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]Comments
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]