Converting Youtube video to Mp3 - moral question?

[Riverwolf]

(Mods please move if this should be in Open Mic or elsewhere?)

I am not asking how to perform this action.
I just finished download/converting of five versions of Wayfaring Stranger.
I did this because I do not own a smartphone and use a Mp3 player on my river walks.
This is a song that I am learning and I also don't really have the funds to buy every song I think I might want to learn.
And everyone else is doing it...
But today it got me thinking...how are these artists making any money?
If Napster was shutdown how can this action be legal?
For the first time, today, it just doesn't feel right.
Opinions?

[B-Nads]

It's a form of piracy, like it or not. There are some musicians who are getting ad money from youtube, but not royalties. No - they musicians aren't making money from it, and writers and the others behind the scene aren't either.

[pjroberts]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

(Mods please move if this should be in Open Mic or elsewhere?)

I am not asking how to perform this action.
I just finished download/converting of five versions of Wayfaring Stranger.
I did this because I do not own a smartphone and use a Mp3 player on my river walks.
This is a song that I am learning and I also don't really have the funds to buy every song I think I might want to learn.
And everyone else is doing it...
But today it got me thinking...how are these artists making any money?
If Napster was shutdown how can this action be legal?
For the first time, today, it just doesn't feel right.
Opinions?

Most probably make money from performance and music sales, so if you want to support them I would buy their music (or buy a ticket:-). Having said that, there are new revenue streams evolving out of social media advertising, and that's probably going to be a major force someday —*or maybe not. Ad revenue from Youtube and Facebook video for example. But today I think this is a vision and most of the ad revenue is going to other online merchants.

I actually record things off Youtube, but in most cases it's rare stuff from artists I've already spent $$ on. And you're right, it is an ethics question (that has me thinking).

[MikeBmusic]

If you record a stream from Spotify or other streaming (legal) site, at least the artist is getting the 0.003 per stream. Not sure how much the ad revenue is on youtube, haven't seen any money from mine yet!
Most artists know that the money from streaming/youtube and download sales they get is a pittance, and the system is set up against them. Until you get to be one of the 'stars' who gets millions of streams, thousands of downloads, its not enough live off of. that's why they are touring, playing house concerts, clubs, wherever they can make any money. So support musicians (in general) - go to shows, concerts as much as you can, and encourage your friends and relatives to, as well.

[devellis]

There are also fair use provisions that allow copying for strictly educational purposes. I don't know the ins and outs of those details and my sense is that there isn't a lot of agreement among legal professionals. But it might be a way to use this material that falls within copyright guidelines.

The answer you get, if you inquire, will likely depend on what sort of skin in the game the source has. As an example, a number of years ago, I was involved in a research project aimed at developing and evaluating health-related measures. The consortium doing the research wanted to to be able to include items that had been used in existing, published scales. Publishers insisted that this was a copyright violation that they were fully prepared to defend. University counsels insisted that it was fair use. Our university received threatening letters from lawyers representing publishers. Their reply was that they'd be only too happy to see those claimants in court. All claims were withdrawn. In addition the lawyers for NIH (who funded the consortium) said essentially that we were free to use the items as long as we weren't selling them or otherwise making a profit.

I was in the position of being a member of the consortium (and thus had a potentially pro-use perspective) and also an author on a number of published tools (and thus had a potentially anti-use perspective). So, overall, I was pretty neutral and my involvement in the project wasn't directly related to the intellectual property issues. My point is, there are a lot of grey areas regarding uses not for profit and people will assert strong opinions on one side or the other despite the fact that the legal issue (at least as of several years ago) hasn't been resolved with clarity or for all jurisdictions.

As for what you should do, it's always safer not to insert oneself into an area where usage is disputed. Beyond that, let your conscience be your guide unless you have some better form of guidance available to you.

[BFD]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

...This is a song that I am learning and I also don't really have the funds to buy every song I think I might want to learn....Opinions?

How about the songs you actually do learn? How many would that be per month? 5? 6? 7? Do you have a monthly budget for buying music (and to help assuage your rueful conscience)?

[MODELL]

Not sure how this would work for youtube downloads, but "Poor Wayfaring Stanger" is Public Domain:

http://www.pdmusic.org/folk.html

[jimmyboy]

There is an app that you can use to download anything from YouTube and save on your phone.It's free with no advertising.

