Digital Music Wars( old news - 12:55PM Monday May 07 2001) tags: bandwidth live365 tries to stamp out streamripperInsatiable demand for digital music is creating a new battleground. Recent moves by live365 indicate that the record labels, fresh from their victory over Napster, could turn their attention to the young internet radio community. DJ Ari is 21 years old, and when not studying for his finals and working full-time runs arguably the most popular entirely internet-based radio station in the US. Stephen "Tag" Loomis has, through his employer, access to more bandwidth than god. Jon Clegg wrote an as yet little known software plugin for the MP3 player winamp that indirectly may have got his fathers radio station shut down. Tagstrance.com is run as a hobby by Tag, a founder of Nullsoft which was bought by AOL a couple of years ago. Like Ari's production, DigitallyImported.com, tagstrance relies on vast quantities of free bandwidth to remain in business. While struggling to get his DSL distance challenged home onto broadband, Tag pumps out hundreds of ad-free simultaneous dance streams to broadband-equipped friends and strangers at near CD quality. Supporting over 2500 listeners listening to trance, eurohouse and classical at high quality, Digitally Imported fills two OC3s (a single OC3 is about 155mbit of capacity). Eating bandwidth like this would cost an e-commerce company such as Amazon over $100,000 a month to buy wholesale, or could be cut and re-cut in purity until it fetches perhaps a couple of million dollars a month on the street when sold down to dialup subscribers. Digitally Imported has, as yet, no revenue. A brief experiment with mico-paying banner ads was canceled recently and no adverts go out onto the stream. Ari uses his own wages to pay for needed equipment, and in the spirit of listener supported radio, the station has an occasional fund raising drive when a new disk, or sound card is needed. How does a station grow to be the size of DI when faced with such a huge expense? enter the "dotcom" live365.com. Micro-broadcasters rely on live365 to pay for their bandwidth.. in turn, live365 has the option of running adverts over their streams in order to try to turn a profit. DI split from live365 a while ago, taking over half their total listeners with him, but thanks to the interest of AOL backed Nullsoft, and the 23 year old CTO at Intellispace, he has enough free bandwidth to cope with demand. DARK FIBER EVERYWHERE, BUT BANDWIDTH IS TOO EXPENSIVEAt a hundred grand a month for an audience base of maybe 100,000 unique listeners clearly Ari is not going to get rich. Worse, this cost, unlike traditional radio, is also variable .. the more listeners, the more his expense, it is clear that the advertising supported radio model does not yet translate to the internet. One way forward for DI and stations like it is to use ISPs as a relay, keeping expensive internet backbone bandwidth costs to a minimum. Unfortunately shellshocked broadband ISPs are not ready for this step right now: "once we have our own streaming service in place we will consider selectively relaying other webcasts ... that we determine to be DMCA compliant." says Mike Apgar, CEO of SPEAKEASY.net. Until broadband ISPs find a premium content model that works, DI and others like him must live off the largess, and patience, of companies like Nullsoft whose AOL/Time Warner masters must find this new field both irritating and irresistable all at the same time. ALHPABET SOUP - DMCA, RIAA, ASCAP, BMICopyright issues loom large over Internet radio stations.. whether or one is "DMCA compliant" might end up deciding the fate of many of them. Unfortunately, broadcasters are never quite sure whether they are paying all the right license fees. Ari is frustrated: "Unlike other labels, which charge based on our revenue (zero), one label required a large license fee based on listeners. We opted to instead remove all their content, however they informed us that they have disclaimer language which insists that no matter what we do, we will still be fully liable if we miss a single song". He is also concerned for the future. His number one fear right now is that since he is the biggest, he is the most likely to get sued. "We pay what is being asked by organizations such as the ASCAP, BMI, etc, but I worry about that all the time", he said, "someone may make up spurious lawsuit.. there are hundreds of stations but most have few listeners, someone may choose my station to make an example of corporate power". STREAMRIPPER vs LIVE365With Napster emasculated, the RIAA may turn its attention to a high bandwidth streaming MP3 radio station like DI, and the software listeners use, since the music comes down to your PC in digital, un-encrypted form, complete with current album and song title conveniently repeated within the stream. Jon Clegg recognized a year ago at the height of Napster that it would be simple for a radio stream to be turned back into the original MP3 files.. bit perfect. So Jon wrote " streamripper", a winamp plugin that would watch a radio station and neatly store and label every song that was played that it had not yet recorded. "I wanted to be able to record shoutcast streams, i wrote it because I could" says Jon. Leaving streamripper on, one can copy the entire playlist of even the largest radio station. All one needs is disk space.. Ari understands streamripper use as it is convenient for his listeners to take DI on the road with them, for example onto MP3 players. But he says he does not approve of his mixes getting traded over file share services amongst strangers. Jon is not concerned: "streamripper is open source", he says, "I merely look after it right now .. it cannot be