Slashdot Mirror
Shifting From P2P To Stream Ripping
An anonymous reader submits "As users continue to try fending off the ever more litigious music industry, some
seem to have dropped P2P entirely, moving to ripping instead. While
they lose some control over what they are downloading, it's a untraceable way
to download music (no way for the RIAA to track users or sue). With some
of the more powerful software that's been coming out recently, stream
ripping has become more main-stream. Some of the more well known software
packages, like StationRipper, allow
users to download several thousand songs on a daily basis. And, depending
on how you read the law, it's 100% legal. How will the RIAA respond?
As more users move to this type of technology to avoid the P2P lawsuits, how
will the music industry respond?"
I have tried playing with a couple stream rippers before, only problem is streams tend to be real low quality...
WASTE - The Secure P2P
why would i want to rip streams? i can get higher quality from stand alone downloads.
graspee
The station you rip is streaming their songs with the ID3 tags otherwise the software won't know when to stop one MP3 and start another one.
They would put a tape recorder up to the radio and capture the latest songs, then make copies for their friends. Sure it sounded bad but they didn't care. And neither did the RIAA, because their albums sounded better than the crappy copies the kids made, so they figured they would still want to go out and buy the latest album because of the high fidelity sound. Now that we can get digital copies they are sorely afraid. THe next move will be toward an encrypted stream, but as I always say...if you can hear it, you can rip it.
Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
Don't some internet radio stations have to pay fees of some sort ?
I'd say that's pretty accurate. Oh, and poke people's ears out with ice picks.
Why, bribe^h^h^h^h^hLobby Congress to make it illegal, of course.
Aren't there a lot of P2P programs that already prevent being traced? I don't think I like the idea of not having full control over what I'm getting, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of people feel the same way.
If a respectable number of P2P users switch to this, internet radio itself will be attacked. It has already been attacked, actually, but P2P was a bigger boogeyman.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
With P2P media is:
On demand.
Whatever quality you want.
Limited only by connection speed.
Easy.
Searchable.
And so on.
Screw stream ripping!
Don't get me wrong, I've got non-stop beats and ambient grooves and that's nice, I just can't find the shit I actually ripped myself anymore.
I dunno, they'll either change their business model, or find a way to continue to exist through litigation. Who knows how they'll respond. Your guess is as good as mine.
In the 80's, it was believed (by large record companies mainly) that home taping of radio broadcasts was killing music. This is the exact same thing as home taping, and home taping is perfectly legal (is that time shifting or space shifting or something)! So really, there is no legal or moral reason not to do it, and the RIAA can't very well (unless I have too much faith in human reason- I hope not) sue people for taping the same broadcasts they get from the radio if they get it from the internet. That just seems far too arbritrary a lawsuit to happen... but the thought still scares me for some reason.
Esoteric reference.
What's the equivalent app for ripping the audio/video feed from Windows Media player?
the beauty of this is that it causes the RIAA to have to now look at this as well.. eventutally they will be spread to thin and it will all stop..
the more information flowing the better
As you know, XM Radio has a receiver for the Computer (XM PCR) that shows the music ID etc and a high quality stream with 120 channels. I wonder if any one thought of writing a software to rip the stream digitally?
don't forget streamripper.sourceforge.net They have support for just abt every os under the sun and if all else fails you can recompile yourself. I think finding a stream that spends 50% or more of it's time playing music you enjoy and ripping results in nice collection. (I do this because our bandwith at work is overused and streaming doesn't work out so well.)
:(){
Seeing as though the posting is a direct copy and paste of the techdirt article... how about we also read the bit that comes straight after that on their site which states that, really, this is hardly a threat to P2P...
"Well, some of the comments are a bit misleading. It's not clear just how mainstream this technology really is, and it's certainly not nearly as user friendly for users as basic file sharing applications. The idea is that it records songs directly from streaming radio stations (though, right now, it looks like only certain kinds of streaming radio stations work with the software). Also, copying a song off the radio (which is this basically equivalent to) often involves a lower quality offering with songs cutting into each other, DJs talking over the music and other radio-related reasons why it's not the same as getting a full track. "
I used to tape of the radio too, and ended up knowing songs as ending with 'And that was Vanilla Ice on 2KBY7 with the HOT Ice, Ice Baby... Keep rockin' dude... yeaaah'.*
It's not the same as a pure track... plus, as it says... crap quality.
* No, I didn't actually have any Vanilla Ice tracks on tape... no... really.
how will the music industry respond?
As stupidly as possible, just like normal.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Actually, for a small monthly fee you can have the nearly the whole world of RIAA music streaming at you by request.
$9.95 a month to Real Rhapsody will get you access to Real's entire library of 500,000ish songs in Real's streaming format, and $9.95 a month to the new Napster will get you access to Napster's library of 500,000ish songs in Windows Media format. In both cases, they've yet to establish a limit as to how many streams you can get per month.
Clearly, there's a rather gaping hole if you're able to save either of those sets of streams into any non-DRMed format.
Shifting From "Low Quality" To "Worse Quality"
My response: No Thanks! Now Beat It, Kid!
khaaaaaaaaaaaan!
.......(buffering)......(buffering).......
Quality's not so hot, and subject to buffering problems based on your network connection. Also, the content isn't necessarily separated by track, nor easily identified later...
I've saved some really nice ambient streams but have no frikkin' idea what's on 'em..
Start alsamixer
Set the capture source to "wave"
Jack up the "wave capture" setting
Capture the stream (or anything currently playing in fact) from /dev/dsp
Just think people have been bitching and moaning about the truly staggering number of ALSA settings for SB-Lives!, now see how it's useful?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
*shudder*
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
i've moved to streaming only 24/7 at work and home from places such as DigitallyImported and SomaFM (kickass). i've wondered how it would work out to start recording the streams and just keeping them.
P2P is not something that i really even use anymore. As for the legality of streamripping, which i think is a very, poorly chosen term, how can it be illegal to keep something that is coming into your home anyway? If i'm not re-broadcasting it, it should never be illegal.
Most "radio stations", including the all-music channels on digital cable or DirecTV and Dish tend to muck up the starting and ending of songs with at least a crossfade between the songs if not a liner or DJ chatter over the song.
However, couldn't software recognize the same song being played repeatedly by a station... and then identify the actual layers within the overlaps by what's found in all instances. In the end, it could take 8 hours of music in, and give back the 25 or so songs the station played more than once nice and clean.
Ohh... would the RIAA hate that. No distribution, just the recording of a legal broadcast.
No thanks I'll stick to my usual "alternative-alternative" methods.
One of the cooler new ways of sharing music with my friends that I've been playing around with is the ml_www plug-in for Winamp (It was one of Justin Frankel's farewell gifts). The application lets you or anyone else access your media collection from anywhere, and stream or download your audio/video through a browser interface. Of course you can set up passwords and access privelidges. You can pick a song to listen to on your home computer while in the office; stuff like that.
All you need is a Winamp running with the plug-in, and someone--probably someone you trust--drops in your IP in a browser and one of these two windows pops up, depending on which template you're using. You can download the newest versions here.
There's a sourceforge project going on for the plug-in, but they haven't really brought that site up to speed yet. Most of the progress is in this Winamp Forums thread, with some occasional updates on Winamp Unlimited.
Sure there's a difference in that you are doing the equivalent of tape recording the radio, but legally there really isn't much of a difference.
I don't really see much of a difference here. It's not the downloading that the *AA have been getting people for it's the sharing. If you leached only the *AA would let you do it to your hearts content.
If someone is legally broadcasting that's basically the same as someone legally sharing a file unlike illegally broadcasting content which is the same as someone sharing a file they don't have distribution rights to. Legally it's the same to put out a stream you don't have rights to or put share out a file you don't have rights to.
Everybody gets wrapped up in the "download" portion and unfortunately get screwed because they've only paid attention to download instead of upload. Maybe if the fined P2P users had been worrying about uploading instead of downloading they wouldn't be getting fined.
I've been doing this for well over a year. XMMS does this pretty well. I just hop on shoutcast and grab a 128K stream I like... groove salad baby!
By suing radio stations of course!
OK, so the stream isn't high quality (like radio), you generally don't have the ability to choose which songs you listen to on the stream (like radio) and on top of all this, this can tie the streaming audio problems togehter with the digital media problem. This might be a good comprimise. Now granted you can pay to get a higher quality stream and more features like the ability to choose the songs on the stream would be a nice way to make some money off all this.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
... with a huge HURRAH!
This only shows that their scare tactics have worked. Remember, there used to be some uncertainty there. In the beginning, when RIAA launched the suits, the estimated number of P2P users dropped dramatically, but after a while, it stabilized (or increased; I don't recall).
This is as clear a signal as any that the RIAA's lawsuit-mongering works for them.
IANAL, but from what I recall, copying on a tape from the radio is legal because it goes over the public airwaves. I would assume (no, I didn't read the article) that this would be how they're trying to infer that stream ripping is legal.
