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?"
Actually this really sucks when ripping from DI.FM... I find that it cuts the song off too early, and starts the next song too early.
The one time I let it rip a channel for an entire day and ended up with every song being useless, unless I play it back in the same order DI did, as a good 3 second shift occured in every song compared to the ID3 tag being broadcast... pain in the ass!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
What's the equivalent app for ripping the audio/video feed from Windows Media player?
I don't expect Internet Radio to dissappear. It isn't illegal like P2P sharing copywritten songs. If anything they might become regulated and get comercials but I really doubt it will dissappear.
Evolution or ID?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Unlikely, because bandwidth is more limited, as you've a central point that has to transmit the data. The only way it can work on an unlimited basis is by multicast, but ISPs won't enable it - evil, sick b******s that they are.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You just have to find the right channel.
When congress was trying to get web radio to pay royalties, my favorite station was acting funny. So i setup a box to rip the entire library. took a week, but I got 6 gigs of music, none identical.
Now when i hit random play my radio station comes back on the air.
just for the RIAA, I have been buying the songs slowly through second stores. You won't ever see my money.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
"CD's? Bah... Who needs 'em! They cost twice as much as the cassettes and LP's, and you've got to be some kind of music nut if you think you can actually hear that much of a difference. Besides that, you're just going to end up making a tape of it anyway so you can play it in your car."
Ah... Them memories... <sigh>
As long as the commercials have recognizable ID3 tags that I can delete (spam filter for your stream ripper?) Then I would still be happy. =)
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!
None of the radio stations on iTunes are of sufficient audio quality to replace purchased (AAC or otherwise) music, in my opinion. They have some very good stations with awesome music selection, but it isn't exactly a free music library. On the other hand, the quality may be better than most mp3's on kazaa (they all tend to suck for some reason compared to my ripped CD's, even though I use the same bitrate.)
Alright, I have to reply to this one.
Yes, there are p2p applications that do prevent tracing. There's MUTE, which seems to have promise, although it's not particularly well documented. There's also GNUnet , which seems to be really intelligently designed, but I have no idea how well it works in practice, I don't think it's ready for mainstream use yet. And of course, freenet with FROST , but it's as slow and unreliable as the rest of freenet.
Ultimately, I think we can all agree that anonymous internet, especially filesharing, is coming and is going to render the RIAA's efforts useless.
As far as stream ripping, however, I think the idea was just that you could leech mp3s all day long and make a collection of whatever the stream is playing, not as an anonymous way of getting specific mp3s you want.
radiolover for the mac allows you to shift the cutoff point by whatever amount to rectify this situation. I'm sure there are comparable solutions on other platforms.
harmonious design
"because their albums sounded better than the crappy copies"
You just have to love the RIAA's arguments. Remember the anti piracy bit they had on the beginnning of video movies. In Australia it went like this:
"Have you ever owned or rented a movie that wasn't quite right... poor sound and picture quality... " (I can't remember the rest).
They argued against copying back then because the quality was reduced and would "harm" their reputation as the viewers enjoyment was reduced.
Nowdays, they argue against copying because they quality is the same as the original (in theory).
They can't argue thay you can't make copies because it reduces the quality and argue that you can't make copies because the copy is as good (in theory)
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
I've been using rippers exclusively for a while now. The problem is that the shoutcast stations monitor for stream rippers now and will ban me if i'm caught using one.
Does anyone know of a ripper or modification I could use to circumvent this? I'm using a ripcast 3 ripper and have tried their newer version 4 as well.
And as to quality I've been quite happy with what I've gotten in the past & I have trouble finding other sources for the Raggae music that I like.
Why not just rip from CDs borrowed from friends (or the library)?
Let me guess, you support the RIAA?
The reason I don't do this is because I have no clue what/when/where I'm going to find something I like and chances are my friends don't have them. If i just rip the stream, then I can find the songs I keep hearing on the radio and find out who they are since it seems like the radio never says who the bands actually are.
This means I can then in turn by the CD of that group (since I now know who it is) and rip a better quality song.
see what i'm getting at.
Royalties for broadcast go to artist through ASCAP and the other groups like that, not RIAA,
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
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
He's talking about sticking a separate tape recorder next to an independant radio, and recording the output of the speaker. What it sounds like you did, and which I did as well, was use an integrated radio/tape recorder.
And yes, I have a cassette deck next to my computer, hooked up to my sound card's line out. My car is getting kinda older, so it doesn't have a CD player - never bothered to get one. I record MP3s from the computer onto the cassette deck, so I can use it in the car. I use Type II cassettes - I was too cheap to buy the Type IV 10-15 years ago, whenever it was that I last bought one. I've just reused them over the years, taping over old radio songs, and tossing them when they wear out.
Type I and Type II have a drastically different frequency response. Type IV is only slightly better than the Type II, in my opinion.
Hmmmm... maybe I should consider building a Line In for my car cassette deck, so I can hook my portable MP3 player directly into it.
Dave
FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
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!"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.
Now that we can get digital copies they are sorely afraid.
They should be afraid because their business model has not changed over the past decades. I want more content for my $.
I recently purchased a CD for $12 that came with a live concert on DVD. I think this is a great idea. I doubt that the larger labels would do this because they could sell the two items seperately and make more $.
Are you listening RIAA? I am happy to spend my money but want more content.
"Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the Stream-ripping software will be found illegal under the DMCA as a technology that enables piracy..."
Wouldn't that mean that all of the software, even back to the BIOS would be illegal? Seems like a large daisy-chain to me...
The BIOS allows the installation and operation of hardware, the hardware allows the installation and operation of an operating system, the operating system allows the installation and operation of the offending software.
Heck, the hardware manufacturers allow the installation of the BIOS. What's next, suing computer retailers for aiding piracy?
Worse and worse? What kind of file-sharing apps are you using? I'd say since the days of napster the networks have become larger, with more files (although not nessecarily music anymore). And now have features that Napster couldn't even imagine. Take E-donkey for example, Razorback2 currently holds up to 600,000 clients, napster mustered ~8,000 if I remember correctly. Multiple download streams, hash checks, corruption handling, etc. About the only thing that has really suffered is speed on some of these networks, which goes back to the point that these networks often aren't transferring just music anymore. So available bandwidth is more often than not being sucked dry by movies, software, and other larger items.
I also highly doubt that 20 cents a song will ever happen. Or at least not as long as you need a bank to process the cash transfer.
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.
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
I do wonder exactly how much money they RIAA has spent on copy-protection, DRM and like technologies.. also on commercials, publications and other 'propaganda'?
They use figures to describe how much piracy hurts their profits.. I wonder if that includes their investment AGAINST piracy? Should seem fitting for the RIAA that it does.. because I'd imagine it's into the billions by now.
What about a real estimation of the damage piracy inflicts? I'm wagering in dollars, it's far less than the amount spent to stop it.
Hmm?
256kbps Chillout stream
They're out there, you just gotta find them.
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.
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
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!