RIAA Bullies
@dialinx.net
| Bite the hand that feeds them
Seems to me that one thing the record industry doesn't realize is that if they keep pushing these issues, and keep going after these web sites, that after a while, the people that buy CD's, and cassettes will stop buying because the record industry doesn't give a hoot about the artists just the RIAA pockets, that's it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think it is ridiculous to pay anything over $10 for a CD, when they are made cheaper than a cassette!! Let's see who's stealing from who now!!!!!!! The all mighty RIAA will fall flat on it's face one of these days when they least expect it. I can't wait for that day!!!! If an mp3 doesn't have the sound quality of a CD as the RIAA says, then what are they in attack mode for. I am all for paying for music, but not getting ripped off for it!!!!! |
|
FLea973
Premium
join:2001-02-27
Morristown, NJ
clubs:
|  Support Him!!!
Here is a link to SteamRipper's forum: »streamripper.sourceforge.net/cgi···kie=true
This guy needs help fighting the fight! If you can help please do! This may be the case that wins it. I am no lawyer, but to me this looks like the next logical progression of the Tape Vs. Radio and Beta/VHS Vs Television argument... difference: Its digital and a hellova lot cheaper! |
|
bchapin
join:2001-05-02
Little Rock, AR | Read this!
»news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-56···latest.0 |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | The stations we're talking about are already paying license fees.. the issue here is not whether or not internet broadcasters have to pay royalties - they do have to, and they do pay.. |
|
sheriff6
join:2001-04-25
Pittsburgh, PA | two OC3s and a microphone...
This is a perfect example of an application where IPv4 unicast falls flat on its face. Enabling the applications to run multicast could save them a ton of bandwidth. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | multicast is all but dead .. none of the carriers will carry multicast traffic, despite that many of their routers are capable.
Why? probably because they can't figure out how to charge for it. |
|
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
|  the Overlooked Problem
It is not RIAA, nor ASCAP that StreamRipper needs to fear. It is the Moving Picture Experts Group Licensing Authority (MPEG-LA) and Frauhoefer.
StreamRipper uses MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP-3) technology which is by no means an "opensource technology". For every copy distributed, the author must pay a royalty. On top of that, there are definite per-stream royalties associated with each MP-3 the end-user creates. Stopping StreamRipper stops a whole bunch of other problems down the line.
I like open source. But I am against the wholesale rip-off of intellectual property rights and copyrights of software and technologies that I or my colleagues in other parts of the industry worked so hard to create. This isn't something new, nor unclear, nor unprotected by existing laws.
If the author of StreamRipper and the proprietors of the music stations are fearing for themselves, then they obviously have not put in as much research into the issue as they claim or have quietly circumvented laws and copyrights and hoped nobody notices. In the specific case of StreamRipper, this looks to be true.
Hopefully, the author of this news article will check his sources and do some more research into the legality of such products as StreamRipper before publishing another "I've done nothing wrong yet they're out to get me!" piece. This is why you generally don't see these articles published in major newspapers. |
|
Bob Jenkins
@mediaone.net
| >StreamRipper uses MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP-3) technology >which is by no means an "opensource technology". For every >copy distributed, the author must pay a royalty.
This is by no means an absolute. While Fraunhoffer does in fact hold patents for many MP3-based technologies, it is definately a debatable point on wether they have the ability to charge royalties for any technology that uses MP3 technology in any way. The LAME developers (which StreamRipper uses I believe) claim that they have removed *all* code that infringes on Fraunhofer/Thomson patents.
And the laws and copyrights you are clinging to were, in fact, very quickly enacted and were constructed by layers who's sole incentive were driven by the large Media companies.
>>But I am against the wholesale rip-off of intellectual >>property rights and copyrights of software and >>technologies that I or my colleagues in other parts of the industry worked so hard to create.
what's to say that people use this product to "ripoff" other people's property rights ? There are plenty of legal and valid reasons to use this product, are you going to sue the maker of the VCR because it can be used to copy VHS tapes ?
Bob |
|
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| 1)The VHS format was not copyrighted with a per-stream royalty charge like MP-3 (and the rest of MPEG).
2) You cannot remove code from an MP-3 product and still have it produce/read MP-3 compatible streams. There are blocking patents on this technology, and without them, you cannot have an MP-3 encoder or decoder. The author is in violation no matter what.
3) Sure, there are many valid reasons to use a product, as long as all the associated fees, copyrights, patents, and other intellectual properties are respected. In the case of StreamRipper, this is not so. |
|
jon_clegg
@216.206.x.x
| Streamripper does not encode to mp3. It only decodes, it wouldn't even decode the audio if it didn't have to look for silence. anyway, it's the encodeing that has a license, not the decoding.
