Even having it in ones possession is a felony even if you did not create it. (How about that one :wink: ).


That's a fucked up law, Brian, because it makes everyone a felon. Everyone. If the police brakes in virtually ANYONE's house, we're all in for it. Maybe they should first brake into THEIR OWN houses to look for mp3 copies. As I said, fuck that law.



> But again...unless you are distributing the stuff via some bittorrent network or something...no one is really going to spend the LARGE money needed to prosecute such an individual like that.


If they have put out a law that makes everyone a felon, then they're but fascist bastards and we should take them to Nurnberg and hang them there in the public square. Until we do that, we remain at the mercy, and willingness to spend (or not) the money (whether LARGE or small), of those fascist bastards. I for one am unwilling to give up recording and studying each and every piece of music that I hear and like.

Thanks again folks for those links. Audiohijack works really well for me. Highly recommended.


----------



## Hannes_F (Sep 27, 2009)

mf @ Sun Sep 27 said:


> > But again...unless you are distributing the stuff via some bittorrent network or something...no one is really going to spend the LARGE money needed to prosecute such an individual like that.
> 
> 
> If they have put out a law that makes everyone a felon, then they're but fascist bastards and we should take them to Nurnberg and hang them there in the public square. Until we do that, we remain at the mercy, and willing to spend (or not) the money (whether LARGE or small), of those fascist bastards.



Technically you are threatening your democratically elected lawmakers with murder for the reason that they defend your copyright as a creatively working person in the music/audio industry.

But wait, judging from the mindset you display here you can hardly be a pro. And despite your mighty words you are probably not the KKK either. You rather behave like a kid that wants to put his fingers into the candy box while nobody is watching.

So in case they forgot to teach you this detail: you can BUY music. Wait, I should speak slower, so again: You _give _money and therefore you _receive _music. Got it? It's legal! Look here for details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase


----------



## Niah (Sep 27, 2009)

sorry to hijack the thread but Hannes, did you get my PM that I've sent a few days ago?


----------



## Hannes_F (Sep 27, 2009)

Niah @ Sun Sep 27 said:


> sorry to hijack the thread but Hannes, did you get my PM that I've sent a few days ago?



Hi Niah,

sorry, have been gigging the weekend and come back to you tomorrow. See ya o-[][]-o


----------



## mf (Sep 27, 2009)

Hannes,
First, you don't seem to get it:



Brian Ralston @ Sat Sep 26 said:


> any method by which you make or even possess a copy, personal or otherwise of material that you do not own and you did not pay the "license" to possess and watch that material, is technically a copyright violation.


That makes you a felon. That is, unless you have never made a copy of a piece of music, which is highly improbable. A law that makes everybody a felon is a fascist law.

Second, getting personal is bad manners. I acknowledge your position on the issue, I respect it, I didn't insult you or made half-assed personal comments about you. I expect you do likewise. Merci bonsoir.


----------



## Hannes_F (Sep 27, 2009)

mf, 

believe it or not, I pay for the music that I use. I am a musician, and paying for music is my way to give the appreciation to the branch that I live from.

I perform in public which includes both live performing and DJing. If I would not be on the legal side with all that then my bottom end would be sued off. This is why consider your opinion as laymen talk. Professionals abide the law and let it work for them.

Secondly you are ranting instead of properly reading not to mention doing a solid research. It is not forbidden to make a backup copy of music that you legally own, so what you wrote is simply not true. You really need to check your logic.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 27, 2009)

I realize the cat's out of the bag in terms of 'file sharing'. It's not going to change anytime soon. Maybe someday some sort of watermarking system will work.

Still, I don't like it, and every time I read about someone who's downloaded gigs and gigs of music ( read 'stolen') and gets prosecuted, it gives me a small sense of satisfaction, as if justice has been done for a change.


----------

