Stream ripping is a piracy problem
Last December I wrote a post about “stream ripping” and its relation to the internet radio royalty issue. To quickly recap, I said that one possible effect of low, government-mandated internet royalty rates is the theft of that music through “stream ripping.” I said that as our internet connections became faster and the quality of internet radio broadcasts increased, an unsecure internet radio station could be a good source for music pirates. And to make it worse, music artists and record companies can’t do anything about it.
Well, I was corrected by a stream-ripper today. I said that it would be a bigger problem in the future, but he informed me that high-quality rips are available now:
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.
And he continued:
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!
The internet radio royalty debate is not just about protecting internet radio, or even making the best of a bad situation. I think comments like the one above show why it’s essential for artists to be able to control what is done with their property.
Tags: [internet radio, stream ripping]Earth Day Advice
Today is Earth Day, a day full of advice on how each of us can live a “greener” lifestyle. Today is a day for raising awareness of our planet and how we should balance our needs with its protection. In the spirit this day is supposed to be about, I’d like to offer a bit of advice on how you should treat our planet.
My advice: Use the earth and all of its resources to fulfill your every need and want, and don’t feel guilty about it.
For the truth is, your life and happiness depend on your ability to use the earth’s resources. The things that you need to live (such as food, medicine, computers, automobiles, oil, electricity, etc.) are not made out of thin air; they are extracted from the earth. Luckily for us all, the earth has plenty. Our planet is an enormous ball of resources that could not only sustain us, but make our lives last longer and be immeasurably more enjoyable. We haven’t even begun to realize the true potential the earth has for our betterment. The true limit is not the amount of resources the earth contains, but our knowledge of those resources and our imagination.
If the earth deserves our appreciation, then it’s for the great value it offers us. And therein likes the flaw in the way Earth Day is celebrated. Instead of celebrating Earth as a source of human prosperity, it is treated as something that should be protected from humans. We are told that we should aim to limit our effect on our environment. This might seem like a noble goal, but if your life is dependent on your ability to use the environment, what is really being limited? Your life and your happiness.
Some people might think that is a fair trade to make, but I do not. We each have a relatively short time to spend on this planet, and I think it’s unfair to ask anyone to sacrifice even one precious second of that time for the sake of plants, animals, or inanimate matter. We all will be one with the earth eventually, so let’s make the most of our lives while we can.
So this Earth Day, don’t be afraid to take advice. Save gas money by carpooling. Get some exercise by riding a bike. Lower your utility bill by adjusting your thermostat a few degrees. Just don’t forget why you’re doing it.
Tags: [earth day, environmentalism]Evidence that net neutrality is coming…
I’ve been very busy the past few weeks. I’m at a weird time when one of my biggest hobbies is also my job. I’ve jumped heads-first into full-time .Net and WPF programming. It’s lots of fun, but it requires a lot of work and study.
Anyway, I probably would have neglected my blog for another night if I hadn’t read tonight’s post on the Hands off the Internet. I normally like HOTI because it’s one of the few blogs (relatively speaking) that actively speak out against net neutrality and government regulation of the internet, but I wanted to yell out “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO” after reading this one. The post was a short one just to point out a quote from a recent Wall Street Journal article on the Comcast-BitTorrent issue, but the fact that they thought this quote was worth highlight makes me believe that there’s nothing to stop government regulation of the internet. Here’s the quote from the WSJ (emphasis mine):
Government’s role here, properly understood, is not to tell Comcast how to manage its network. Rather, it is to make sure consumers have alternatives to Comcast if they are unhappy with their Internet service.
HOTI considers this quote as the “clincher.” NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
If the biggest opponents of net neutrality accept the premise that the government has any role in providing or promoting internet access, they’re doomed. They would have conceeded, in principle, to the net neutrality advocates’ basic argument for net neutrality, which is that an individual’s rights can be trumped by the will of the majority with the assistance of the government. The only real difference between the two sides is how much government intervention is necessary in this market. The net neutrality advocates say a lot, and the net neutrality opponents say a little. Or, more precisely, net neutrality advocates say “The government should create more competition in the ISP market and stop any discrimination of data on an ISP’s network!” and net neutrality opponents reply, “Ok, the government should encourage competition, but hey… there are many practical reasons to discriminate some types of data, ok?”
They won’t say it, so I’ll say it. Net neutrality won’t provide better internet for the same reason that stealing cars won’t provide reliable transportation. No matter what short-term benefits the theft might appear to bring, there is a simple truth that can’t be ignored: Individuals can’t live together if they’re always fighting and stealing from one another. We have to find boundaries that allow every individual to live his or her own life, and then use the government to enforce those boundaries. I’d suggest that one’s life, liberty, and property be boundaries that no other individual can cross. Every individual would have sole ownership and control over his life, what he does with that life, and the property that he rightfully earns with his own work.
Net neutrality is a bad policy because it crosses these boundaries. Net neutrality allows some individuals to take control of the property of others. Yes, the property is lost by big, rich companies like AT&T and Comcast, but why should property rights be decided by who is rich and who is not? I think the right to own property should be respected on principle, not as a rule-of-thumb.
I think there are a lot of net neutrality opponents who don’t agree with this, and I think this is why more government regulation of the internet is inevitable. Unless net neutrality opponents stand up for property rights (even for big businesses like AT&T and Comcast), it’s just a matter of time.
Tags: [HOTI, net neutrality]Will wonders never cease
It’s halftime of a KU basketball game… and I’m rooting for KU?
I’ve lived in Kansas for most of my adult life, including three years in Lawrence. I don’t have much love for KU, though. Part of it is the fact that I grew up on the Missouri side of the state line, and another part of it is that I’ve always thought the fans were a little obnoxious. Most of it is the fact that I’m not that interested in college sports. I feel differently about this particular KU team, though, for a couple reasons:
1.) I don’t like KU that much, but I like a lot of KU fans. I don’t want them to be disappointed.
2.) Many of the KU players have suffered through some shocking, early exists from the NCAA tournament. Maybe I’m naive about this, but I still think of those players as young college students who only have a few years to do something they love.
3.) It’s hard to be a hater. And by “hater,” I mean someone who wants bad things to happen to another person or organization… just because. I may like other teams more, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I have to hate the accomplishments of another team. I’ll always root for Missouri over Kansas, but they’re not playing tonight.
There is one exception to this, though: I hate the Denver Broncos. But it’s for a rational reason, though: They are evil.
Back to the game…
Tags: [ku]