The problem with stream ripping used to be the quality but with 300k audio streams, ripping seems to be a good alternative for fileswappers. What will the RIAA do? Probably one of two options. (1) Ban internet radio (2) increase the royalties of internet radio to either (a) cut it completely or (b) limit it to large stations that they can better control.
I have no
Yeah, but then they'll invent and require brain implants to listen to their precious music. Then there isn't even any sound being transferred, just some proprietary, encrypted data. Oh darn! Now they'll steal my idea, oh well, too bad, I patented it!!!
There are two reasons that stream-ripping will slip through the courts:
1. Under the Sony Betamax case, time shifting is fair use. Under the Rio case, space shifting is fair use. So long as those cases hold up - the only difference between time shifting your TV with a VCR, and stream ripping is the quality. Basically, there may be no copyright violation here.
2. Even if there is a copyright violation (I don't think there will be), the Grokster case said that where a software provider doesn't know about infringing uses, they are not contributing to copyright violations. Stream rippers, like Grokster, are out of the loop. There's no central database here. Don't forget, that even if RIAA is successful (which I don't think they will be here), who would they sue? Many streamrippers are open source, and distributed development projects. Lots of stones to turn over.
What will RIAA do? Shut down the stations. I'd be surprised if Roxio's Napster 2 will be allowed to continue to use their 9.95 all you can eat streaming service for much longer.
Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
How is it untraceable? As I understand it (and I could be wrong), when one listens to streamed music over the web (as opposed to music broadcast over the air waves), one must make a specific recordable connection with the source of the music. Your IP number will be recorded somewhere.
Perhaps what is meant is that while there will be a record that you were listening, there will be no proof that you were recording. Indeed, contrary to downloading a MP3, the presumption will be that you "only" listening and nothing (useable) remained on your hard drive.
Of course if enough people do this, that presumption will be reversed. Imagine a world where 95% of the people have and use software that will, with one click, correctly snip, save, and index every song streamed to their computers. When this happens, the RIAA will make a case that streaming a song is for all practical purposes the same as uploading an MP3 of the same song, and thus subject to the same copyright considerations.
Really? How? What interpretation of the law supports this? Any precedents? Your "right" to "back-up" that which you never owned rights to in the first place?
People have always recorded music off of the radio, and always will. However, that never made it "legal"; only cost-ineffective to police or prohibit. The one click recording of perfect digital data will be perceived as something different.
The makers of this software have probably just increased the likelihood of point to point DRM.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Hey, rather than justifying new ways to get music without paying why don't you people shell out a measly $10/month for the 400,000 tracks on Rhapsody or Napster so that the artist can get something for their trouble?
Yeah exactly overhere (in Taiwan). There is a law in place that makes downloading MP3 legal for personal use even when you don't own the album. And as you understand we don't have a RIAA here. WOW. This is truely paradise :P
I for one welcome our new stream ripping overlords
winamp, xmms, mpg123, and oggenc are capable of writing what they stream to disk, this isn't news, or new.
And can these enhancement tools download higher-quality bits from P2P systems?
In other words, once you're able to listen to the song (on a low quality stream), do you have any rights to listen to a higher-quality version (downloaded P2P)?
And, depending on how you read the law, it's 100% legal.
So i guess it comes down to: And, depending on who has the best lawyers...
Montreal - Best city to live in!
Eventually the RIAA will make more money by scaring people into settling with them than they make from actual record sales. When this happens they will stop making albums and with no new albums to copy piracy will come to a screeching halt. Then with their pockets full of ill-gotten booty the RIAA will move to the Cayman Islands and relax on a beach drinking martinis and being serviced by pool boy sex slaves.
And those are:
Lobbying
Litigation
That's how they will respond. I would bet a years supply of the best coffee beans money could buy on it.
How about "Having halfway crossed the legal hurdles, stream ripping still has quite an upriver swim before it becomes mainstream"
Or maybe "Stream ripping, while not quite the open floodgates that bittorrent is, is gaining in popularity..."
Or, if you don't like it, "Stream ripping may soon come under the guns of the RIAA and have nowhere to go but downstream."
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
And, depending on how you read the law, it's 100% legal.
This is exactly what was said about Napster, look at how long that lasted. I think its a bit of a pipe dream to believe that there will be a legal way to acquire large amounts of copyrighted music for free w/o the consent of the copyright holder.
And on the off chance it was legal to do this you can be sure that Congress would put a stop to it pretty fast.
The principle of stationripper sounds pretty cool. But using it , is it possible to download entire tunes "as if" they were ripped from a cd ? Is the quality comparable to an mp3 that you might download? My initial thoughts and impressions of streamed music are that generally speaking the quality is inferior.
nick...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
is M$ only, that sucks.
I just upgraded streamripper to 1.60-pre1 and it seems to have solved a lot of the "mpglib error at: xxxxxx" errors I was getting before with the 1.32 I was using.
I just rip indie stuff so don't get your panties in a knot, this sure makes it 100% easier than downloading the files one at a time.
I even set Kalarm to start and stop streamripper at night, when they play the best stuff..
I love it..
A while back, a local radio station in Pittsburgh(WXDX, one of the 6 radio stations that got fined over the whole Howard Stern thing) about 5 or 6 years ago, before stream rippers even were common, used to stream the radio station so you could hear it anywhere. However, not to long after they started it, someone(assuming the RIAA) forced them to stop streaming is because of, "copyright issues" they said they were working to try to get it back up, as far as I know, they never did.
It may be a free country and all, but not many nations have the situation Taiwan is: an enemy nation just a few miles away with 100 times the population that has sworn to destroy it.
The RIAA will force internet radio stations (legit ones) to put in little blurbs over the music saying this is broadcast from such and such station. I think they use that somewhat in Europe.
It's really annoying when you get bits of the surrounding songs on your saved music. Turning off crossfading will facilitate smooth ripping. Thank you.
I was doing this for a while. I streamed in about 15 niche stations that played the kind of music I liked, and got a lot of music. The error rate was fairly high, and I ended up with a lot of duplicates, but I found a lot of good music, and filled in some gaps in my collection.
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
But they're not. What better way to kill P2P then to have the data pool flooded with crappy stream-ripped versions of songs? I, for one, would get really tired of having to download the same track 5 times to find one that was ripped properly from the CD, instead of stream-ripped or badly edited. It's already hugely in the RIAA's favor that any idiot can rip something badly anymore, but it washes in that the average listener doesn't have a discerning enough ear to notice it.
Probably the same way Real responded to Streambox VCR.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Notice the small change in the quoted text. And it's still 100% true.
This is not like the cat in the box where you cannot ever know if it's dead or alive till you open the box and discover it's dead/alive.
With this law once you discover it is illegal, it's been illegal since you started doing it. So it's a bad plan to do it on the basis that you don't know if its illegal or not.
Shouldn't the Environmental Protection Agency have jurisdiction over this?
The huge problem with all this is you're re-compressing something previously compressed. That sounds like trash to my ears.
This is exactly what was said about Napster, look at how long that lasted. I think its a bit of a pipe dream to believe that there will be a legal way to acquire large amounts of copyrighted music for free w/o the consent of the copyright holder.
Well, it's not quite free, but copying of actual CDs is perfectly legal for home use, and the recording industry gets a fee from blank media in return.
Plan a get together with your friends, a few beers, a big stack of CD-Rs, and many CD burners. Legal music for everyone.
If the RIAA set up an internet radio station, they could potentially catch anyone listening to it by taking down their IP numbers.
Does anyone know the "legal" difference between streaming off of a radio server and downloading off of a P2P server? I mean, in this case, the terms seem interchangable.
My spoon is too big.
I listen to online radio stations all the time (KEXP Seattle, KCRW Santa Monica, the BBC), and I can't help but think that good stations could quickly become victims of their own success with stream ripping like this. Any station that attracts regular fans would find that a certain percentage become leech listeners who uselessly suck the stations' bandwidth for hours, just to lazily get a few mp3s. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that stations aren't making much (if any) money off internet radio, and the extra bandwidth costs could make it not so worthwhile. Are you sure that the music industry suits would be so against this?
I've seen a few posts comparing this to taping radio broadcasts, but not so, radio can go to 10 people as easily as a million people if they're in the station's broadcast radius. Streams don't scale so nicely.
Well, UK and EU copyright law allows an exception for "time shifting" on domestic premises (i.e. video recording a television broadcast for playback later).
It doesn't state whether the time shifting copy could only be used once, but it's implied, and generally the copyright exceptions are subject to an overridding berne three step test that the exception is limited to acts that do not prejudice the right holder. This means that although the exceptions are available, if you abuse them in aggregate then it could be a problem.
However, theoretically, you could set up stream ripper to rip from thousands of stations, and only play back the song once at a later date, then delete it. Effectively, a music PVR. This would - in my interpretation - entirely justified under UK CDPA 1988 and the other EU national copyright laws that were harmonised in the late 1990s.
