Is ripping music off of youtube to listen to a sin?

[Bulbasaur05]

Just wondering.

Just for personal listening in my car.

 

[atassina]

Taking something that doesn’t belong to me is called stealing.

 

[josh987654321]

Just wondering.

Just for personal listening in my car.

I download music from youtube often. I think at the very extreme it could be seen by some as a venial sin (although I don’t believe that).

 

[josh987654321]

Taking something that doesn’t belong to me is called stealing.

It’s already on youtube, for people to listen to for free as many times as they want. And in getting it from youtube, they are still getting paid because of the ‘views’ the youtube page produces. I don’t see the sin of ‘theft’ here.

If it were a song on a CD album for sale and it was ripped from that and shared, than I could agree with the label of ‘theft’ but not from youtube.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[atassina]

It’s already on youtube, for people to listen to for free as many times as they want. And in getting it from youtube, they are still getting paid because of the ‘views’ the youtube page produces. I don’t see the sin of ‘theft’ here.

If it were a song on a CD album for sale and it was ripped from that and shared, than I could agree with the label of ‘theft’ but not from youtube.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

I agree. They posted it for repeated listening. Since you can’t listen to it from the internet in your car, I see no harm.

 

[josh987654321]

I agree. They posted it for repeated listening. Since you can’t listen to it from the internet in your car, I see no harm.

Thank you atassina, I very much value your view.

God Bless

Josh

 

[ServusHumilis]

I don’t know but I will say that the owners of the media played on YouTube are paid by the advertisers based on the number of views the video gets. Perhaps writers and artists have profited by your having viewed such videos. This is their deal with YouTube, though they’d probably prefer if you were to go back and watch it on YouTube every time.

 

[atassina]

Josh,
SeverusHumilis is also correct. SV accurately pointed out one of my concerns: The point of YouTube is to get viewership. Forbes magazine ran an article about music and the internet.

One regional band mentioned mentioned that they garnered a wide listenership that they wouldn’t have had if the internet did not exist. They also earned about 14,645 dollars in one year. Now mind you, this dollar amount signifies an enormous number of listens. From what I remember, each listen earned them about one hundredth of a penny. I can’t remember the title of the article.

So it seems that SeverusHumilis has introduced another valid point into this moral discussion. The real question here is- What is just?

Justice is a man pays what he owes. A man receives what is owed to him.

Please discuss.

 

[frizzgrig]

I agree. They posted it for repeated listening. Since you can’t listen to it from the internet in your car, I see no harm.

When you listen to the item on YouTube, the access is noted and the artist gets whatever small amount of compensation YouTube has agreed to provide. If you record/rip the item from YouTube to another media type that does not report usage statistics to YouTube the artist is denied their compensation. YouTube also has a “terms and conditions of use.” Recording for later playback violates these terms, specifically:

1. General Use of the Service—Permissions and Restrictions

YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service as set forth in these Terms of Service, provided that:

You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player).
You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service.
You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.

youtube.com/static?template=terms

In short, you are violating the terms you agreed to when you used the service and you are denying the artist their compensation for their work. My understanding of sin leads me to conclude yes, this would be a sin.

Deacon Patrick

 

[Joe_5859]

Ripping music off of YouTube can be (but perhaps isn’t always) a violation of applicable copyright laws. Thus, you would be transgressing a civil law, which is generally a sin.

I think the internet has desensitized us to considering the how of obtaining things. Since we can go to YouTube and listen to most songs whenever we feel like it, we think it doesn’t matter if we then obtain the same song in other ways to listen to in other venues. But it does matter.

The internet also tends to make us feel entitled to free entertainment of our choosing.

Even if it were true that every song on YouTube is there with the explicit consent of the copyright holder (which is not true), that doesn’t mean they give permission for people to rip it and use it in other contexts. The copyright holder will make it available in certain manners of their choosing. If it’s on YouTube, they can gain ad revenue even while you listen to it for free. If you rip it and listen to it on your iPod, they get nothing.

There can be exceptions. I know some artists that don’t mind if people do this for regional bonus tracks provided you purchased the rest of the album. But, again, it’s really the purview of the copyright holder.

Think about what would happen if everyone did this to the most extreme. If every person simply ripped every song from YouTube for free, the artists would make no money. Why pay for it if it can be legally, morally licitly obtained for free?

