how-to block ads
|
| page: 1 · 2  |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to statemachine
Re: the Overlooked Problem
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. | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| 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.
| |
Anon
| 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
edited
| 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] | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| Well I'm disappointed with all of you. You all seem to be reaping all the benefits associated with flying under the radar, so to speak, and none of the negatives, such as jail. Frankly, you sound like a bunch of 15 year olds whining because what you were getting away with has been taken away from you.
You know, I never made a point of attacking any station that has done its research and is paying its fees. Those stations (mainly the webcast stations, not the radio stations) should then have nothing to fear. Attacking me won't solve your problem. I don't even work for or with the RIAA. I just side with the laws.
So go ahead and attack a capitalistic industry that makes it possible for you to even rip your popular music off the airwaves. Go ahead and make your own record label, sign your own artists, promote those artists, and then distribute that music for free. Let's see how long that lasts!
And Justin, your argument holds no water. You talk of bullying, I talk about existing laws. You talk about strreamripper working on non-MP3, when it in fact ONLY works on MP3. You of all people I thought were intelligent enough to debate me on merits, rather than misdirections and nonsensical probabilities.
When you people learn the hard way that your work is being stolen from you and given away for free, you will change your minds. Until then, let the RIAA and the FBI pound away at thieves like you. | |
Ari
@rr.com
| I remember people blindly siding with "the law" without questioning it's validity, and we all know how that turned out.
The point is that in the name of legality anything can be done by the big players. Who do you think lobbies to get the laws passed in their favor, duh! But since your take on this is that as long as the word "legal" is there, you will hide out pretend that's all correct and everyone else is evil. I may be paying my royalties, but I don't have to like it when it smells rotten, that's why I open my mouth. But if one says "my opinion is the one that is currently legal," then that person's opinion cannot even be called his Own, but that's a whole other discussion, isn't it. | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| So to have a valid opinion I need to make sure it's an opinion no one else has? That's ridiculous. I take pride in siding with a law that is to everyone's benefit. Without laws, you'd have anarchy and chaos. But maybe that's what you'd prefer. | |
Ari
@rr.com | I am not going to teach anyone what it means to have own opinion (regardless of opinion's validity).
end of story for me | |
Anon
edited
| ummm don't you mean irregardless?
Anyway, I believe the message is this:
If you believe that something is ok just because it's a law then you're probably not very bright. In your case I believe you fervor is a cloak for something different altogether.
The truth is that there are people in this world who are scared by the free flow of information. letting ideas...concepts..words...software...music just fly around here and there wildly, unbridled if you will. It scares the sh*t out of'm.
Among those people are politicians, cops, wife-beaters(same difference), child molesters and lawyers who need to justify their parents' sacrifices.
MP3 and MPEG are so trivial in the grand scheme of things that when they're replaced this will all seem a silly conversation.
And it will be replaced. It's replacement will be replaced. So if you need a witch hunt, why don't you try to find out why DSL circuits bounce or where jimmy hoffa died (did he become sausages??)
[text was edited by author 2001-05-08 17:03:41] | |
Galford
Premium
join:2001-02-24
Kingstree, SC
| reply to statemachine
all i have to say is that even though there are laws about the copy rights of music and how it is distributed, the people that uphold the law can actually abuse it for their own needs while others who do follow it pay in the end. Ever heard of a dirty cop hiding behind the badge even though the badge represents the law, no? | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| You can imply I'm dumb for following the law, that I have no opinions of my own, dumb for respecting copyrights, and dumb for paying $16 at the music store when I could have gotten it for free off the Internet. You can also imply that Licensing Authorities such as RIAA or MPEG-LA are just greedy SOB's who want a buck. Fine. But you've gone off topic.
My original post was about StreamRipper and how it uses MP-3 technology that requires a license to use. MPEG licensing is always the forgotten or ignored part of the equation. Your attacking me isn't going to change that fact.
And I'll quote my original post because its point seems to have been lost on several of you.
quote:
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.
If you must attack something, do it productively. Start by telling me how this is not legal, and back it up with case law and facts. | |
Bob Jenkins
@mediaone.net
| you missed my original point on the fact that it is this MP3 licensing "law" that is the problem. I don't agree with (as do many people) the fact that you can patent something such as Thomason did with the MP3 technology. Your whole argument is based on the fact that this is an absolute..that something like MP3 decoding or encoding is, in fact, a patentable (and thus enforcable) object. Well, this is where the controvery is...I don't have a problem with Fraunhoffer/Thomason licensing their specific implementation of MP3 (which is very good BTW and worth the money), but claiming a blanket license of all MP3 encoding/decoding is where they crossed the line...