You know why the RIAA is going after P2P? Because its used mostly for piracy. Sure, some legit. songs are being downloaded, but the majority of it is blatant piracy.
Now here we are saying Internet radio is good, legitimate fair use; and then we use it for piracy.
Just like how Apple tried to be relaxed with their AAC DRM, but people just had to crack it. Sure, ther e are valid reasons for this, but once again people will use a valid, legal technology for piracy and ruin it for the rest of us.
no comment
I don't know anyone who buys or has CDs. Seriously.
...
I'm the president of a huge club on campus, and I know many, many people. NO ONE has CDs. No one.
We do, however, have two OC-3s and a T-3...
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Yeah, after I put massive compilations onto my iPod, I go through and change the artist/album to something simple like "DDR Album" and "DDR Artist". Yeah, I can't tell who did any particular track, but I'm not really caring.
Buddha says, "Shut your karma hole."
I think that someone is trying to make an argument here where none exists. Stream ripping is like recording off the radio - it might be good for kiddies but you'll never get a quality recording.
Sure its possible to do it, but it is like switching back to recording analog data.
The real reason P2P took off is that it was easy for Joe Averages to use and the results were immediate. With this, you have to cut up the streams etc to get individual songs, missing endings etc. Pretty dumb really. Anonymous Coward in this case must be 13 years old or something.
That's the funny part: IANAL but I've read it's forbidden to record the stream you're listening to. It's legal as long as the radios are paying a fee to the musicians (or their producers) and the streams are not kept (in files) on the computer.
Anything comparable for *nux version out? Wine didn't seem to agree with the embedded IE stuff...
"I think its a bit of a pipe dream to believe that there will be a legal way to acquire large amounts of copyrighted music for free w/o the consent of the copyright holder"
True. But they DO GIVE CONSENT everytime it is allowed to thump my eardrums (radio, shoe stores, elevators, every fricken commercial...)
The real hack is an ear interface with AI to reassemble streams (sounds).
They'd need to get into our brains to catch us on that one.....
Oops nevermind.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Dear RIAA:
I have posted this before and will gladly post it again, no matter how many 11 year old girls you extort money from or how many scare stories you purchase to be run on mainstream American media, you have failed. Some of the people you are trying to frighten happen to be the Nerds and GeeKs that will continue to come up with ways to circumvent your bullshit. How much money have you wasted on these tactics which will always be circumvented or skirted? How much do you pay your drones to try to search for victims instead of real talent that can put out an entire album worth a reasonable ten bux as apposed to the T&A no talent losers or one hit per album wonders? Dumbasses, you are invovled in a war of attrition that you cannot possibly win. You are limited by money, we are limited only by our freetime and creativity.
Music will be shared, downloaded, spread amoungst the internet quicker than the next M$ Virii of the day. It will be shared at LAN parties and USENET, it will be shared between wireless networks, and countless other ways that we can dream up since we don't need money to do so. The tighter you squeeze, the more creativity oozes with no love for your Evil Empire. You are the creator of your own worst monstrosity that you chose to confront with hostility. What will you do this article asks, who the fuck cares. We will find a way around it anyway.
Maybe you should try releasing to public record how much money you have wasted and will continue to waste on this failed campaign before you try to accuse other things.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
I remember when they shut Napster down. Napster was great, and efficient, but since napster had a centralized server it was easy to target and take down.
Everyone imediatly when to Gnutella-net. Since Gnutella net was not centralized it could not be shut down. But the problem was, not being centralized meant that propagating search querries was ridiculously expensive in bandwidth, thus it was a slight pain in the ass.
Then we were worried that they would start sueing individuals, so someone developed free net that would use everyone else as a proxy to hide the origionating IP, thus the IP you see is not that of the person downloading the file. This would have worked but was damn stupid as far as wasting bandwith for anonymity.
the RIAA held off while on individual lawsuits, freenet never took off, now that the lawsuits are becoming a problem again we come up with stupid solution 'B', this streaming data client.
Basically, our file sharing clients will get worse and worse, and it will boil down to asking ourselves "do I really want to get this song in a shoddy quality, with skips and pops/waste a half hour in failed attempts to get it, or is it easier to just buy the song online legally?
And in fact, this is the way it should work. There will always be free clients and you will always be able to pirate music, it just a question how much of a pain in the ass it will be, and whether or not you value your time and quality of music over your money.
If the RIAA was smart(they aren't), they would lower the price of song downloads to 20 cents (an artist usually makes 10 cents per song on each cd), no one would bother wading through all the fake songs on Kazaa and most people would flock to the pay sites.
$1-$2 a songs? ppppttttt. . . Pirating methods don't suck that much . . yet.
Saying "Militia really just means National Gaurd" is like saying "Press really just means PBS"
Sorry to reply to my own post -
Alternatively, under UK and EU law, it is _not_ an infringement of copyright to import an infringing article for personal use. This means that if you buy a counterfeit DVD in singapore, and fly home, and even if you say to customs "want to see my fake DVD", you are safe: this is an explicit part of CDPA 1988. If you design a P2P system that forces all transactions to be foreign, you would also be safe.
Now, the interesting thing is, that this indemnifies anyone in the UK from downloading ("importing") infringing copyright works from foreign countries, say China. This would include streaming too. (Note that a small problem with copyright software is that you have to then go through an EULA after you've imported it, and agreeing to the EULA sets up a contractual agreement that you may be opening yourself up litigation).
People have always recorded music off of the radio, and always will. However, that never made it "legal"
Acutally, it is legal, at least in the US. The RIAA gets a cut of all cassette tape (and possibly all 'Audio' CDR) sales in exchange.
I think I read somewhere that its also legal in Canada, but under a different scheme.
If internet radio streams aren't paying the RIAA, how are they different then using a P2P app that only caches and plays MP3 streams downloaded from other P2P users? Other than the fact that the user gets to choose what to listen to (which I can do by choosing a 'net radio sation anyway).
If I don't put a copy of downloaded MP3 data on my harddisk, am I still violating the copyright?
There is potential for a mod to some P2P apps here. Share your personal collection and let your 'friends' stream songs from their collection to you.
The number of variations of ways to share music and get the same effect kind of points to the absurdity of what the RIAA wants.
RIAA is never going to fret over this because the average consumer will not bother configuring their computer to record from digitally-streamed radio stations. Even with a tape deck, people could easily click two buttons, one to start recording and one to stop, and they were set. Napster and Kazaa are about as simple - type a song title, double click and the song eventually downloads.
You MIGHT find an average Internet user setting their computer to record an hour or two of their fave Internet station to listen later, but since the listener is only getting single songs by artists in that instance, the RIAA would obviously be fine with that, because the consumer will still have to go to a store to get the rest of the album. Otherwise, nobody who plays Madden and reads USA Today is going to bother with the necessary process to snag songs off Internet radio stations, because the payoff isn't worth the amount of time necessary on their not-so-computer-inclined behalves.
This article is simply an overreaction that tags onto the mp3 bandwagon to get short-term attention from people who don't consider the rationality.
Back in the day, you could browse through the folders of others on Napster; if they had a bunch of stuff you know you like and something you'd never heard of you could check it out. When Napster shut down, I moved on to Audiogalaxy. I used to listen to MonkeyRadio (downtempo electronic). Whenever I heard a song I really dug, i'd search for it on Audiogalaxy. A nifty feature of Audiogalaxy was the way it sorted songs by popularity and how it offered links to other similar music. I expanded my tatsetes greatly during this time. Now, I find myself listening to Jazzmusique and cliqhop. I've recorded a couple of streams and found more new artists. I have even bought the CDs for a couple of folks I really liked. The Jazzmusique stream is 128kbps. Cliqhop is 112. It suits me fine. If you want higher quality bad enough BUY THE ALBUM. You know, support the folks who made the stuff you love. Sometimes it's amazing the lengths people will go to to avoid spending a few bucks.
harmonious design
I'm not sure how it's piracy.
Once you've broadcast something, it doesn't make sense to try to dictate how your clients use it. By broadcasting it you've given them a copy that they can have for their personal use. They can't rebroadcast it, but they can make copies for their friends (this is legal under US law, just like doing the same thing after recording from the radio).
It doesn't make sense that any Joe with a computer should be able to broadcast music streams without paying some kind of broadcast fee.
Every time I find a new way to get music, you /. pussies have to pick up on it and show the unwashed masses how to do it! Now radio stations can't handle the traffic. Now the RIAA's on the scent. Now I can't stream rip. Damn you for showing everyone the idea!
[puff puff]
I'm sorry for yelling. But you guys may have just ruined this by giving it this new audience.
