Stream ripping and royalty rates
I’ve addressed many problems with the webcaster’s side in the internet radio royalty rate (I’d start reading here if you you’re interested in a different perspective on the webcaster’s plight), but there is one problem I haven’t touched: Stream-ripping. Stream-ripping is what it sounds like: the ripping (i.e. downloading) of music streams. Well, I came across an article today in my news reader that reminded me that stream-ripping belongs in the conversation. In “RaimaRadio - Internet Radio DVR,” Davis Freeberg explains how users can use a RaimaRadio, a freeware application, to download internet radio streams into .mp3 files. Freeberg calls this download a “time shift” of radio content, but it’s essentially the same as downloading music through a p2p application. Instead of someone offering the song through Kazaa, they can just broadcast the music they want to “share” with others. And with a wink and nod, the listeners can build a mp3 library of songs they downloaded from the stream.
Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what Freeberg wrote (emphasis mine):
Even more powerful then the scheduling capabilities, is the ability for Raima to monitor and record specific songs or artists that you are interested in. Instead of illegally downloading songs from the P2P networks, Raima allows you to create wishlists and will scan for those songs on any station that you tune into. The number of streams that you can simultaneously record is only limited by your bandwidth. This allows you to set up filters, record 10 different stations overnight, and in the morning you’ll have a hefty MP3 collection.
How is stream-ripping related to the internet radio royalty rate debate? Webcasters want the right to play an artist’s music without his or her permission, and at a rate lower than many artists want for the publication of their music. If the government grants the webcasters that right, music artists will have no ability to control how their music is played. If a webcaster wants to play an artist’s music across an unsecure mp3 stream but the artist will only accept a DRM’d wma format, the webcaster wins. If the artist wants to establish rules about how many times his or her songs can be played, it doesn’t matter. The artist just has to accept the rates and rules the webcasters “negotiated” with the government.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Webcasters say that one of the reasons they are fighting for lower rates is to protect the artist and the music, but what they’re really doing is using the government to rip away the artists’ intellectual property rights.
Now, I don’t think stream-ripping is a huge concern today, due to one big problem that Freeberg points out in his article: Quality. The quality of sound you’ll hear on many internet streams does not match the quality of sound you’ll hear from a cd or from an online music store. It’s a noticeable difference, and I bet it’s enough to make most people look for some other source for their music. However, this is a problem that will be overcome. As computers gets faster and internet connections get better, the size and quality of internet streams will quickly grow. Just look at what has happened with video and Youtube. Online video used to be slow and a waste of time years ago, but now we’ve reached the point where anybody can put up a video that can be easily watched by anyone else. Just think of the improvements we’ll see in the coming years. CD-quality streams will be the standard someday, and that will make downloading music off of an internet stream worth the trouble.
If artists were allowed to control what happens with their music, they could prevent webcasters who offer unprotected, high-quality mp3 streams from playing their music. If the Internet Radio Equity Act or anything similar passes, artists will have no recourse. Webcasters will get to play their music no matter what the artist says, and they’ll be able to play the music for an incredibly low rate.
Stream-ripping is an example of the problems that can arise when the government meddles in the music industry. The ideal solution is to keep the government out and let individuals negotiate and work out their differences.
Tags: [internet radio, stream ripping]Comments
2 Responses to “Stream ripping and royalty rates”
Leave a Reply
“If artists were allowed to control what happens with their music, they could prevent webcasters who offer unprotected, high-quality mp3 streams from playing their music.”
Do you really think artists would choose to only let their music be played on stations featuring low-quality DRM’ed streams? Those are unlikely to be the popular widely-listened-to stations so I doubt most artists would choose them.
Anyway, the government isn’t the bogeyman here - it’s the recording industry that dictates the terms to the musician. True indie artists are already free to control the distribution of their music.
BTW, quality is not a factor for stream ripping. There are plenty of excellent stations with 192, 256, or 320 kbps streams offering clean gaps and no talking or crossfading over songs. These can produce higher-quality rips than what you can buy on iTunes or Amazon.
Personally I only stream-rip songs I cannot buy in non-DRM’ed form from iTunes, Amazon, etc. So it seems to me that artists who don’t want me to stream rip their music have a simple alternative: let me BUY a non-DRM’ed copy of a song!
I have a reply for each of your paragraphs:
1.) I don’t know if most artists would let their music be played on low-quality DRM’d string, but it doesn’t matter if they would or not. What matters is that each artists is free to make that decision.
2.) The record industry does not, and cannot, dictate anything to an artist. If an artist does not want to sell his music to a record company, that record company can’t do anything about it. Sure, the record company can refuse to give the artist the benefits that come with signing a record deal (possibly more money, radio play, representation, etc.), but that doesn’t mean they’re “dictating” anything.
3.) Thank you for admitting that. When SoundExchange’s demands for DRM’d streams hit the news, they were criticized for going after a problem (stream-ripping) that supposedly did not exist. But like you say, it does exist, and people can use internet radio to download music.
4.) If an artist won’t let you buy a non-DRM’d copy of the song, then what? Will you steal it? What kind of alternative is that?