I don't trust our Patent system in the least, expecialy when it comes to computer-based algorithms.
Bob | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| said by Bob Jenkins:
you missed my original point on the fact that it is this MP3 licensing "law" that is the problem. I don't agree with (as do many people) the fact that you can patent something such as Thomason did with the MP3 technology.
I got your point in its entirety. It's one I've heard echoed before. But just because people don't like the present patent system doesn't mean they should actively and illegally circumvent it. It's not like I'm telling you to go to hell because you feel that way. However, because you feel that way, you should try to change the laws. I know a bunch of people who feel all software should be free and that since it is technically just 1's and 0's and not a physical product, it is OK to freely copy it. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? I hope it does.
quote:
Your whole argument is based on the fact that this is an absolute..that something like MP3 decoding or encoding is, in fact, a patentable (and thus enforcable) object. Well, this is where the controvery is...I don't have a problem with Fraunhoffer/Thomason licensing their specific implementation of MP3 (which is very good BTW and worth the money), but claiming a blanket license of all MP3 encoding/decoding is where they crossed the line...
Well I'm sorry you find controversy in our (USA's) current system of copyright protection and patents. But again, it comes down to "Well I don't like it, so I'll just pretend it didn't exist." My friendly advice to you is to make sure that when the patent-holders of the technologies you're stepping on come to collect their dues, you better be darned sure you're in the right and have all your bases covered. But who knows? Maybe if you keep a low profile, they won't notice. Isn't that what the gamble is?
quote:
I don't trust our Patent system in the least, expecialy when it comes to computer-based algorithms.
Then change our patent and copyright system to one that better suits your needs. If you can come up with a sure-fire solution to everything you see as vague, then you'll be the envy of all the people whose job it is to figure this one out. | |
Anon | said by dfountain:
Then change our patent and copyright system to one that better suits your needs. If you can come up with a sure-fire solution to everything you see as vague, then you'll be the envy of all the people whose job it is to figure this one out.
So if I may translate? Yes I may.
What fountain is saying is that you should quit your job and devote your entire pool of time and resources to getting some tiny change in this law...because at a minimum you'll need to give it that much since you'll be fighting against some of the most active, belligerent and well-funded lobbyists in the country.
And after all, when the day is over and all the pockets have been picked, he and the people he sides with are really in it for the money and couldn't give a rats asthma about right and wrong. It's obvious from the many direct references to the 'law' that he isn't even clear on what's right.
It's funny how people who support the gubmint's general corruption always and I mean without fail tell you that if you don't like it then do something to change the laws. They say that smugly though because they know that you are not funded. You are not politico-economically viable. They know with the surety of a scientologist (which is not a religion) that they are right because they're on the side that has the biggest gun.
Fortunately there are enough liberated minds in the world that this kind of crap is getting harder and harder to shove down the throats of people who don't want it. This means that there are people who do things for higher reasons than the profit gobble that fountain spews.
Uh hehehehe I said fountain spews. HAHAHAHA sorry.
SO like I said, suck on the law all you want, the fact remains that there are way too many people smarter than us who know how to encode, decode, emulate, decypher, digitize, collimate, chop, crop, slice, dice and peel. And they won't do it for money and kids like you will never stop them and if you ever did stop them, you'd only be stopping yourself because those are the people who keep technology vibrant.
The RIAA seems to be a lot like the tobacco industry.
A bunch of pimps. They hire high-priced lawyers who know how to confuse and challenge even the smartest and most well-meaning judges, (buying off the ones they can't confuse) and all for a service that they don't even deliver.
Let's face it man, the only thing the RIAA is good at is keeping CD's expensive. The truth is that if you sell 100 of something it should be one price, but if you sell a million of them it should be a much lower price.
That being the case, a CD should cost about $5. Especially since even the best artists seem to put out albums (ack I'm old) with only 2 or 3 good songs out of 12. Metallica comes to mind. When they're good they're great (that was 10 years ago) and when they're bad they'll put you right to sleep. $40 for a boxed set? *scoff!* *CHORTLE!*
Yeah so their cover of turn the page was better than the original, most of the album stunk.