Synergy is your friend
Use their own litigious bullshit against them. If every p2p client simply implemented a one-byte XOR on all outgoing and incoming transmissions, it would be quite illegal for the (RI || MP) AA to attempt to decode it because of that wonderful piece of legislation called the DMCA. Remember? Illegal to circumvent any acess control device? By implementing such a measure (even one so braindead that it could be cracked brute-force by a 20-year-old laptop in a matter of seconds), it is illegal for anyone to decode your transmissions without your express permission. I give express permission to everyone except scum would work for the (RI || MP) AA.
The best part is the horrible or wonderful (depending on your view) irony of it: Screwed by their own bought-and-paid-for legislation. Geeks the world over will roll on the floor laughing their asses off!
It is a sad day when a post like this gets modded up as insightful. Oh Slashdot, how I weep for thee.
Bribe^H^H^H^H^HEncourage politicians to enact a tax on streaming video/music providers.
If that fails, they'll install spyware on every goddamn computer on the face of the earth. Ethics and laws mean nothing to these folks.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill RIAA/MPAA
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
LETS GO TO CHICK FIL A GUYS
I subscribe to dave TV (direct TV.) It has dedicated
music channels, by Genre. 80's, 90's, Jazz etc...
I use a video capture to bring it into my machine.
I then use a recording package to rip the songs,the audio comes in on it's own channel, and
Total Recorder or Goldwave works fine, for doing this, then convert to whichever compression you want. I
want from the blocks I recorded, and process them,
myself. the quality is fine, for me. I find this a good enough alternative.
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
I know I haven't kept up with the developments in this area that well, but didn't the FCC decide to impose fees on Internet broadcasters? If that's the case, wouldn't recording a stream be the same as recording off of the radio? Sure, it's better quality, but the principle is the same, and there are royalties being paid. Of course, I don't see that as a reason for the RIAA not to try and shut it down. My two cents.
Just whatever you do, don't cross the streams.
If you are using Mac OS X, you can use audio hijaak pro. It lets you record RealAudio, Windows Media and MP3 streams. I use it all the time to time shift radio shows I like to AAC or MP3 for my iPod. Works like a charm. You can set up schedules and file sizes. Really sharp.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I've been developing RadioRipper http://www.RadioRipper.net/ It's donation-ware, but I've been rapidly updating it. One of the things that it's going for it is that it's NOT based off of the StreamRipper core which means it doesn't suffer from the myriad of bugs that StationRipper/StreamRipper do. RadioRipper was originally started because I was so frustrated with the flaws and design of the StreamRipper codebase.
.Net framework).
Some of the things the current version of RadioRipper supports:
Track splitting
Winamp 2.x/5.x integration
Internet Explorer integration
SHOUTcast/MP3 support
Lossless digital recording
Playlist generation
HTTP authentication
Parallel stream recording
Smart song naming
Some of the things the next release will support:
Minimize to System Tray
Station list loading/saving
Stream relaying (possibly infinite clients, not sure if i want to open that can of worms)
User interface improvements
Recording at startup
Options dialog
Record to one file
The program pretty much speaks for itself, its written in pure C++ and Win32 (though I am porting the next version to the
Alex
I never understood the concept of royalties on blank media. I mean I can buy cassette tapes and tape my own voice on them. The RIAA doesn't need any royalty off that. Just like I can buy CD-Rs and burn backups of my databases and other files. The RIAA doesn't need any royalties off that either.
Slightly OT: I have a friend who's an upcoming musician and he paid a company to get his stuff on iTunes. He's had 4-5 paid downloads already but hasn't seen a dime.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
My Creative Labs Audigy 2 Pro can record anything that goes through it, including streams, and I've had it about a year. (Mixer-"Record what you hear") It also came with a specific stream recording software bundled with the retail box, software dated 2002.
It's the same as in the 80's and 90's when we all sat next to our boom boxes recording on tape. There is nothing that can be done, other than just stopping the stream industry.
Don't you just love it when websites/media make big things out of old stuff? Gee, it's getting like network news.
The RIAA wants to keep you from recording digital radio broadcasts!
It is truly amazing the lengths to which someone will go to obtain something they didn't pay for. Some people say, "Well, I wouldn't have bought it anyways, so whats the difference?" to which I reply, "If you wouldn't have bought it, why would you go through so much trouble to copy it?"
If you're doing this your only viable option is to encode to wav and use up a lot of space. The point of stream ripping is that it preserves the original encoding. There's no way i'm reencoding a 128 kbps MP3 from /dev/dsp.
Photos.
Except to broadcast in FM/Am is to provide something with unlimited bandwidth, and it's available in the air that anyone with even a crystal tuned to the right frequency can listen to/record. On the internet, you provide something available on a pipe that you pay for, and are making available the music you are "listening" to for others who come to your virtual "abode" and partake in the listening experience.
Recording a stream is subject to similar nuances and failings that recording off the air is and as such, the only argument the RIAA could really win with would be that all computers/recording devices/mp3 players need to be taxed with the procedes going to them as the quality is not as good as the original by a longshot in this form.
Not that I think all should be taxed for the crimes of a few, but who knows what the RIAA can buy in congress.
And, there is no recompression -- it is saved as it comes down from the radio station.
They aren't; they are going after some users of some P2P systems. P2P is a very wide area- with lots of protocols- most of the internet is P2P- the IP protocol itself is P2P. USENET especially is P2P.
Because its used mostly for piracy.
No; well maybe. But that's not necessarily true for all P2P or for all time. For example Skype is P2P, but there's presumably little or no piracy going on there.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"it would only be PIRACY if people SOLD the illegal copies.
p2p/illegal copying doesnt hurt anything but the fat cats profits
so basicaly what your saying, is that you want everyone else to stop pirating music/software/video so you can w/o fear of legal action? and dont tell me you dont have an illegal copy of sompthing, and yes i am counting a win95 boot disc as an illegal copy (if you dont own win 95 or the licence etc.)
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
I tried stream ripping using RadioLover on a Mac. As it happens, there's an iTunes station that plays exactly the music I like, and nothing but. That being the case, I get much much better results from stream ripping than P2P, where I've spent far too much time searching for niche music no one is sharing.
However, as my wife pointed out, the point of saving the streams becomes moot, since I can always switch on the iTunes stream anyway - why duplicate the commercial free radio station? Good point. (On the other hand, the internet station *does* include rare vinyl tracks that are out of distribution, which you can't buy anywhere, and which are very difficult, if not impossible to find on P2P, so there is some value to stream ripping.)
This seems to be a similar situation to digital TV. The BBC plays commercial free movies at DVD quality. I click record on my EyeTV 400 PVR, and get DVD quality movies. Great again. Love it. However, the irony does not escape me that this makes the BBC the biggest faciliator of "pirated" movies around. It also makes me question the difference between digital TV recording and the olden days of VCR recording movies. What's the difference? The quality is better.
However, I'm getting quite used to the high quality of the movies, and to be frank, beyond my obsessive collecting and quality control obsessions, it really doesn't make a damned bit of difference. I can't share them on the internet cuz they are too big (1.4GB-4GB). My friends don't have computers for entertainment centres, so the movies I record are as useless to them as a copy-protected music disc, ie. a coaster. And besides, no one seems to think the value of a movie is nearly as high as the people selling them.
So what's changed? Ripping streams is like recording radio shows to cassettes. Hard disk recording digital TV is basically the same as using a VHS deck to record analog TV. The big difference is the quality is better. And...? That's about it.
The only people digital media would seem to help are commercial pirates, who with digital media can now make better counterfeit copies - and yet the RIAA/Hollywood doesn't seem to be doing much about them. (Hollywood themselves are responsible for the majority of movies in the wild anyway.) Greedy? Certainly. Insane? Possibly. The only thing worse than greedy insane people are the ones with enough money to buy polititions, high priced lawyers, and too much cocaine.
Still, it will be fun to tell the grandkids about it. (I was a student during the era of photocopy hysteria, so I've already got a sense of how ridiculous and incredible this is going to seem in the future.
"But wouldn't photocopying a book cost more than buying the book?"
"Yes, Virginia. It seems fear and uncertainty drive people to extreme forms of irrational thinking and behavior."
I know on slashdot, there is always someone who will prove you wrong. Today, I am that guy. I'm 21 years old, live on a college campus with a fat pipe. I pretty much don't remember when we didnt have MP3s. I own between 500-600 cd's, and I feel that it is money well spent:
l: It's not illegal.
2: A hard drive crash doesnt erase my collection. Burned cd's, backups, what have you get scratched, and aren't reliable. My factory made cd's will last much longer.
3: I can legally rip them at a high-bitrate in whatever the common format is.
4: A lot of my collection is indie / small label punk, these bands probably make less than I do, stealing their cds instead of buying really does affect them.
5: The main reason I buy cds is that when I rip them, there are no pops, none of my tracks are cut short, there are no duplicates, and the tags are 100% correct. I can put them in a database, and magically all the songs by the same artist end up together. When you buy cds, you get much better quality.
