# Is recording songs playing on the radio legal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 18, 2007, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623 "2007-09-18T16:35:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bstenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@bstenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bstenger)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2007, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/21 "2007-09-18T18:14:38Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] It’s called the \*audio \* home recording act. It imposes a royalty on . . . . \*audio \* tapes, and only exempts recordings of music. If you can fit the \*audio \* tape into your \*video \* cassette recorder , let’s talk. [/QUOTE] Are you getting sarcastic with me? You were specifically quoting me on what I said about taping Forrest Gump- not audio taping- from two different sources. I asked you to make sense of your claim, “In one case, you’ve already paid royalties when you purchased the recording media; in the other–not.” Then you claimed that’s what Congress says. Where? I said: > [@](#): > > Taping Forrest Gump when it’s on HBO- legal. Taping your friend’s copy of Forrest Gump- illegal. Makes no sense. you said: > [@](#): > > In one case, you’ve already paid royalties when you purchased the recording media; in the other–not. I said: > [@](#): > > How’s that? The recording media is the same regardless of what the source is. You said: > [@](#): > > Review the AHRA, and you’ll see that Congress disagrees. I said: > [@](#): > > Congress disagrees with what? You said, “In one case, you’ve already paid royalties when you purchased the recording media; in the other–not.” > > If I buy a a blank VCR tape, I can tape a movie on TV with it or a movie from a DVD with it. Are you saying that Congress says the royalties were or weren’t paid for when I bought the tape depending on what source I use to record the same movie? You said: > [@](#): > > It’s called the audio home recording act. It imposes a royalty on . . . . audio tapes, and only exempts recordings of music. If you can fit the audio tape into your video cassette recorder , let’s talk. When you can follow a conversation, let’s talk. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2007, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/22 "2007-09-18T19:27:10Z")
It appears I did indeed misread your question. I apologize. It all comes from doing too many things at once. Let’s go back to the original question. > [@](#): > > Taping Forrest Gump when it’s on HBO- legal. Taping your friend’s copy of Forrest Gump- illegal. Actually, both are illegal, with one exception. The Court said time-shifting \*might \* be ok in _Sony v. Universal_. But the Sony Court didn’t face the issue head on, and as I pointed out before, the definition is very narrow. I’ll quote myself from an earlier discussion of the issue: > [@](#): > > After defing time-shifting as “the practice of recording a program to view it once at a later time, and\*\* thereafter erasing it\*\*,” (Emphasis added) the Court noted: > > > [@](#): > > > > In summary, the record and findings of the District Court lead us to two conclusions. First, Sony demonstrated a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts time-shifted by private viewers. And second, respondents failed to demonstrate that time-shifting would cause any likelihood of nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted works. > > So on the record before the court, it found that the plaintiff had not proven that time-shifting, as narrowly defined, was not a fair use. Typically, fair use is an affirmative defense, which the defendant would have to prove. The Betamax case is different because it was part of the Court’s developing contributory infringement doctrine. In order to do that Sony had to prove that the Betamax was not capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses. > > Also, the part about unauthorized time-shifting was probably dicta because the Court had already decided that some copyright holders had authorized time-shifting, or were willing to do so. Because that was a noninfringing use. The part about unauthorized use was probably not necessary to the holding. > > [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417) As for why the logic of \*Sony \* doesn’t apply to copying an already-recorded movie, **RealityChuck** nailed it earlier. The only basis for permitting taping in the first place was > [@](#): > > that the average member of the public uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time. This practice, known as “time-shifting,” enlarges the television viewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. That reasoning just doesn’t apply to copying a recording. Again, sorry for the ass-hattery. Hope this helps. ---