stopped". His views on the RIAA are clear: "I can understand business men not wanting to lose money, however they should stop pretending they are protecting the artist". In an unexpected move at the end of April, live365.com, perhaps forseeing streamripper blow its business plan to bits, sent him a cease and desist letter, and shut down the radio station " rogersclassical.com", which Jon runs for his father. Jon thinks this was done to pressure him to stop work on streamripper. Their excuse was that the station was not DMCA compliant.. a complaint Jon strongly denies: "The motive here is that live365 wishes to throttle streamripper before it becomes mainstream". Live365 sent the same letter (they just changed the name at the top) to Streamripper32, the stand alone windows version of streamripper. Ari speculates that live365.com may have been pressured to act in this heavy handed way by the RIAA, or fears of RIAA action, as rogersclassical is a large chunk of their listeners. Ari points out that live365 must build its listener base in order to support any revenue plans. "I want to fight it, but I can't afford a lawyer" Jon says. But he is also confident his code will live on, Gnutella style. "all the code is open source, and copied all over the place". AOL AND TIME WARNERWhat is AOL doing running the bandwidth for these stations that may possibly be undermining the value of their own song catalog? "They know that piracy is not main-stream" says Ari, "they are prepared to finance this in order to turn the technology into some kind of pay service for their captive subscribers". Nullsoft would not comment on our story, they are under NDAs in practically everything they do. Even Ari could not confirm any details of his stations relationship with Nullsoft.. which is why you can see no mention of them on his home page, but anyone tracing the stations broadcast IP address can identify the suppliers. Live365 also, so far, has not commented. Clearly this is a touchy subject everywhere. "AOL wants to be involved in the online music technology, Nullsoft produces shoutcast, the leading internet radio station MP3 server. until AOL have decided what to adapt and sell to their subscribers, they are keeping quiet" says Ari. THE FUTUREOne thing for sure, despite the efforts of Nullsoft and live365 to keep streamripper unknown (Nullsoft refuse to list it as a plugin on the winamp website, saying they are doubtful of its legality), it will only gain momentum as long as there are MP3 radio stations on the net. Jon thinks it is only a matter of time before it or something similar extends to Real audio and windows media formats, expanding its use to any internet radio now available. Broadband users are delighted with streamripper if they find a station that matches their taste in music: "this thing is better than the wonder bra" posted one. With the RIAA now cracking down on a wider range of copyright abuse than just Napster, it may be only a matter of time before they turn their attention to how to keep internet radio from being conveniently recorded by its listeners. It will be a tough nut to crack, as taping the radio (or TV) for personal use has always been allowed, and nothing states, even in the updated copyright act, that a perfect digital copy is any different. Unfortunately it would take considerable financial resources for a defendant to establish this in court. The RIAA may attempt to criminalize MP3 broadcasting, perhaps starting an era of "digital music prohibition" on the Net with suspects being pursued using every means possible. Unfortunately, as the architects of the 1920s prohibition might have said, not every problem can be solved by simply criminalizing the actions of otherwise law-abiding members of the public. Related:- Earthlink Threatens To Shut Down Philly Wi-Fi
- Buckeye Offers 12Mbps
- Cable Broadband Users, Get Ready For Overage Fees
- Mediacom to offer 20Mbps by End Of June
- Cablevision To Offer Customers Free Wi-Fi
- CableLabs Certifies First DOCSIS 3.0 Modems
- Best (And Worst) Hotels For Wi-Fi
- Bell Canada Accused Of Privacy Invasion
|
  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!!!!! | |
|  |   Djcyber
@ucla.edu
| Re: Bite the hand that feeds them We need to become a bigger voice over the internet and how we use it. Regulation is coming whether we like it or not, it is up to us to stand up for what's right. I believe that artist should be compensated, but when you are rolling in millions of dollars by selling 15 dollar CDs and expecting me to pay for the digital version of the same song, you have got to be kidding me. I am tired of hearing Metallica and others whine, I am a musician, and a DJ. I want to put my music out there, and I want to spin, not to undermine the creativity of others, but to add my twist to this art form. I am not looking to get paid, just to be heard...isnt that what musicians get into the business for? Capitalist aspirations for the internet threaten our access to the expanding amount of content and information. We shoudlnt stand for this, and make our voices heard, before large corporations and other interest groups begin to rip us off in yet a different medium. We are the renegades of funk =0P | |
|  |  sravers
join:2001-03-21 Los Angeles, CA
| An Old Babylonian hymn dating from the twentieth century BC began the first form of music of man. The Ancient Greeks devised a system of notation for their music soon thereafter. In the late ninth century Italian and French church musicians pioneered the use of symbols to indicate pitches - a system that eventually grew into modern notation. The Church was responsible for most developments of music in the West, especially with the increasing organization of plainsong.