If I do use an MP3 service, it is just to see if a cd I'm thinking about buying is any good. I generally use Limewire, and store what I download in a seperate folder away from my collection, so I can easily delete it.
The RIAA does some stupid things, but I still think it is worth the money to actually buy the CD, and I view boycotts as one of the most in-effective tools to combat the RIAA. I think a well-written letter will do so much more than 1% of the population boycotting cds.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
ripping from digital cable music channels?
A smart app could figure not only when the songs change, but OCR the picture to try and parse the artist, album and track info.
Everyone should read this.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Yeah, those poor record companies. Legal theft is a hard way to live.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
I can't stand those few seconds of silence between songs when a CD isn't mixed, it throws off my groove!!
Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
Note, bandwidth meaning possible distribution base, not the actual bandwidth of the frequency.
Seeing as "time shifting" and home recording for personal use has been upheld for quite some time in the analog world.
Yes, these copies are digital, but most stations broadcast at 128k, and not even good 128k, so nobody can truly claim this'll hurt CD sales.
Strangely, I've become less of an audio snob when it comes ot that. I figure if I want high quality, I'll buy it. I can still enjoy the music if the quality is sub-par, and I feel it's fair to both sides (I hear "radio-quality" music for free, just like always, and they aren't "losing" high-quality copies of their content).
Besides, I'm getting to the point where I can't think of much I want to download...this way I can hit a station that runs a genre I like and pick up some random stuff I've never heard before.
OK, so if you take a file that has DRM, and you "crack" it, aka access it outside of the constraints of the DRM, you're violating the DMCA. But are you violating Copyright law? If you don't give those files to others, are you?
And if not, I believe that streamripping isn't either. And as such, would be legal. And if it's legal, then your calling it piracy is wrong. It's as much piracy as using a Tivo is.
Synergy is your friend
I was going to say you jokers pay for things ruining them for the rest of us.
You just crazy man.
Why, praytell, would anyone buy iTunes songs, break the DRM, and put it on P2P networks, when they could just as easily rip the songs from a CD they bought, or borrowed from the library?
What real-world use exists for software that can rip 300 streams simultaneously? It would seem to me that Time Shifting can only really justify some (probably small) percentage of those.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Everybody talk about the analog loop hole, what about the 'Digital out' that most of the better sound cards have? if you feed that back in you have a digital copy and unless you have stupid DRM on everything i dont really see how you can bypass that.
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
I don't think RIAA have done too badly. Sure they've alienated a lot of geeks but that's about 1% of their market.
They've done everything monopolies do to maintain their monopoly (hire lawyers).
They kept a cartel on not selling songs over the internet as long as possible (an expensive venture, not easily protected as a monopoly).
Well, internet streaming stations pay a "physical duplication" royalty, rather than a broadcast royalty.
So, if you're paying to duplicate it, isn't it legal to duplicate it? I think the term for making someone pay for something they can't have is called "fraud."
Of course, a crime such as fraud is meaningless when tried against the government. Of course, the DMCA (which set up a lot of these provisions) was approved by voice vote, so we have no clue who voted for or against.
Mmmm...accountability.
Dumbass, they're capturing the stream as-is.
then only outlaws will rip streams.
seriously, when I listen to stations there's pauses sometimes, buffering catchups I guess. that wouldn't be very good if you were trying to rip it, or does the app cover that? I didn't see it mentioned on their site.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
If you are on the Linux platform and you use the Enlightened sound daemon, then you've got most of what you need to do stream ripping. I've used 'esdmon' to "tap" into the sound stream from RealPlayer (for some of my favorite internet radio boradcasts) and xmms. You can also use 'mplayer' to snag RealAudio streams as well. The following combination of tools gives you the equivalent of Tivo for your favorite internet audio streams:
/home/colin/radio/hos-$datestamp.ogg - & /usr/local/RealPlayer8/realplay /home/colin/radio/wysu.ram
.ram file points to the stream that you want to capture and replace the home dir path and hostname of the X server to reflect your machine.
1. RealPlayer
2. 'esdmon'
3. cron
4. 'oggenc'
Here's my personal bash script to get these guys to work together and save the stream to an Ogg Vorbis file:
---
#!/bin/bash
DISPLAY=roy:0
export DISPLAY
datestamp=`date +%D%T | sed s+/++g | sed s+:++g`
esdmon | oggenc --raw -o
----
Make the assumption that the
Yeah, yeah, yeah... I'm sure someone out there could do it better, but this should get some people started.
Un-news
No CD is worth that much money.
I buy from BMG Music Club, which has monthly sales, and if you buy during those sales, you get CD's for just under $7 each.
That's a decent deal, and I find I'm willing to buy 6-10 at a time for those prices.
But for $16, Brittany better give me a BJ and agree to not talk when I'm around.
The RIAA has been expecting this for a while now. Over the past several months they have been lobbying the FCC to put copy protection on the new Digital Audio Broadcasting (IBOC) to prevent this very thing. So far the FCC has held back from doing anything because RIAA has failed to show harm already being done - I wonder if this will be their example?
They argue that ripping programs to individual songs is illegal because it is "librarying" - which is NOT a legitimate fair use. Rest assured, they will come after it.
128kb/s is not CD quality. Not even close. You've got to go to close to *TWICE* that bps to get CD quality, and even then, you tend to lose the channel separation.
You're selling your ears short if all you listen to is 128kb/s.
QUICK! Call ClearChannel and tell them they are just a pipe dream: 1-210-822-2828
I'm sure they will shut off all their broadcasts IMMEDIATELY, lest people are able to record large ammounts of copyrighted music for free.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I bought a Dragon in the 80's, right before the first $150 CD players started showing up in L.A. Hung onto it through the great CD change over to handle Grateful Dead concert dupes. Continued hanging onto it (and getting it serviced) to finish moving some oddball tapes to CD, and listen to my $.25 finds from garage sales. Never thought it would end up being my anti-DRM ace in the hole.
Luke, help me take this mask off
There's an interesting thread here about it, scroll down to the one that starts "OK, here's the scoop on allofmp3.com" by ronross.
$.01/MB is about what I think is fair for online music, you like $.99/track great, I don't, I like $.05/track. If I thought artists deserve to live like rock stars I'd send them parts of every paycheck, or buy them coke, but I don't. If a musician makes more a year than I do for what is obviously less work then they can't complain.
The URL again where you can legally get tons of good quality music for $.01/MB is www.allofmp3.com
The English button is at the top left, FYI.
Oh, and by the way, I welcome all flames/spam/etc to my personal email address kgb@submarinefund.com
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Betamax case. Time shifting.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
"Your "right" to "back-up" that which you never owned rights to in the first place?"
Lets get over ourselves here.
First of all, it has always been legal to tape from the radio for personal use. This was established in the landmark Sony versus Disney case where the supreme court held that it was permissible to video tape from the TV.
This establishes a reasonable precedent that taping from Internet Radio is okay.
Do you understand?
You've been listening to RIAA and MPAA bullshit for so long that you really believe that a copyright entitles the holder to infinite protection. I assure you it does no such thing. The scope of a copyright is limited by design.
"Now here we are saying Internet radio is good, legitimate fair use; and then we use it for piracy."
Taping for home use is not considered piracy. It is acceptable for taping from the radio, the supreme court has established that home taping for personal use is legal.
This is in the same vein.
Just because the RIAA doesn't want you to do it doesn't make it illegal or immoral. It only pisses off the RIAA, but that's okay. That has no impact on the legality of home recording of streams for personal use.
The problem is that these acts are going to simply cause the RIAA to crack down even more on inet radio and shut down your favorite stations due to the stations not being able to pay more, perform the required tasks the RIAA will setup for them and just gives the RIAA another target. Thanks for helping to ruin something else...
There is no logical reason to do this. You're absolutely right.
But as I've explained time and time again, Apple users think Apple is special, so special that they've set up a tiny little enclave for special users that gives them special rights.
But WAIT! WAIT! hold on. Not so fast.
You have to do it the way apple tells you. There's magic in doing it the apple way. If you go against apple's way, then the spell is broken, the juju is lost. To even consider doing this would be like making jokes about jesus, or doing a porno with budda in it.
Its not rational, but apple worshippers aren't rational by any means. You're either for apple or against them. No matter what.
I think the parent poster was referring to www.di.fm, not FM radio. RDS only applies to over-the-air FM radio broadcasts.
For DI.FM's MP# streams, it would be ID3.
If you want to rip a program to listen at another time, mplayer has a dumpaudio option that will dump the input stream to a file instead of decoding it. If you run this as a cron job with something to kill it when complete, it can be fairly automatic.
If you want to edit what you have ripped for archiving, you can use audacity.
Working with the wider bandwidth Shoutcast or Icecast streams, this can yield quite nice results. A 128kb mp3 stream has a slightly better bandpass than FM radio. 256kb, which is rare, is up there with CD. Of course, this is done by throwing out some of the data and fudging the rest a bit. Ripping the raw stream avoids going through any more stages than necessary.
