You can if you do it on radio.

You don't pay for the physical medium, you pay for the right to play the song to other people.

That's the right to play the music, but you received it through illicit distribution which, depending on jurisdiction, can result in liability.

You're being downvoted, but you're correct: bits can have (legal) colour.

As I recall this is the case in France: even if you own a CD, getting a bit-for-bit copy of it that was originally produced unlawfully runs afoul of reproduction rights. IIRC this was even challenged and confirmed in court.

https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23/

I use this “Apple match” service with iTunes. I think the idea was it found songs from cds I ripped and served me the same song from the cloud(without uploading) for a small yearly fee.

Though it did spend a long time uploading but I have a few phish concerts and a huge amount of classical I bought (Deutche Gramaphone has a best of collection they sold direct that was pretty big)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_music_l...

“by Apple (and formerly Amazon.com) was "scan-and-match", which examined music files on a computer and added a copy of matched tracks to the user's music locker without having to upload the files.”

Don’t know how much longer this will last.

Note that there are two different matching products:

- iTunes Match: matches files by audio fingerprint and gives you 256k AAC unDRM'd files. If it doesn't match, uploads files to "iTunes in the Cloud" digital locker feature (files may be converted to AAC prior to uploading). Costs in the order of 20-ish € a year.

- Apple Music: matches files by audio fingerprint and gives you 256k AAC FairPlay-protected files. Can't recall if it uploads (I think it does?) and how it converts (might convert to FairPlay protected?).

Both have song count limit (10k or something for iTunes in the Cloud), and they may differ (not sure, Apple Music may be higher).

If you have both, iTunes Match applies.

This service still exists, and you can even still pay for it separately, but it's also included with Apple Music.

Depends entirely on your definition of the word pirate and the jurisdiction you are in.

If you have a CD and a license to stream the CD, it's going to be hard for the licensee to sue you for streaming a rip of the CD instead of getting a copy directly from them.

Why not? You could also just rip the CD

That's my opinion too, but I don't think the RIAA or MPAA would agree.

When I worked with Rdio the RIAA sued them because users would make playlists named "Now that's what I call music < X >" with the same songs as the CDs. All the songs were fully licensed to be streamed on the service. The RIAA won those lawsuits.

edit: they might have actually settled, but the RIAA got what they wanted with no concessions

Did the RIAA win or Rdio settle?

The RIAA doesn't seem to have a very good track record in cases that go to court, but the whole 'we're gonna sue you for eleventy billion dollars and destroy your life with our thousands of lawyers, but give us $20 right now and we'll call it even' seems to be quite effective.

You know, you might be right that in the end it was a settlement of sorts. I remember for a while they were fighting it specifically because it was about playlists (named groups of songs) which was not defined in the licensing in a way that clearly did or did not overlap with albums. The more I think about it, there was such a threat of refusing to renew licenses that it's possible they renewed with explicit language that prevented these playlists. I know for sure the playlists were purged. All said it was a hilarious amount of lawyer money over some of the dumbest CDs ever.

I miss Rdio. Always thought it had the better UI and recommendations.

That sounds exactly like what youtube music does

That’s a clear trademark violation though.

They're disagreeable across the board.

They have enforcement powers if they they prevail in the suit and the people who have legal power enforce their will. Which is something that has happened in the past. That includes them just successfully abusing the defendant into settling, no matter if they would have won in the long run.

The RIAA clearly has the power to enforce economic harm on anyone who has to defend their lawsuits. Against small enough defendants, that makes their positions extremely relevant.

Anyone can sue anyone. Just because they think something is illegal, doesn't mean it's actually illegal. They still need to convince a judge. Therefore their stance on whether you can rip CDs is irrelevant.

Lawsuits only get expensive when they can’t instantly be dismissed.

If I sue you for something ridiculous like using telepathic mind control to get my dog to bark satanic messages, the judge will just dismiss the case pre trial. If you launch a bunch of such frivolous lawsuits I can get a lawyer to counter sue you and win on contingency with zero out of pocket expenses.

The basis of copyright in the US is that being able to sue and win is an enforcement power.

That’s the core thing the government is giving copyright holders, and what the public is protected from when something enters the public domain.

The RIAA only cares about seeding, not leeching/DLing.