The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

Concert Recoding - Why Illegal???

by jazzman32807 / March 13, 2008 12:40 AM PDT

If making a video recording at music is illegal (which I think it more so rules of the venue as opposed to law, please set me straight here buzz community), then how far off is taking a picture on the street from being illegal. What this? you say I?m comparing apples to oranges?Ok? lets say that I?m taking pictures of super models at a fashion show? is that illegal?

With my gross understanding of DMCA & copyrights, those have been put into place to protect people making profits and distributing artists & copyrighted material. How can newspaper photographers get away with taking the most absurd pictures of people, while we can?t not make recordings of concerts??? A video is but many pictures with audio recorded and sync?d with the pictures!!!


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Concert Recoding - Why Illegal???
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Concert Recoding - Why Illegal???
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I don't get it either. . . -_-
by rar31 / March 13, 2008 12:54 AM PDT

If you can take a picture outside, and post it on the world wide web, then you should be able to do the same with a video that you created yourself. And about the newspapers; the media gets away with almost anything.

Collapse -
3 or 6 seconds is fair use
by PortVista-190953130350169 / March 13, 2008 1:49 AM PDT

CNN News can't just play an entire song from a concert without permission (they do get permission a lot of times or they own the production company and can do whatever with it).

But if they don't, there's a rule of thumb they use, 3 or 6 seconds or something. Maybe that's based on some court case I don't know. But it's because media companies make money and it's not considered "fair use / newsworthy" after 6 seconds of playback...

Collapse -
The law is simple really
by PortVista-190953130350169 / March 13, 2008 1:40 AM PDT

It's not illegal in the sense that the cops are going to come after you, but they may escort you out of a private venue. If it's on public property they can't legally stop you from recording anything.


If you recorded my public concert and then played it again on a public screen or uploaded it to the public, you would be violating my copyright protection and I could sue you. If you record it and play it in your home, it's fair use.

Collapse -
Yes, by the letter
by batman823 / March 13, 2008 2:40 AM PDT

By the letter of the law, it is illegal. At a concert(or photo shoot) it would be illegal for you to record it. There is free press, but that's what the other guy is talking about with the short snip of audio/video.

They are in business to make money off of the music/art. They own the copyright on their material. They also sell recordings of concerts or studio recordings. The whole point is to make money.

Your rights are stated in the ticket contract when you buy. The summary should be on the back of the ticket. It basically states rules of conduct, and that you do not have permission to record or reproduce the event.

It's similar to renting a movie. You are paying for the entertainment. Your rights end at a specific time and you're not allowed to copy the material. For concerts, it's the end of the show. You won't be kicked out for taking pictures or a cellphone video for a nalstalgic souvenir, but the created it and they are the only ones allowed to profit off of it.

It sucks, but that's the legal precedent. You could request permission to record it for personal use, in writing. They may actually grant you permission. But enjoy your concerts and make good memories. If you get caught recording, you'll probably just be removed from the arena/concert hall.

Collapse -
by PortVista-190953130350169 / March 13, 2008 3:17 AM PDT
In reply to: Yes, by the letter

Hulu is owned by NBC and Fox. I'm sure somewhere in the contract with Amazon it is written "And Amazon is NBC and FOX's b**ch now."

Collapse -
Cyberized Brains...
by jazzman32807 / March 13, 2008 4:38 AM PDT
In reply to: Yes, by the letter

Great response... now I'm going to get at what I'm really thinking. The points you bring up is the area I?m focused. I?m acting on the premises of not trying to distribute are resale the concert. Your comment ?enjoy your concerts and make good memories? is what I?m ultimately getting at?

The line between nostalgic memories versus video recording are becoming blurred with the advent of digital capturing devices and mass amounts of external storage. I?m sure if someone concentrated hard enough, one could replay the entire show in their mind again. What is the difference from remembering a show and watching a recoding you?ve made at home? will there be a law that restricts us from remembering a show (I?m reaching here and playing devil?s advocate). Extrapolating the technology into the future? just as we have heart implants, I?m sure there will be some sort of implants to help us remember better. Taking it further, I?m sure will be able to download those thoughts and memories (still in the future) to some external device for storage. I guess I?ve been watching too much Ghost in a Shell? but what happens to the law and copyrights if our brains and memories become cyberized???

Collapse -
review the contract.
by batman823 / March 17, 2008 1:57 AM PDT
In reply to: Cyberized Brains...

The contract that two of us mentioned will put a lot of limitations on what you're allowed to do. They say "if you want a picture or a video, you have to buy it from us"

If the terms for attending the concert restrict you from taking any video, then you can't. I am sure there's a reality check to be done, but that's the way it works. I know nobody's going to pay money to see a 30sec clip taken from your cell phone, but they want you to buy the video from them. It's business.

I think it's a different scenario if you want a clip/pic of you and friends interacting or as memoriabelia. Even if it were against rules, concerts are busy and they've got bigger things to worry about. So I wouldn't sweat it.

But about the Cyber-enhanced brains.... please go lay in the grass and make sure the sun is still in the sky. Funny stuff though

Collapse -
by jazzman32807 / March 18, 2008 7:20 AM PDT
In reply to: review the contract.


Collapse -
I'm glad
by batman823 / March 19, 2008 1:26 AM PDT
In reply to: lol

I'm glad you didn't take offense to that. That just sounded like somebody who'd spent way too much time thinking about the subject.