I record Shoutcast streams using X-Box Media Center. Using 160kbit streams you cannot tell the difference from a regular mp3. sometimes i do it while I hear a song I like just so I know what the name of the song is (it saves it as the filename). Then I can go online and search for the extended versions online.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
Home recording laws are an exception to copyright that allow people to record stuff from the radio or TV for their own use without paying any royalties. Congress decided this was fair because taping from the radio was poor quality anyway, and a hassle, so it didn't affect the value of a song in terms of sales.
/. attest, people want individual songs of the internet, not albums. Also, digital technology makes it easy to sort out the songs you like from a stream relatively easily. Therefore, even though people say it's unfair, home recording laws will not allow recording of digital radio, because it will eat into profits from legitimate sales online, and therefore, is at odds with copyright law. Remember that copyright is a constitutional right in the United States before you start screaming about how ther RIAA is going to bribe congress to take away your rights. Your standing on thin ice if you think you have the right to record internet streaming audio just because you could do it before with analog radio.
Now, as people on
Vote for Pedro
audio hijaak pro . Pro? As opposed to audio hijaak 4 amateurs?
I love this popular method of naming tiny windows/mac programs... pro, deluxe, super...
There was a Type III tape, namely FerriChrome. FeCr was to deliver the best of Type I [ferric oxide] and Type II [chrome], but died an early death as it didn't. They were on sale only in the early 1970s, AFAIK.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
StationRipper actually IS streamripper. It used the console version pretty much as-is (just a sligh mod to handle interprocess communication)
They have alienated alot more than geeks due to the garbage they try to foist on everyone. That is the real reason sales aren't where they want them. Everytime a quality artist releases one, sales jump, the rest of the time they stagnate.
The quality of the product should be the driver. Oh wait, that applies to the Linux vs. M$ fight too!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Given the reasonable assumption that the 'fair use' guidelines would permit me to make a copy of a CD I have
bought, what then happens if I sell or give the original
away? Am I somehow legally obligated to destroy my copy,
be it a duplicate of the original cd or mp3s ripped from it?
"Your standing on thin ice if you think you have the right to record internet streaming audio just because you could do it before with analog radio."
It must be true, you said so!
Anyway, you haven't drawn any distinction between analog radio and the poor quality 128kb/s broadcasts of music.
I mean, you're don't silly enough to suggest these things are anywhere near CD quality are you?
Come on guys, that's just lame, posting WORD FOR WORD an article posted 6 hours earlier on Techdirt.com
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
Yeah, I've had nothing but trouble with this app! It keeps filling my harddrives up with music! Gigs and Gigs and, yes, Gigs! I keep having to buy new drives. :P
Canada has similar royalties collected on CD and DVD media.
Still not satisfied, they've added another charge on devices which might possibly maybe perhaps contain an MP3, like hard drives and USB memory sticks.
The RIAA doesn't want compensation, it wants to steadily drain your pocket for each and every single time you listen to each and every track. They just haven't figured out how to force us to accept that model.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
man... who posted this on slashdot??!? who let the cat out of the bag?? stream ripping has been on the downlow and now you are blasting it into the deaf RIAA's ears.
great...
iRATE radio is a project that downloads music that bands have released for free, and plays it to you. Based on how you rate the tracks you are given, it gives you more that it thinks you'll like by comparing with other peoples ratings. This results in a pile of MP3's that you like (at least to some degree :), and an easy way to get more that fit your tastes. You also have control over how regularly you hear each track, and so on.
I listen to electronic music, stuff that you cant find in mainstream stores that try to push crap like britany spears. Ever try looking for Artists like Jon O' Bir or Yahel?
next to impossible here in Canada and the states. The only place you can probably find it is in DJ stores, which comes on vynil or you can buy yourself a nice 800 dollar ticket to berlin and try shopping around.
I prefer to download.
A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
actually, if you wouldn't advertise this.
Then the riaa wouldnt care.
But now, because you made a post on slashdot
everyone knows, including the RIAA.
Congradgulations on messing up a nice service.
Virtually all stations re-encode the stream from their source material. The source may be anything from a WAV or AIFF file to a 128k or slower MP3, which then goes through an AGC and possibly a compressor/limiter, the songs are segued together and then it gets re-encoded.
So a stream ripped 128k track is going to have a lot more artifacts than an original MP3.
Also, as most stations segue their music you're going to not get clean starts and ends on your songs.
Finally, it all depends on how often the stations updates the meta info inthe stream for the streamripper to split the tracks. For example, the latest version shoutcast reduced the metadata frequency from 8 seconds to 30 second intervals.
If it can be abused, it will be abused. I just don't see the logic in complaining about what you know will happen. Do you think it will change anyone's mind?
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
The more streamripping takes off, the more stations will stop streaming title info and only put it on their web sites.
.)
The problem you're seeing with DI.fm is also happening at lots of other stations... everyone will just get rid of or reduce the frequency of the meta data in the streams. I've even heard from some station operators on how they're randonly updating their metadata with advertising messages!
The problem with the net broadcasting medium right now is that each new listener costs us money in bandwidth, unlike traditional broadcast medium that has a fixed cost (mostly electricity to run the transmitter) to reach everyone within a geographic area. Bandwidth costs for streaming 128k to one listener for a month is $7-$30 depending on your bandwidth deal.
And once the RIAA sees streamripping take off, they're really going to have a good argument for charging net broadcasters huge royalty fees.
(Personally, I would much rather broadcast to a live audience than an audience of tape recorders, which is what streamrippers are. The problem is that I have limited capacities on my streams so each person streamripping (and not listening) represents one less potential live listener
yeh, right, the stations will explicitly tag their commercials. hahahaha. More like they'll merge the commercials with the music so your rips will have commercials attached to the beginning or end of each song!!! heheheheheh!
Or maybe they'll tag just the commercials, and name all the music the same track name. If you're in luck you'll rip 2 gigs of commerials.
Cuz if all the commercial free indy stations go away, there will still be clear channel to streamrip.
I remember "ripping" Pink Floyd's "The Wall" from a WBCN broadcast in Boston in the late Seventies. The quality of the cassette sucked, but I couldn't in my wildest dreams afford the album on my budget, so it sufficed for a while. As soon as I could afford it I bought the real thing.
Maybe RIAA could make part of their problem go away if record labels made lower quality downloads of tunes available for free. Good enough for blasting out the dorm room window, but bad enough so that if you can afford the real thing you'll want to pay for it. Artists could build markets, not alienate listeners, and still make money from people who can afford to pay for full-bandwidth versions of the music. They obviously aren't making any money from people who can't pay anyway.
There is indeed a linux client, it's for the command line and it's taken me a little fishing in the .pls files to get the right urls, but here's the link:
:)
http://streamripper.sourceforge.net/
For me it was a simple tar -xvzf, make, su, make install and it was ready to run. Seems to work really well; I think I'm about to start using a lot more bandwidth
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Type I - Ferro
Type II - Chrome
Type IV - Metal
The difference is usually something like:
Frequency response
Type I 30Hz-14kHz
Type II 30Hz-15kHz
Type IV 30Hz-16kHz
Overall signal to noise ratio
Type I 51dB
Type II 52dB
Type IV 52dB
Im driving an old 78 Skylark, with a custom CD player! Directions:
1) Get old CD Rom with the 'Play' button on the front panel
2) Make a 12V to 5V transformer, using the convertion IC's from old power supplies (I can't remember the part number offhand...)
3) Solder a wire from the lineout of the CD Rom to the tape head of the stereo. You'll need some resistors to make the volume right.
4) Splice CD Rom into constant 12 V wire (for the radio)
5) Listen to (almost) CD quality music!
6) ???
7) Profit!!!!
Little to no piracy?
Betcha the RIAA isn't *interested* in them, then. Brilliant way to prove the parents point, though.
... and, so began, the legend of the Five-point Atkins Exploding Heart Technique!
The big difference, atleast in the eyes of the artists:
Radio stations (real ones - AM/FM) PAY tons for the right to broadcast those songs. How many internet radio stations (the streamcast ones or whatever) have paid a license to broadcast each of those songs? Thats why radio stations have commercials, to pay for the right to play songs.
Now you listen to it for free, rip it, and probably throw it up on a P2P network. If you like the music so much, encourage the artist to produce more by buying it.
no comment
there's already high quality digital radio outside of the internet as well.
But aren't all those subscription services?
Anyway, the RIAA is now pushing for all digital radios to have hardware copy protection, and A BUY BUTTON!!!
http://somafm.com/riaa/
excerpt:
"The RIAA has brazenly suggested that new devices come equipped with a 'buy' button, underscoring their intent to force consumers to buy what they have received for free since Fleming and Marconi first made it possible for consumers to hear news and music over the public airwaves. We have long been concerned about content owners seeking to change the 'play' button into the 'pay' button. At least the RIAA has addressed the semantics of the issue.