How about the RIAA actually WORK for their money and do a little quality control.
"No, Yanni...this song sounds like the other 8 songs you've recorded this week. Let's change the tempo or something"
"Hmmm... you know Madonna baby, I think the novelty of you being a whore-like saint (or is it saint-like whore?) has worn out...how about you start making good music again..hmmm?"
Most of the crap on the radio isn't even worth downloading from napster let alone buying on CD. Maybe the RIAA should start wondering about what they're going to do after their chapter 11 filing. I don't think RJRTC is going to welcome them into the fray. | |
Anon
|  reply to statemachine
More Re: The Overlooked Problem
Well dfountain you raised some good points about MPEG Layer-3 licensing. So today I fired off an email to Thomson Multimedia. They are the worldwide licensing agents for the MP3 patents held by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft IIS-A. It turns out the information online at »mp3licensing.com is current. Basically they charge relatively little or nothing for MP3 decoders, but claim royalties on all MP3 encoders (even if you do develop your own encoder):
- Free decoders/players: "No license fee is expected for desktop software MP3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."
- Decoders/players you sell, where you write the decoder: $0.50 per unit, or a one time $50,000 fee.
- Decoders/players you sell using Fraunhofer's code: One-time fee of $60,000 (object) or $100,000 (source).
- Limited software encoders (max. 56K bitrate): A one-time payment of $100,000 if you write the code, or $200,000 for Fraunhofer's. Free redistribution rights.
- Full quality software encoders, where you write code or license from a 3rd party: $2.50 per unit.
- Full quality software encoders using Fraunhofer's object code: $5.00 per unit (source code not available).
- Hardware encoders: $2.50 per unit.
- Paid downloads, music-on-demand: 1.0% of revenue, subject to a minimum $0.01 per download.
- Broadcasting / streaming: "We do not charge royalties for MP3 streaming or MP3 broadcasting (e.g. Internet Radio) until the end of the year 2000. Beyond this date we anticipate to charge a small annual minimum and a percentage of revenue. However, this model is not yet fully developed because we cannot yet oversee where this new market is going."
So based on Thomson / Fraunhofer's current business practices, it would appear that the StreamRipper and StreamRipper32 *applications* per se are compliant with MP3 licensing. As long as they don't use Fraunhofer's code, and are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for the personal use of end-users, which they are. Otherwise the developer Jon Clegg would have to fork over cash if he decided to start charging money.
But the *use* of Streamripper is more problematical, since it turns a digital broadcast into a download. There is already a precedent case here, see »www.realnetworks.com/company/pre···ion.html for RealNetworks vs. StreamBox. StreamBox independently developed a stream recorder and ripper for RealAudio / RealVideo formats. RealNetworks gained an injunction based on StreamBox violating their proprietary rights AND the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that prohibits distributing stream recorders. I think the same arguments could apply against any StreamRipper object code distributions.
Now the interesting part is where Jon says StreamRipper is open source. As opposed to object code, source code has typically been Free Speech protected. But the backers of DMCA are trying to claim higher privileges, so I don't know how long that will last. I mean, you are certainly free to joke about having a bomb in you luggage on a plane, and if you do you will certainly be arrested at the next stop.
Now is it proper for Live365 to yank Roger's Classical because of the station manager's son's involvement with StreamRipper? Does an ISP have to spy on private messages and file transfers to make sure no copyrighted material is going back and forth? Or on the other hand, are the record labels forced to sit idly by while the cracks for DVD encoding and digital watermarking are published freely in the press?? Some of the issues out on the table now. Something like one of these will wind up in the US Supreme Court I think.
But, I digress... | |
IFT
@mc.vi
| reply to statemachine
Re: the Overlooked Problem
Supose for a moment that tomorow there's a new law that says it's ok to beat old ladies with a baseball bat (Don't ask me why I came up with this...I just don't know). So since it's the LAW and you take pride in siding with the law...it's ok with you do that? You're just gonna let it happen because someone said it is?
Siding blindly with the law can be just as bad. Never let go of your freedom to think for yourself. | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| reply to Anon
Re: More Re: The Overlooked Problem
Entranced,
Thank you for the informed and thought out commentary. I didn't know that tidbit about "free" distribution until now. Though the rest of what I knew seems to have held true.
You get a thumbs-up from me because unlike some others on this thread, you used your brain. Kudos to you! Maybe we'll get somewhere after all. | |
|
