transferring music to SSD

You don't own the music on your Tidal playlists,  therefore, you can't transfer to internal storage.

I was wondering about that. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Is there any legal prohibition about recording as you stream?

I don't know the specific legislation, but I don't see how recording music you don't own would be legal. I see apps that will record streams, but I doubt these apps can be loaded on any music dedicated streamer, using a general service computer as streamer means the apps could be loaded. As for the ability for the streaming service to detect the recording app, I don't know. Anyone with experience here? Can't imagine the major streaming apps like Tidal, Qobuz, Spotify,etc allowing this.

onhwy61

Is there any legal prohibition about recording as you stream?

No. At least in the US, that's a settled matter. See, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), aka "Betamax case"

Ugh. this makes sense, people have been recording music they didn't own for decades. Still see the monetary issue from the perspective of streaming services, they're not in the business of giving away music.

Does Tidal offer a download facility like Qobuz does?

I would not rely on Sony as precedent--"free" broadcast TV, case was based on a very stale record (facts in the case) when blank tapes were cost-prohibitive--thus, "librarying" was not practicable and the pre-recorded tape market had not yet bloomed (porno was the start of pre-recorded, if you look at the little companies who had distribution rights even to major films at the outset of home video). The issue was largely about "time shifting."

I attended the first oral argument in SCOTUS. The chief Justice said "Brennan will not be present for oral argument but we are taping it so he can hear it later. Now, counsel, what was your argument?" That brought some laughs, given that the issue in the case was arguably "time shifting."

It’s been a while since I looked at the RIAA position--there was a point where they tolerated "ripping" of a copy you bought for personal use, but I don’t speak for them, and this should not be construed as legal advice. (This was my playing field for 35+ years). 

Bill

whart

... I would not rely on Sony as precedent--"free" broadcast TV, case was based on a very stale record (facts in the case) when blank tapes were cost-prohibitive ...

Anything's possible and it was a 5-4 opinion. But if you look at the legal principles the court applied to the ruling, it's not clear to me that anything's changed.

Own music?

Unless you are the orig artist or possess a bill of sale from said artist fuhgeddaboudit.

All that you can possess otherwise is a right to play it.

Streaming services do not "own" the music, only rights to play it.

You can "own" any playlists made there but none of the performances in them.

@fuzztone-- the copyright law makes a distinction between ownership of the physical object (say an LP or CD) and the copyright. Ownership of a physical copy does not afford much in the way of rights to the copyrighted "content"-- this is spelled out in the statute. 

@cleeds - I always respect your views here, but I think a lot has changed. Look at it from a jurisprudential, legal history (not legal advice) standpoint-- in Sony- the issue was the black box manufacturer's liability for home copying. The court relied on a patent doctrine- the staple item of commerce- which says if a device can be used for legal and illegal purposes, even if there is an illegal use, the manufacturer of the black box (a VCR in that case) has no liability if it has no real connection to the end user's activity. In that case, Sony sold the boxes (big kludgey VCRs if you remember the first Betamax machines) and that was it. No further connection to user. Yes, the court held that home users were engaged in fair use by copying free broadcast tv for time shifting.

Then Napster-- if you look at the original opinion you'll see my name (though I did not take the laboring oar, other colleagues did). Napster was not true peer to peer--it maintained a central index to show what was uploaded and available. That was an Achilles heel that led to its shutdown, after repeated takedown notices.

When the Supremes got to Grokster (there were many of these internet file sharing cases in between, many just variations on Napster), the court held that inducement liability (something the Sony court alluded to, but never applied) was another basis to hold the black box supplier liable. Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion, wanted to revisit the staple item doctrine, because the overwhelming use was to infringe, and she thought that result was absurd on that record. 

You are correct in saying "anything is possible" and in copyright, it is certainly true. The best that lawyers in the field can do is predict based on precedent and the particular set of facts. I offer this not for legal advice (I'm retired and no longer practice), but to provide context--the copyright law is always playing "catch up" with technological change. One of the great books on jurisprudence in this area is B. Kaplan's "An Unhurried View." It is not about modern technology today-- at the time, it was a series of lectures in the mid-'60s and the big issue was reprography--photocopying copyrighted content. But Kaplan did a great job in identifying the tensions among various interest groups-- what we might call "stakeholders" today. It is a good read, even though it isn't about a current technological issue, but instead, about how issues of new technology are addressed in the copyright law. 

 I offer the above in that spirit-- not as legal advice, but for historical context and the dynamics of how copyright law, technology and popular culture interact. Fascinating stuff that keeps me engaged not so much as a practitioner of the law anymore but someone who is also involved in the study of music, its history and the changes that have occurred in technology. (PS: I'm an antediluvian in the sense that my mainstay is the vinyl LP, single ended triodes and horn loudspeakers, so a contrarian as well). 

Best, 

Bill

Respectfully @whart the Sony case arrived at the high court predominately because of the manufacturer’s liability issue, but Fair Use was always at the root of the lengthy case. That’s the aspect of the opinion that I think remains relevant.

As you note, copyright law lags technology by its very nature. But I think it unlikely to evolve so as to to restrict recording a live stream.

Non-lawyer here, my question was prompted by me thinking it was similar to taping music from FM broadcasts.

Iirc copyright was only 25 years then in the 80's? The music industry decided without any opposition to change it to 50 years. It may be indefinate by now.

The music industry does what the hell it likes.

Drugs still have a fairly short copyright.

Many albums I bought the vinyl, cassette, cd, bd, sacd etc and multiple copies of each with re-masters etc.

@lordmelton -that's inaccurate. The old law, effective until Dec 31, 1977, was two 28 year terms if renewed. When the 1976 Act came into effect, an additional 19 years was added to the renewal term, and renewal eventually became automatic= 75 years, approximately. 

The last extension of term was done years ago, through the Sonny Bono extension bill, which was challenged unsuccessfully in the US Supreme Court. 

I don't want to argue the merits of whether copyright protection is too long-- remember, this applies not only to music, but literary works and the visual arts-- but please get the basics correct. 

Not intended as legal advice-- you are welcome to check any number of basic informational sites on copyright duration. International law on the subject can be found through sources like WIPO. And there's a ton of literature out there, freely available on the web concerning the subject. 

@whart 

I mentioned that I stood to be corrected but I wasn't that far off and my information was received quite a while ago from a Brit in the music biz.

Anyway, the way I see it is we all got shafted.

I remember in the '70s there was loads of vinyl copying hits that weren't contravening copyright as I understand. You don't see these recordings anymore.