Collapse -
visual memory
by penelopepe-24429645131959839528863645251377 / December 19, 2011 7:00 AM PST
In reply to: Cyberized Brains...

dear jazz, in response to the letter of the law response . . .

Collapse -
There are Several Issues Mixed Together
by Renegade Knight / March 13, 2008 4:35 AM PDT

A bunch of issues are at at play tha come together and make things confusing.

One is copyright. The performaer makes a living doing the concerts. Thus you have no right to infringe on that living by distirbuting anything that may interfer. a Video for example.

Next is your own life. You can write and blog about anything at all that you encounter in your own life. That includes video on a concert. Tough nuts to everone that says other wise. BUT you will hit limits and some you will agree to. A concert ticket will ban your video. You entered into the agreement you are bound by it. If you are a DR. you can write about being a Dr. but you can't break Dr. Patient confendentialtiy or privacy laws. That's the laws. Other laws will hit you as well.

Sometimes it's reversed. You are an actor and while the Studio owns the right to your work and move you as an actor have the right of publicity meaning you get to at least say you were the actor who played the part to promot your own career.

More and more just as you point out people are trying to extend their reach. Some places pan photo's. I'm not sure why but they do. I'm unsure of their right since there is no agreement, but somtiems there is law and sometimes they have the security guards to take your camer and expost the film or delete the file.

Collapse -
Egads Man
by Renegade Knight / March 13, 2008 4:37 AM PDT

The Spelling and Typo's in my post suck. I wish they at least had Firefox at work to help catch the errors...

Collapse -
by jazzman32807 / March 13, 2008 4:44 AM PDT
In reply to: Egads Man

haha... yeah... but the Beta 3 breaks a lot of stuff... i actually switched back to IE 7 for the time being... but we're off subject now Happy

Collapse -
intent of copyright
by zoredache / March 17, 2008 2:40 AM PDT

}} by Renegade Knight
}} One is copyright. The performaer makes a living doing the concerts. Thus you have no right to infringe on that living by distirbuting anything that may interfer. a Video for example.

The intent of copyright was not so 'a performer can make a living'. The performer does not have a 'right to make a living'. What the performer does have is a monopoly to control how, when, and where their creative works are performed.

Collapse -
Right and Wrong
by Renegade Knight / March 18, 2008 3:40 AM PDT
In reply to: intent of copyright

You are correct that the person holding the copyright has no right to make a living. It's more correct to say copyright gives them the right to try and reap the beneifits (measured in money most often) of their own work. That in turn gives them control until that control bumps into fair use. Fair use is not defined by copyright holders though. They influence it.

Insofar as control that's a side effect of the reason behind copyright. However that control is limited by fair use as well. What are the limits? That goes back to intent.

Collapse -
Lots of people to blame for this
by PuT6hpcu2Xh3f / March 13, 2008 4:50 AM PDT

For some venues, it's in the terms of service when you buy the ticket. Sometimes the artist requests it, sometimes it's just the venue's policy. Sometimes if the artist requests it, it's due to a clause in their contract with a label or promotion company (ala Live Nation). This is especially true for large venues and big-name acts.

Smaller venues, which tend to host up-and-comers (at least the ones that I go to in LA) don't seem to have a problem with it, and I've been at shows where the bands request uploads to YouTube or AltPunk. It just depends. They need the word-of-mouth advertising.

Collapse -
The Artists
by al409 / March 13, 2008 7:33 AM PDT

I would say it should be illegal not because of any politician or recording industry babble- but because concerts are where artists themselves make their money.

The advent of web and slowing CD sales have made the margins for artists incredibly low- which is why the ticket and merch money is still so important to the artists.

Also- some artists- The Mountain Goats- offer their live recordings freely- this should be the choice of the artists not random fans.

I don't feel that short clips should necessarily be illegal- pictures, short video, short audio- but the only way to enforce the wishes of the artists regarding their rights of performance is to have a general ban on recording if the artist chooses.

Collapse -
Artist is already paid
by Nicholas Buenk / March 13, 2008 4:41 PM PDT

For the concert, from the people attending.
Hence, they're paid for their time, their efforts already.
Anything else comes from treating ideas as a form of property, something I disagree with. It's pretending that information is the same as physical property, and trying to bolt onto information the restrictions of physical property.

Collapse -
Concert Recordings
by commorancy / March 13, 2008 7:12 PM PDT

Recording musical concerts either audio or video isn't inherently illegal. It's the distribution after the fact that is (or at least, it is without permission)... and there's the catch. Note that distribution of copyrighted material is what's illegal without that permission. I think people forget that about the copyright law. As long as you get permission, then it is not illegal.

Some bands fully allow/permit recording and dissemination of their concerts via audio/video. Other bands do not. It's also possible that a band allows recordings, but the venue does not. You should check carefully with the venue prior to doing any recording.

So, if you're concerned over a specific artist or band, you should check to see if the band allows recording and also if the venue does. If it's permitted, then feel free to record it and distribute it. If you're concerned, don't record it.


Brian W.

Collapse -
the distiction is clear
by zoredache / March 17, 2008 2:44 AM PDT

}} by jazzman32807
}} If making a video recording at music is illegal (which I think it more so rules of the venue as opposed to law, please set me straight here buzz community), then how far off is taking a picture on the street from being illegal.

Walking around on the street is not an action of creation. It is not a science or an art that is useful to promote.

Creation and perfermoance of art, in this case music, is a creative act. The constitution and congress has given monopolies to performers in exchange for their creativity.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.