Tubemate.net

This app is not available in play store.You have to go to the site to download it.Again, it's free.Android only ,not available for iPhone.

[PTC Bernie]

I would consider this educational and therefore ok under the fair use concept, but that's just my opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Ok, a Hampton Inn, but close enough

BUT.... as the artist is the only one not making money from the deal ( ok, some but so little as to be insignificant ) I don't have a problem ripping a song from a video that millions of people can watch for free anyway.

Now, if you're a DJ and getting paid for a gig where you play music that you've ripped from from the web, different story. That's not cool.

[220volt]

If the artists themselves put it up on the YouTube for everyone to view it for free without any copyright notices (illegal to download etc...), then it is not illegal nor it is non-ethical in my opinion. As long as I don't try to distribute or profit off of it.
Now where it gets tricky is if someone else uploads artists song on the YouTube and you decide to download that version of it.

[wade63]

Something that hasn't been brought up here is promotion. A good example to me is Chris Stapleton. He knows some will download his music for free. I caught wind of Chris on You tube a few years ago and turn around, whoa, years of hard work and great talent, now hes a superstar and you tube played a big part in his and many others success. Cheap advertisement when someone loves your song so well they want to keep it and spread the word around.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by BFD

How about the songs you actually do learn? How many would that be per month? 5? 6? 7?

No, maybe 1-2. I have CRS issues. Not funny anymore. The multiple versions that I download are to hear all the slightly different beats, lyrics, etc... to pound it in my head on my long walks.

Originally Posted by MODELL

Not sure how this would work for youtube downloads, but "Poor Wayfaring Stanger" is Public Domain:

http://www.pdmusic.org/folk.html

Yeah, I thought so but the artists I downloaded are all modern day performers who I assume are trying to make a buck.

Originally Posted by jimmyboy

There is an app that you can use to download anything from YouTube and save on your phone.It's free with no advertising.

Tubemate.net

This app is not available in play store.You have to go to the site to download it.Again, it's free.Android only ,not available for iPhone.

Cool but so far I am still walking around with a dumbphone. Which is the reason for the download in the first place, to transfer to my old Mp3 player.

Originally Posted by 220volt

Now where it gets tricky is if someone else uploads artists song on the YouTube and you decide to download that version of it.

My guess is that this is the case for almost all of my recent downloads.

I am not losing sleep here and my music downloads are very very few. Most often zero in a month. I am not even a speck in the income of any artist but the fact is I am not alone.
This is different than Napster but the effect on the artist must be about the same?

[JohnW63]

It's a good question. I also find those of us older than a certain age think about this and people younger don't at all.

When I tell the much younger guys that I DON'T rip stuff off of YouTube or get things from Torrent feeds, or "find" sources for software that does not include BUYING it, they all look at me funny. I look at them and wonder where our sense of ethics has gone. I buy music CDs. I buy Movies on DVD. I paid for All the software on my computer that wasn't listed as free.

If you have paused long enough to ask this question of yourself, I suspect you feel you might be cheating the creator of the music. However, the new internet age question is... what is the difference between a smart phone simply connecting to YouTube and playing those songs, vs downloading them to an MP3 player, simply because you don't OWN a smart phone ?

I have to believe , rightly or wrongly, that if a piece of entertainment is posted on YouTube, and is not required to be taken down, for a reasonable amount of time, that the author or their agents are not apposed to it being seen and heard there. If that is the case, then repeated listens , is not a problem, without paying for it. Therefore, transferring that same digital info to another format, for the same , profitless purpose, should be OK.

[Marshall]

My personal philosophy is if I'm making the mp3 so I can learn to play it for some purpose, I'll copy it as you say from youtube.

If I'm getting it to listen to it as part of my music collection, I buy it.

[kkfan]

I feel that converting a YouTube clip to MP3 for continued use is a form of piracy that robs the artist of any revenue he/she is entitled to.

Watching a YouTube clip that is legally posted is fine. More often than not, one watches something on YouTube simply as a reference. I do this all the time to sample songs. Then, I buy the stuff that I want to keep listening to. If I were to convert that YouTube clip to MP3 instead of actually buying the song, I'd be depriving the artist of revenue that rightfully belongs to him/her for their product that I am using for my continued enjoyment.

The key phrase, IMO, that constitutes piracy is "continued use."