**Author:** ![bstenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@bstenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bstenger)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/23 "2007-09-18T19:40:38Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] It appears I did indeed misread your question. I apologize. It all comes from doing too many things at once. [/quote] No problem. Sorry for getting sarcastic to get back at ya. 😃 Okay, so it seems VCR recording is a different story. But back to audio. Are the following facts correct?: 1. When I buy a blank cassette, part of the money goes to the music industry. 2. Because of the above fact, I can tape music on the radio. If those two facts are correct, it still seems odd to me that in the U.S. I can tape a song on the radio, but I can’t tape a copy of my friend’s CD, especially since the music industry is getting a chunk of the change. It seems Canada got it right by allowing people to make copies of their friend’s music. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2007, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/24 "2007-09-18T19:48:34Z")
[QUOTE=bstenger] Okay, so it seems VCR recording is a different story. But back to audio. Are the following facts correct? [/QUOTE] I believe they are, yes. > [@](#): > > If those two facts are correct, it still seems odd to me that in the U.S. I can tape a song on the radio, but I can’t tape a copy of my friend’s CD, especially since the music industry is getting a chunk of the change. I was going to respond to this, but things just got busy here at work, and I wouldn’t want to get it wrong. I’ll come back a bit later and see if I can give a helpful response. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2007, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/25 "2007-09-18T21:31:37Z")
[QUOTE=bstenger] I can tape a song on the radio, but I can’t tape a copy of my friend’s CD, especially since the music industry is getting a chunk of the change. It seems Canada got it right by allowing people to make copies of their friend’s music. [/QUOTE] The statute isn’t really clear on the point, actually. As you can see, it doesn’t distinguish between sources of recording as long as the recordings are on tape, of music, and for noncommercial purposes. Musicians United for Strong Copyright says: > [@](#): > > It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes. [http://www.musicunited.org/2\_thelaw.html#1](http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html#1) Whether a court would find that making an analog tape copy of a friend’s CD is commercial is anyone’s guess. and see, [3.7) Can I legally make a cassette copy of a musical CD for my own use, so I can play it in my car?](http://stason.org/TULARC/business/copyright/3-7-Can-I-legally-make-a-cassette-copy-of-a-musical-CD-for.html) (but mind the pop-ups). Even if it’s not strictly legal, it’s probably one of those things that MUSC says “won’t usually raise concerns.” Sorry I don’t have anything definitive for you. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2007, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/26 "2007-09-18T22:06:04Z")
Has anyone been sued for recording songs off the radio? What about Tivo? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2007, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/27 "2007-09-18T22:39:26Z")
[QUOTE=guizot] Has anyone been sued for recording songs off the radio? [/QUOTE] I’m unaware of any cases before AHRA was passed. > [@](#): > > What about Tivo? I don’t think any users have been sued, but a few intervened in a suit against ReplayTV. The suit was settled: [http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Newmark\_v\_Turner/20040109\_end\_case\_pr.php](http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Newmark_v_Turner/20040109_end_case_pr.php) ---
**Author:** ![bstenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@bstenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bstenger)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/28 "2007-09-19T00:52:45Z")
[QUOTE=bstenger] But back to audio. Are the following facts correct?: 1. When I buy a blank cassette, part of the money goes to the music industry. 2. Because of the above fact, I can tape music on the radio. [/QUOTE] It seems from the link that Gfactor provided that the above facts may not be correct (in the U.S.): [http://www.musicunited.org/2\_thelaw.html#1](http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html#1) > [@](#): > > It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes. > > It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes. Although that doesn’t specifically say that blank cassette tapes don’t have royalties being paid on them, it wouldn’t make sense that regular CD-Rs don’t pay royalties to the music industry but cassettes do. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2007, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/29 "2007-09-19T01:45:35Z")