As for using LAME, I used mpglib which is part of the LAME distro for the unix version. I'm using xaudio for the windows version. I would prefer to use mpglib as it's GPL'd, however it's quality is not up to snuff.
-Jon |
|
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| Actually, decoding needs a license too. As does any MPEG related product.
But if you take out all the decoding and are only copying the MP-3 from one place to the other, you should be fine.
As far as the legality of mpglib, its makers are only flying under the radar for now. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to statemachine
This is a red herring.. if there are established license fees to pay, and this is not certain, music stations will and do pay them, and it will be a fairly small part of their costs, just as it is for radio broadcasters.
Since streamripper is a winamp plugin, winamp has any MP3 algorithm battle to fight, if any.. the stream comes down from shoutcast as an MP3, and gets stored on disk as an MP3.
Neither streamripper nor any big radio stations on the net are circumventing any laws, nor are the seeking to avoid paying statutory playlist fees, whatever they are.
The issue is that listeners will be attempting to make copies of songs they hear just as you use your TIVO to make a copy of a TV program so you can watch it later. I have an MP3 player. Are you honestly suggesting that it should be criminal for me to store radio music on my MP3 player for when I go outdoors?
In the haste to eliminate the possibility that some users may go to the next step and trade these copied songs, the RIAA is likely to try to crunch the stations and/or the tools, illegally, because the job of policing the audience is too huge to contemplate..
THATS the issue. |
|
JohnC
Mr. John
Premium
join:2000-09-22
Hamden, CT
| Just turn on the radio....
What is the big deal! Since when do we need a station to fit everyone's needs. It is simple capitalism.... if you want it, You got to pay for it. The free internet is a dream. The Bandwidth Gods are going to come home and they want to get paid! I like free, but you have to realize that the mighty dollar controls all.....
--
See all that stuff in there Homer? That's why your robot didn't work! |
|
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| reply to justin
Re: the Overlooked Problem
A red herring is claiming this is a red herring. 
That license fees need to be paid is an absolute. I don't make this stuff up.
quote:
The issue is that listeners will be attempting to make copies of songs they hear just as you use your TIVO to make a copy of a TV program so you can watch it later. I have an MP3 player. Are you honestly suggesting that it should be criminal for me to store radio music on my MP3 player for when I go outdoors?
I never said that. What is the issue is redistribution. This has always been the issue of copyright. Fair Use allows you to make a temporary copy for yourself. But once you give a copy to someone else without the permission from the original owner, you are violating copyright. And TIVO did secure the necessary licenses to allow you to do this with your television. TIVO uses MPEG technology and has also secured the licenses for that as well.
quote:
Neither streamripper nor any big radio stations on the net are circumventing any laws, nor are the seeking to avoid paying statutory playlist fees, whatever they are.
This is pure BS. Someone is feeding it to you by the trough. Streamripper employs MP-3 technology and the author is not paying the royalties to distribute such a product. The radio stations are rebroadcasting onto a different medium in a different market and not paying the royalties associated with airing shows, music, and actors residuals. They know they're trying to pull a fast one here.
quote:
In the haste to eliminate the possibility that some users may go to the next step and trade these copied songs, the RIAA is likely to try to crunch the stations and/or the tools, illegally, because the job of policing the audience is too huge to contemplate..
The RIAA and MPEG-LA and Frauhoefer and the FBI and whoever else would be right to do this because as I explained above, these are already copyright violations.
For a more in depth look into copyrights in this new age of computers, look here:
»www.educause.edu/issues/dmca.html
You could also join me at the cooler for more commentary on this if you like.
|
|
TheEternalTroll
join:2000-12-01
Knoxville, TN
| reply to JohnC
Re: Just turn on the radio....
You want to know something funny? I have never head of streamripper or even knew it was possible to rip a stream till I read this. Thank you RIAA. On another note, if they do some encrpyting or some other crap to prevent this, ill just use my other computer as a recorder and connect the sound cards together. I still win. The RIAA will not win, they will only show the world how greedy they are. |
|
Anon
| reply to statemachine
Re: the Overlooked Problem
Really. Honestly. If I write a program that decodes/encodes MP3 layer yada streams...and i don't charge anything for it...sue me.
While you're wasting your time suing me, fountain, I'll waste my time laughing. At least for my part you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip and just knowing that building a GPL'd or FREE ripper upsets you or people like you is all the payment i'd need for the rest of my life.