A quick once over of my software and music collection.. a bunch of mp3s ripped from CDs that I own, the songs I've grabbed off the iTMS, A licensed copy of W2k, OpenOffice.org for 'productivity suite', I'm a mmog gamer, and its kinda hard to pirate subscription based software.. so.. um.. why is it impossible for someone to not be trying to cheat the system?
It does make you feel better, though, to think that everyone else does it, so its fine, though.
... and, so began, the legend of the Five-point Atkins Exploding Heart Technique!
Umm... ok. That's exactly the iron-clad legal guarantee I was looking for!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I think this is a great way to listen to what I want to download to my ipod next. It takes the guess work out of who sings the song. I can let it rip for a while. come back, play through and go download the tracks I really like via itunes or whatever your liking.
Actually I'm wondering if anyone makes a MP3 editor? Were you can slice and dice and do other things.
Old idea, new context and as others have mentioned, the tech isn't even equal to AM quality in many cases let alone FM stero.
:-(!
But...like yeah, users can turn to the FM band, record a few hours direct to disk, then go back and edit out the talk/advertisements.
You'll get better quality recordings (if you have good FM receiver, and can pull in a strong quality FM station). If you live close to a college many run low-wattage stations geared just to the "right" age group...
Legal? Remember Ted Turner comparing digital video recorders that could skip advertising as video theft! Why do you think video corps are trying to make everything go digital and embed watermarks and require copy control tech in anything that can copy -- and can detect the watermarks even when played over an analogue medium.
Remember the DMCA? It'll be illegal to circumvent any of the copy protection they put in your recording devices. Maybe not a bad idea to keep around old cassette recorders, VCR's and such.
Sound producers have been mumbling/rumbling about new CD formats with better sound (~megabit range)...even now you hear audiophiles bemoan bad audio CD players that simply play the current frequency for the entire 22.73 microseconds between sample as opposed to better decoders that interpolate the difference between each sample and gradually change the frequencies between intervals constantly over the 22.73 microsecond interval. More than one
audiophile claims to be able to hear the difference.
Nevertheless, if they push 1Mbit DVD-Audio out as a new standard, it's real easy to also push out a new DRM scheme. Then a scratch on a CD will lose you minutes of music instead of seconds! Such a deal!
Anway....recording off streams will be even easier to control copying of since you'll be going from digital to digital, so less chance of loss of embedded watermarks. So record away while you can...
Huh?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"As it is now, I can find a lot of different streams that play something I will enjoy any time of the day I try. Given that, what's the point of saving it to disk, just find another stream, etc.
If there's a song or album I really like, I still want to own it, and a 128-192 stream is not a good enough copy for me. Same thing with p2p sharing, the bit-rate is usually too low.
I hardly download any new music any more, in a large part due to streaming. I consider that if I go through the trouble of looking for something to download, I'm probably at best going to get a copy at 192, and I hear all this stuff in rotation as weel as a lot I already have on the streams. So I lose a little choice in track selection, right now the streams have been doing well enough with their variety. I figure I can spend my time better doing something else, let them hunt down on the new tracks and rip and encode them.
You know why the RIAA is going after P2P? Because its used mostly for piracy.
No, it's because the internet threatens the RIAA's media stranglehold on what you hear & thus might be willing to buy.
Despite what the RIAA says, they really don't care about the piracy. What the RIAA is scared about is the public's waning interest in the corporate establishment's music offerings. It's about people turning off the radio and turning on the internet.
The RIAA cartel is losing its ability to control the market for their products. Their entire beef is actually about marketing power and control.
You can do this with:
If you have any other good suggestions of things that the RIAA should burn, post replies(Is that "allowed" here? etiquette?). (I even checked to make sure that this article is less than a week old before posting)
So who told you?
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
StreamRipperX
StreamRipperX Files
And for those who need immediate gratification, a direct link to the DMG
I buy the CDs I like quite a bit, and expect to listen to many, many times. That's worth $16 to me. That's about the price of two movie tickets, and a typical CD over the dozens of times I listen to it gives me a lot more enjoyment than seeing two movies does.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
MP3s from 1997 may well be non-transparent, but it's very difficult in double-blind listening tests for people to distinguish a good VBR mp3 made using a perceptually-tuned preset (say, LAME --preset standard, and especially LAME --preset extreme) from the original CD. There are a few isolated codec-killer cases that are distinguishable by people who have trained to listen for specific artifacts (mostly cases of pre-echo), but they're not that common.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1980's:
copying off the radio
1990's-2003:
copying off websites, napster, gnutella, kazaa, limewire, audiogalaxy, ftp sites, irc, bearshare, bittorrent, winmx, edonkey, overnet etc etc
2004:
copying off the radio
How far we've come! 8)
-Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
What I'm envisaging is a gadget with a HDD and a USB connector. You plug it into a PC and it pretends to be a USB audio adaptor, something like a SoundBlaster Extigy perhaps. The PC sends PCM audio to it over the USB connection, fully expecting it to be converted to analogue, amplified and listened to. Instead, the gadget is simply writing the raw PCM data to its own hard disk. Maybe it could add WAV headers, maybe it could recompress on-the-fly into MP3 or Ogg Vorbis and write to a flash card instead of a HDD, but those are just details: the main thing is that it's snarfing data that is being broadcast down a bus.
The fun part is that it also pretends to be -- well, it is -- a USB mass storage device. So now you just mount it and read back the raw PCM files.
Alternatively, if you already have the necessary software for playing audio from a stream anyway, why can't you just hack the source code a little so that it outputs data to a regular file as well as or instead of the DSP device?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Well, i think you've put your finger right on the main issue of the music industry... Blank CD is around .40 a piece, much less if you buy them in bulks, like the industry does. If you add the box, the color booklet and some other costs for the machines and all, plus the artists' paycheck, i should be around $3-4 a piece.
The question isn't entirely why do they keep on saling CDs that much (the answer is because they can), but who are the sorry SoB enjoying the cake (aka record company, music stores and so on).
Quite frankly, i'm a French student, i don't have much money (er... right now i'm -500), but i will always be willing to pay $9 or less for a industry-made CD, given the fact it as more content than simple music (which could be a very nice booklet, full color and stuff, extra cd, video content and such.)
...or ask insane amounts of money from those streams, in order to "retrieve the 'lost' income"
as they are already doing now.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
http://streamripperx.sourceforge.net/
a bit different from audio hijaak I know but good for what I use it for and its under the gpl if you care about such things.
_________________________________________________
This is where the problems lie. Stop trying to go public with services/sharing/selling. You are stealing from somebody.
Kids copy a few tracks off the radio, or from their friend's CD, and no-one cares that much. It's what we've had for decades, and we can all live quite happilly thank-you.
As soon as someone starts distributing en masse to the world at large - to people they don't really know - the balance tips.
We have a balance between how much hassle/loss of quality we'll endure for free music. The record industry has a balance between how much hassle it is to track/sue people against how well organised they are, and how widely they're distributing their stuff.
Actually the same thing was said about MTV (of course more people noticed the movie industry shouting about VCR's as much as the record labels shouted about MC's).
:)
History repeats itself with intervals - those who know history will not make the same mistake twice. I wonder why so few people like the record industry anymore?
Question: do you know how to get the rear speakers working under 2.6? I've tried the emu-tools, but I just keep getting an error. Very annoying.
:-)
And yes, the amount of settings for SB-lives is truly amazing. Like looking at a frikkin' studio mixer.
The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage
Back in 1975, KWHL FM in Anchorage, Alaska had a regular feature every night at 9:00 pm where they would play a new album in its entirety with no breaks in a side, explicitly so listeners could record them. There would be a break between sides for a couple of commercials and so you could turn over your tape if necessary. They did a countdown to each side so you could get a clean start. I used to have big boxes full of 7" reels holding nearly all the current releases.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Yes. RIAA er lying, filthy thieves. They steal from all of us every single day that goes by.
What I am talking about? The public domain. They have effectively stolen the public domain, and now they are stealing our rights.
I think "killing in self defense" should be a reasonable aproach to any **AA executive from now on. A reasonable judge should find that fully justified.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Anyone who switches from p2p to stream ripping hasn't given anonymous, censorship-resistant p2p apps like GNUnet (http://www.ovmj.org/GNUnet/) a fair chance. Streams don't always have the music you want at the quality you want. Streams for video games, software, etc., don't exist. And streaming can't be used to share information within a repressive regime (think China). These anonymous networks are young and rather low on content now, but in the long term they will offer more options than stream ripping in a mode that will be more difficult for the RIAA to attack.
How will the RIAA respond? As more users move to this type of technology to avoid the P2P lawsuits, how will the music industry respond?"