> [@](#): > > as long as the recordings are on tape I got this wrong. Special audio CD-R’s are priced to include a royalty. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, the difference in price for the audio CD-R blanks is due > to licensing agreements and volume. The manufacturer pays a royalty to > a studio consortium under the assumption that everything recorded to an > audio CD-R is pirated material. The technology is identical; the “audio” > discs just have a mark that says a royalty has been paid. [5-12] What's the story with stand-alone audio CD recorders?](http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/cd-recordable/5-12-What-s-the-story-with-stand-alone-audio-CD-recorders.html) > [@](#): > > The “music” blanks are more expensive than the “data” blanks because a > portion of the price goes to the music industry. The specifics vary from > country to country. In the USA, the money goes to the RIAA, which > distributes it to artists who have navigated through a complicated > application process. > **[7-17\] What's the difference between "data" and "music" blanks?](https://stason.org/TULARC/pc/cd-recordable/7-17-What-s-the-difference-between-data-and-music-blank.html)** > [@](#): > > Audio CD-Rs look virtually identical to regular CDs except for the price tag. An Audio CD-R will cost you anywhere from 2 to 10 times as much per CD. The rationale goes: Between you and the manufacturer of the CD, the required royalty taxes have already been paid, as opposed to regular CDs, where the music royalty taxes haven’t been paid. It takes some searching, [http://help.cnet.com/Audio\_System\_Components/9602-12576\_39-0.html?messageID=2505136&kw=Audio+System+Components&nodeId=6462](http://help.cnet.com/Audio_System_Components/9602-12576_39-0.html?messageID=2505136&kw=Audio+System+Components&nodeId=6462) And see, _CD BURNING GUIDE An Explanation of Royalty Paid Media and Burning CDs from an Escient FireBall Music Server_: [http://www.escient.com/support/supportdocuments/CDBurningGuide.pdf](http://www.escient.com/support/supportdocuments/CDBurningGuide.pdf) I apparently also missed (I knew this at one point) that although analog cassettes are clearly exempted under the provision quoted earlier, no royalties are paid on their sale. Here is the royalty provision: > [@](#): > > (a) Prohibition on Importation and Manufacture.— No person shall import into and distribute, or manufacture and distribute, any digital audio recording device or digital audio recording medium unless such person records the notice specified by this section and subsequently deposits the statements of account and applicable royalty payments for such device or medium specified in section 1004. > **[17 U.S. Code § 1003 - Obligation to make royalty payments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1003)** > [@](#): > > (b) Digital Audio Recording Media.— The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium. > **[17 U.S. Code § 1004 - Royalty payments](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1004)** Let me summarize, then: 1. Non-commercial copying is permitted on analog tapes, and on digital equipment and media that qualify under the AHRA (including payment of required royalties). 2. It’s not \*because \* the royalties are paid that you are permitted to copy, but because the recording device and recording media qualify as such under the AHRA’s definitions (§ 1001) and comply with the other requirements of the Act, which include royalty payments for some devices and media and not others. Better? Worse? ---
**Author:** ![bstenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@bstenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bstenger)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2007, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/30 "2007-09-19T01:58:29Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Let me summarize, then: 1. Non-commercial copying is permitted on analog tapes, and on digital equipment and media that qualify under the AHRA (including payment of required royalties). 2. It’s not \*because \* the royalties are paid that you are permitted to copy, but because the recording device and recording media qualify as such under the AHRA’s definitions (§ 1001) and comply with the other requirements of the Act, which include royalty payments for some devices and media and not others. Better? Worse? [/QUOTE] As for as the rationale behind the laws? I’m going with ‘worse’ because it makes even less sense now. Neither cassette tapes nor regular CD-R purchases have a portion of the profits going to the music industry, yet for some unknown reason I can record the radio with tapes and not data CDs. Also, I still see no rationale why I can have music I didn’t pay for when recorded from the radio and not a friend’s CD. I’m not whining to you about this, Gfactor. I’m just whining in general. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2007, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623/31 "2007-09-19T02:08:08Z")
This article has a pretty good summary of the basic ideas behind the AHRA: [MEIEA - Journal](http://www.meiea.org/Journal/html_ver/Vol02_No01/Vol_2_No_1_A4.html) The recording industry was less worried about analog media because with each successive generation, the quality deteriorates. Not so with digital. That’s the basic distinction. They were going to have to deal with digital copy technology, and this was a sort of compromise–allow copying, get paid in advance, ensure some protections were in place. Later they got the right to prevent copying technologically, too. Beyond that, all I can offer is that the statute says what it says. There are plenty of statutes out there that are at least as twisted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-recording-songs-playing-on-the-radio-legal/419623.md?page=1)