It's great that the MPEG group invented some stuff...but as soon as someone else figures out how it works what in dog's name do you think you can do to stop it? From where I'm sitting it's actually quite ridiculous. A bunch of whiny, anal, greedy babies worried about some boat or mansion that they may or may not be able to buy.
Buy food and shelter for your family. Leave the whining to your children and if you want to create a technology that won't get ripped apart by 'hackers' then become a better coder. Read a Knuth book or something.
I exist with people like you fountain. You're the cops of the world and most of you don't realize the errors of your ways until you're on your death-beds yapping about shoulda coulda woulda...yadda. some of you go out like you came in.
Anyway, the truth is that intellectual property is very ethereal and while creating a routine or module that does something innovative is very important, and should be rewarded accordingly and the author should be acknowledged...
The kind of crap you're talking about is the stuff of fahrenheit 451 and school book bans. If a guy steals your work for profit, it definitely sucks. That one should get his/her arse whupped. If a guy just reproduces or reverse engineers then you're SOL because as soon as you finish spanking him the next wise-guy is on the way and as the Internet unfolds it's story, people who think they can keep certain things from flowing across it are simply wearing brick colored glasses. There's a copy of everything out there. Thank dog the internet is bigger than you. |
|
Anon | reply to statemachine
said by dfountain:
The RIAA and MPEG-LA and Frauhoefer and the FBI and whoever else would be right to do this because as I explained above, these are already copyright violations.
*sigh* I thought CD's couldn't skip. |
|
onsitede
Hot Hot Hot
join:2000-11-24
Broad Brook, CT
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to statemachine
quote:
>I never said that. What is the issue is redistribution. This has always been the issue of copyright. Fair Use allows you to make a temporary copy for yourself. But once you give a copy to someone else without the permission from the original owner, you are violating copyright. And TIVO did secure the necessary licenses to allow you to do this with your television. TIVO uses MPEG technology and has also secured the licenses for that as well.
endquote:
OK, let me get this straight. If I use winamp/streamripper to make a temporary copy for my own personal use it is covered under "Fair Use". When the law is broken is if I was to distribute that copy to others? |
|
Ari
@rr.com
| reply to statemachine
>>The radio stations are rebroadcasting onto a different medium in a different market and not paying the royalties associated with airing shows, music, and actors residuals. They know they're trying to pull a fast one here.
That statement is simply not true, since I can personally show you reciepts from my station which pays the royalties.
The deeper implication of the article that had to do with webcasting licensing was not to say how broadcasters can get away without paying licenses. That is simply silly. The point is that for all the rules and licenses organizations such as DI DO pay, there is an equal amount of "infighting" within the industry that contradicts even itself. And the point is that they use the monopoly they have to make their claims sound right.
Here's just one example of what I am talking about that's not widely known:
As you can find on the RIAA site, the DMCA interpretation of the following... (»www.riaa.com/Licensing-Licen-3a.cfm)
"14. Transmission of copyright management information. If technically feasible, transmissions by the webcaster must be accompanied by the information encoded in the sound recording by the copyright owner that identifies the title of the song, the featured artist and other related information (if any)."
That's fine, so a station such as DI tries hard to keep all the metadata so this would be followed. But then I have known a certain "big" organization I won't mention the name, trying to make webcasters remove metadata from the stream as a condition for a private license agreement, in hopes that programs like streamripper would be next to worthless (you wouldn't know what you recorded for the most part). So while everyone is suing claiming "you are not DMCA compliant", a few are also trying to make you break the DMCA rules at the same time, the ones they don't like. I call that absurd.
So I wasn't talking about avoiding license fees at all, I don't know what exactly gave you that idea (it even says in the article we are paying license fees, now that I think about it.)
sorry if this is quickly put together, it's 8am & I am sleepy |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to statemachine
dfountain: The issue is only redistribution because you say it is so... I wrote the article, and I did not write it about redistribution. I wrote it about strong arm tactics.
you can suggest any legal means be employed to force listeners to obey the copyright rules, but it seems to me in throwing up all these other objections, you wish to stop redistribution on a technicalities, or worse, by just being a bully. In your haste to shut everything down you assume streamripper uses an MP3 encoder, it does not. Then you assume DI is not paying its license fees, it does.
If streamripper worked off windows media or real audio streams, which it could easily do, your whole argument collapses.. yet it is absolutely certain that the labels (and you) will find another excuse to bully the author, and perhaps the stations as well, to shut them down, because all they can think about, night and day, every minute or every hour is redistribution.
DI and many other stations are as DMCA compliant as they can be under the circumstances and confusion .. go ring up live365 legal department and speak to them about it .. you're just incorrectly assuming it is all pirate radio.
[text was edited by author 2001-05-08 11:59:19] |
|