If YouTube was okay with people doing this, they would make it a built-in feature of YouTube. I know of a few sites that have been asked to stop offering such services.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I think it’s best to pay for your songs, like anything else. $1 to $1.30…that’s not so bad…

 

[Operalan]

Some of this needs a bit of clarification—just because it is on Youtube does not mean that artists are getting compensated (no matter how many “hits” the selection has). Much is uploaded and displayed illegally on Youtube. The artists, who deserve to be compensated for their work, receive nothing.

 

[truetofaith]

Just wondering.

Just for personal listening in my car.

Since you can’t take your computer in your car, why not record songs on a disc & listen? You’re not selling them…and if you- tube didn’t want it done, they would pull those songs off the site.

 

[Joe_5859]

Since you can’t take your computer in your car, why not record songs on a disc & listen? You’re not selling them…and if you- tube didn’t want it done, they would pull those songs off the site.

YouTube is simply a platform for people to post videos. Just because a video is posted there does not mean that the creator gives permission for someone to rip/download/etc. to use in any manner they choose – whether for profit or for personal use.

YouTube generally only pulls videos if the copyright holder comes forward and explicitly requests that they do so. And, again, the copyright holder can earn ad revenue when people watch it on YouTube. If it is downloaded for later use, that is not the case.

 

[Norm_The_Robot]

What if I check it out from a public library? Or what if I buy the CD used? Or what if my buddy has the CD I want but is sick of it so he gives it to me as a gift? The artist does not paid for any of these. Why would it be different? Is it a sin to borrow from the library?

 

[JamalChristophr]

I don’t think it’s that ambiguous.

To steal: Take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it:

(Oxford dictionary.)

Just because something is on youtube does not mean it’s in the public domain. When you remove it from youtube, then you have taken possession of something that is copyrighted.

I think music artists need to be compensated still when you take private possession of one of their songs. Perhaps, some will argue that we record things from tv for personal use but I think that is a different situation. The music business was set up, for one thing, as a business in a fundamentally different way than television. Paying for music you are going to use for private use has been understood. I believe most all music artists feel the same way. I’m going to check to make sure.

 

[Joe_5859]

What if I check it out from a public library? Or what if I buy the CD used? Or what if my buddy has the CD I want but is sick of it so he gives it to me as a gift? The artist does not paid for any of these. Why would it be different? Is it a sin to borrow from the library?

The sin in this case has to do with following (or not following) civil law.

The law allows for libraries. The law allows for us to give and receive gifts. The law allows for used CD stores.

The law does not allow for ripping the music from the internet for free without the copyright holder signing off on it.

Now we can argue about what the law should or should not to be. I would never claim that copyright law is the most consistently applied set of laws. Personally, I think it’s more of a hot mess. But, unless the law is asking us to violate our consciences, we want to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.

 

[Norm_The_Robot]

Or what if you go into your local Barnes and Noble and sit at the store coffeshop and read a magazine you have not bought. The store totally allows that but I am sure the publisher would be unhappy that you read the magazine without buying it.

That is essentially the same as ripping an mps off of youtube.

So a goverment stamp of approval is the determination? Ok I listen to copywrited material on youtube or stream a pirated movie someplace and it is a sin. I go to the library and do essentially the same thing and it is not becaus ethe goverment says it is ok.

Then what is the logic behind say opposition to the death penalty. If I go out and murder someon at random it is a sin. If the goverment decides to execute someone that should be ok because the goverment said it is ok just like the library.

Government is unanimous in saying that abortion is ok…they even pay for it. Shouldn;t that government stamp of approval say it is ok?

There are like a zillion other examples I can think of where something that is obviously sinful is given a stamp of approval and even defended by the government.

Does that make us cafeteria citizens or something if we pick and choose which laws we want to follow?

 

[Operalan]

Presumably, the library has purchased the CD before it can LEND it out. If you do borrow it from the library, that does give you the right to copy it for your own use.

 

[Norm_The_Robot]

Presumably, the library has purchased the CD before it can LEND it out. If you do borrow it from the library, that does give you the right to copy it for your own use.

What if the person who uploaded the song or movie did so from a copy that he purchased?

Remember when we used to make mixtapes for our friends of all our favorite songs? Was that bad? Or you might make a mix CD of sappy love songs for your wife or GF on valentines day this weekend, burnt from songs in **your **library that she did not pay for. Would it be sinful for her to accept that CD with her chocolate and flowers? That mixtape or CD is basically pirated media once you hand it out as it is technically in violation of copywrite law. So you just broke the civil law which means you committed a sin!