Well if you hadn't published a story about it, they might have been left in the dark. But now... we gotta to find cutting-edge piracy methods, which the RIAA does NOT yet know about.
How will they respond? If it's serious, then more lawsuits, some sites get closed down, and even less privacy.
And, depending on how you read the law, (for instance, with your eyes shut) it's 100% legal. (Comment mine).
Somehow I can't qualify things to be 100% if there is a caveat, at least in most cases.
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
Unless you travel most of the year, are away from your family and work from when you wake up until you go to sleep, you probably don't work as hard as a musician. And unless you are a doctor who saves lives, your work is far less important than the work musicians do. Music is played at every important life-changing event (weddings, funerals, coronations, wars, etc.) in every culture on earth. What do you do? And how, exactly, does it benefit humanity?
I'm a member myself, very satisfied. They've got a reasonably good jazz catalogue too (although probably not as good as eMusic's was).
Except new music, stations get paid to play the new stuff. Payola I think they call it.
But yes, that was my point about internet broadcasters not having to pay any royalties.
I think the words "Proven Wrong" are a bit strong in this case.
A hard drive crash doesnt erase my collection.
You mention "The main reason I buy cds is that when I rip them, there are no pops, none of my tracks are cut short, there are no duplicates, and the tags are 100% correct." Uh, last I checked, a hard drive crash would erase the music collection on your computer. I think you fail to realize what a gigantic task ripping can be with a lot of CDs. Burned cd's, backups, what have you get scratched, and aren't reliable. My factory made cd's will last much longer.
Heh, yeah, I'm sure. Try giving one of your extra advanced, armor-plated factory-coated CDs to your little sister for the day. She'll make short work of it. And Backups not reliable? Eh, might want to double-check the definition of backup, cause I can burn stuff to DVDs, put them in a safe case and give them to my friend, so even if my house burns down, my data is fine.
Well, but then again I guess you have your fire-resistant "factory made" CDs.
stealing their cds instead of buying really does affect them.
First of all, who said anything about instead? I download a lot of music, but last I checked, "downloading" does not equal "not buying". In fact, if it weren't for downloading, I wouldn't even like half the bands I do today. I don't know where you find all your music, but last time I was at Circuit City and Best Buy, they didn't have much underground punk for sale.
Second, don't fail to consider that there are other ways to support your favorite group than buying their CD. Buying the CD gives a ton of money to big execs in New York, New York, and a small number of pennies to the band. You care about the band? Grab some mp3's from iTunes or buy concert tickets. They'll see a much better percentage of your money, and that will definetly affect them. 5: The main reason I buy cds is that when I rip them, there are no pops, none of my tracks are cut short, there are no duplicates, and the tags are 100% correct. I can put them in a database, and magically all the songs by the same artist end up together.
Oh please. I could show you a couple thousand mp3's on my computer with no pops, breaks, blah blah, with perfect tags.
When you buy cds, you get much better quality. . In conclusion, I beg to differ.
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
Since no one seems to have mentioned it, I'd like to do a small plug for a really great Mac Stream Ripper. It's called Audio Hijack. Though, it's not limited to Streaming Audio. It can record any sound that runs through one's sound card -and- it does live audio effects as it's being ripped (if you want).
So! Happy ripping!
Piracy is armed robbery at sea.
And unless you board a RIAA ship, I do not see how P2P would help you. (Well, I think it would not even if you boarded a RIAA ship, and pistols are much more convenient, too)
Unauthorized copying (and that's what it is) does not take the jewels, gold and spices, it does not threaten people, it does not kill people, etc.
All it does is deprive the copyright holder of a *potential* sale, and quite a few recent studies claim it does not do even that in a measurable way.
Of course, the correct way to counter piracy is to forbid whatever it uses: Ships (here goes oversea trading), Cannons (and the navy), gold (and coins and bars), spices (you'll like tasteless food), money (and don't think of using shells, pirates will take those, too), pistols and rifles (Hello, NRA, you're using pirates' tools, you're out).
I hear tell pirates even shout and talk their threats and drink rum, so let's forbit (free) speech and have another prohibition!
That'll show them, right?
And don't forget, porn does appear on television, paper, video, DVDs, CDs, even over the 'phone, so let's combat that too by forbidding it all! Better even yet, punish everyone who's ever naked --- starting with newborns, unless they were born using clothes. Shameless creatures!
PS: Any DRM or encryption that can be cracked (CSS, for example) was not worth anything in first place.
Usenet is flood fill, not p2p. Usenet's data is stored on a network of servers cooperating (and not necessarily tied to IP in any way), not on the reader's computers (in most cases).
Telephony is P2P. So is the top level view of most (normal) email.
As an artist streamripping, downloading, filesharing etc. does not bother me. However, if you sell or market this material in anyway and profit from it that bothers me a lot. The word "piracy" gets thrown around a lot but pirates did not loot ships to share things with their friends they did it so they could sell the material as their own...... Dennis Jennings http://celestial-image.com
I can't stand those few seconds of silence between songs when a CD isn't mixed, it throws off my groove!!
Neither can I, but sometimes, I can't stand crossfading between different tempos. Few radio stations beat-match the songs they play.
Friendly reminder to anyone else reading this: DON'T post about you-know-what just because you feel like being elite and in-the-know. Have some sense like the parent poster.
Some of the best advice I've ever received was "keep your damn mouth shut!"
As users continue to try fending off the ever more litigious music industry
Should read:
As music pirates continue to try fending off the ever more litigious music industry
What will be interesting is if this gets modded up or down...considering it's the truth.
but i get the idea. first things first, this is why i LOVE living in canada. as was noted by one person, yes, in canada, CDs DO cost between $15 and $25 brand new. even in canadian dollars thats too much. which is why i buy used CDs if i like a CD enough to buy it. There's the other problem though, of liking bands who's CDs i can't get ahold of. I download those. I download songs i hear on the radio all the time and like. I download copies of songs that are on CDs i already own. I also know a friend who has about $50 000 worth of mp3s (using the $15-20 / CD formula, plus the fact that he has ALOT of cds that would cost $40 and $50 because they're super-rare or imported). i totally support his downloading those MP3s because for one, he doesn't sell them. 2, it's totally legal in canada! and 3, it's completely rediculus to spend $50000 on music when the artists probably would only see $1000 between them. THAT's what should be illegal. to go back on topic, i've never bothered with streaming before, but i suppose it makes sense to do if you live in the US where downloading music is illegal. did i mention i love canada?
If mind games were any more fun I'm fairly certain they would result in ejaculation - Me (formerly anonymous)
It doesn't matter WHO, or WHY. SOMEONE will, just because.
Even buying the CD didn't help.
Erik
YOU ARE SAYING IMPUDENCE TO ME! THAT IS IMPUDENCE!
Does ClearChannel really play large amounts of copyright music? No, they play the same singles over and over again. If all you want is the 1-3 songs the record company choose to promote the album, hey, more power to you.
In fact this is what most radio stations do. If internet radio stations start deviating from this model I think you'll see changes.
Hell yes!
If you listen to one station all day, you'll only hear the same song about twice if it's currently popular. Yes, they play a LOT of different songs.
Are you kidding? The record companies are dying to STOP iTunes from giving people just the 1-3 good songs on a CD that they want.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I got very board during a typhoon last year and started fooling around with peercast, icecast and streamripper. The result was a full 60GB hard drive after 4 days of ripping and being completely caught up on the Family Guy (despite being in Japan; thanks saltwater chimp!). I'm sure I'm not the first person to put all the pieces together, but it all came together for me a year ago (I forget if it was before or after my C&D order from my ISP). I ripped multiple streams and what I found was that the volume of material made identification and classification very difficult.
So.... I went out and purchased one of these:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/6313311553364177/
If it's got an 1/8" jack and an audio signal, I can rip it... about the only thing I can't rip is car radio, but who the fsck would want to rip that?
Bottom line is that both the hardware and software methods are completely legitimate ways of recording the music that are directly analogius to the fair use rights of taping radio stations.
What I would like to see is someone apply the Cocain Auction Protocol at Layer 3 using Multicast and/or Peercast... and then modify to streamripper to feed the cast... might was well feed the various P2P networks with the cast as well to cause general confusion. They guy working on modifying DNS quries to search/seed BitTorrent feeds was on the right track, but the bottom line point based servers of any type are vulnerable. The idea of subverting, in innocuous but useful ways, one of the protocols responsible for holding the Internet together appeals to me for some odd reason (and that reason would be named "Freedom").
BTW, I'm still looking for a bluetooth throat microphone. If anyone know of a good source....
From what I've been reading, the idea is ripping isn't always 100% (crossfades, DJ's talking, bad cut's etc). Use ripping to find stuff you like... and then the software enables you to actually BUY the things you want to listen to more. The software itself isnt' selling the music. It'd be like recording off of FM, liking a song, and being able to tell your old tape deck "hey, I like that... let me buy the CD"