Music at this time was not copyrighted. To suggest such a thing would ensure that copywriters or having rights to such songs would be considered crazy. The church would not stand for a person "owning" a song and saw this as a form of corporate greed. The greed of owning a song for self motivation could only cause trouble, so the church decided against copyrighting music and kept it free and pure for all to enjoy. No one has rights to music as it is an endless mathematical rhythm melody of notes and tunes, impossible to "own" and set rights to. Have you ever heard of copywrighted math calculations? No because most people hate math. Because music sounds good and is enjoyable, some greedy people try to control it. The only people who are possessed with this "ownership of music" are those filled with greed, hate, envy, jealously and self righteousness, the very things the church taught man against.
By 2005 RIAA had lost most of it's lawsuits and began to fade away, due to music swapping becoming a global way of life. RIAA by this time had become a legend unto itself, an example that corporate greed gets one nowhere.
In 2004, the RIAA Board of Directors en route to attend a funeral for their late friend, Tommy Mottola, who died while in exile in France, all perished when their chartered jet crashed into a snow covered mountain after their plane lost radar and radio contact with ground control while on approach.
In 2008, Hilary B. Rosen, president and owner of RIAA, died of a broken neck when she slipped and fell down the wet rain soaked stairs while exiting her private jet. Hilary B. Rosen was en route to attend her daughters beauty pageant in Seattle.
Music will always find a way to remain free for all to listen to and enjoy, because that is what music is.
»www.negativland.com/albini.html | |
|  |  |  |   justin Australian join:1999-05-28 Brooklyn, NY | Re: Read this! 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.. | |
|  sheriff
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 | Re: two OC3s and a microphone... 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. | |
|  |  |   Palivar
@wa.d
| Re: two OC3s and a microphone... Well I don't think multicasting is dead, as many companies are just beginning to recognize the substantial benefits in bandwidth utilization that can be had, and in fact a lot of work is currently being done to scale this technology so that it can run better on the Internet. But it still has a little ways to go and like you said new financial/business models will need to be drawn up before carriers will want to offer it. | |
|  |  |   Bob Jenkins
@mediaone.net
| Re: the Overlooked Problem >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:
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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:
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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 Webmasters and Dev.. Business Connectiv.. Home/Office setup .. Console/Handheld g..
| 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:
| 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. | |
|  |  |  |  Anon
| 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 | 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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Ari
@rr.com
| >>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 Webmasters and Dev.. Business Connectiv.. Home/Office setup .. Console/Handheld g..
edited
| 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:
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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:
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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 | Re: the Overlooked Problem 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
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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
| 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:
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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:
| Re: the Overlooked Problem 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 | Re: the Overlooked Problem 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 edited
| Re: the Overlooked Problem [QUOTE=Captain DSLAM 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. [/QUOTE]
Which side again, mate? [text was edited by author 2001-05-11 05:55:42] | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Anon
| 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... | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   statemachine Premium join:2001-01-21 Si Valley clubs:
| 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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   IFT
@mc.vi
| 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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   pUmkInhEd
@telusplanet.net
| Re: the Overlooked Problem Wow, you guys really beat this topic to death. I'd just like to add something, if I make a program to convert microsoft outlooks databases into say eudora's databases, does that mean that I am breaking two different copywrites just because I have discovered their 'tricks'? | |
|   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! | |
|  |   TheEternalTroll
join:2000-12-01 Knoxville, TN
| 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 | The big deal is that record labels who own copyrights have NEVER received any royalties in the US when copyrighted songs are broadcast over the air. Instead artists and publishers get royalties, collected on their behalf from broadcasters by music licensing services such as ASCAP. But under the 1998 US DMCA law, copyright owners like record labels are also entitled to royalties whenever their copyrighted material streamed digitally online!
So for now stations that broadcast over the air like FM and TV only have to pay licensing royalties. Stations that stream on the Internet have to pay licensing royalties AND record label royalties. Now what fee structure applies when you stream IP over the air to cellphones, PDAs and portable MP3 players? Hmmm.
But anyway this is how 1998 DMCA reads right now. The RIAA for their part have proposed record label royalties of 0.4 cents per listener for every song streamed. At DI Radio we had 2000+ listeners on the Trance streams the last I looked. So if we play 12 songs online this hour, we would owe the labels $100. Just for an hour! And the RIAA wants this made retroactive to 1998. Where is that money going to come from? THAT is the big deal... | |
|  |  |  | Anon | More Re: Just turn on the radio....
I should add, those proposed record label $$ amounts are in addition to, and very much greater than, the licensing fees already paid. In all likelihood whatever price the DMCA arbitration panel agrees to between broadcasters and the RIAA will be very much less than this. But the question still remains... why are broadcasts online subject to such a charge, while traditional broadcasts over the air are exempt?? | |
|  |  |
|
|