Icecast - Aug 2004 - [fred@vonlohmann.com: Re: pho: How Live365 fights back...]

This is a mail in response to streamripper being threatened by legal
action from Live365.  The DMCA strikes again.

jack.

----- Forwarded message from Fred von Lohmann <fred@vonlohmann.com> -----

Delivered-To: jack@localhost.cantcode.com
Delivered-To: jack@icecast.org
X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.onehouse.com: majordomo set sender to
owner-pho@onehouse.com using -f
X-Sent: 31 May 2001 19:05:59 GMT
Reply-To: "Fred von Lohmann" <fred@vonlohmann.com>
From: "Fred von Lohmann" <fred@vonlohmann.com>
To: "Jack Moffitt" <jack@icecast.org>, <pho@onehouse.com>
Subject: Re: pho: How Live365 fights back...
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:18:39 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Precedence: bulk

1. I agree with Jack's sentiment -- Americans who tape the radio don't
think
they are breaking the law, and the same goes for those who save streams.

2. Now what the law *actually* has to say about taping from the radio is a
complicated subject, as it happens. If you do it with an analog cassette
deck or MD player, it's legal (17 USC 1008). If you do it with a computer,
well, who knows? AFAIK, a court has never addressed the fair use argument in
this context (partly b/c the RIAA has no incentive to litigate in this case,
which it would likely lose).

3. But, after the passage of DMCA's section 1201, a court may NEVER reach
the fair use question for digital streams. According to at least one court,
all you have to do is embed a "no copy" bit in your stream (even if
the
stream itself is unencrypted and in the clear), and anyone who builds
software that ignores the bit is liable for unlawful circumvention, *even if
the recording would otherwise have been fair use.* See Real Networks v.
Streambox, 2000 WL 127311 (W.D.Wash. Jan.18, 2000).

Anyone want to venture a guess on whether Live365's <smirk>
sophisticated
<\smirk> anti-copying measure, detailed below, qualifies as a
"technological
protection measure" under 1201?
>Live365 put a large string in one of there HTML files
>that reads:
>
>// DEFINITION clegg n - large swift fly the female of
>which sucks blood of various animals [syn horsefly,
>cleg, horse fly]
>
>repeated about 100 times. they did this to over run a
>buffer in my html parsing code, thats why streamripper
>crashes.
If Real's "no copy" flag qualifies, I don't see why
Live365's html wouldn't.
Ah, how I hate DMCA section 1201!

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Moffitt" <jack@icecast.org>
To: <pho@onehouse.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: pho: How Live365 fights back...
> > I think it's unfair and inflammatory to call the copying of a
digital
stream
> > analgous to the analog taping of analog broadcast radio.
>
> I think it's also unfair and inflammatory to misuse 'digital'.
>
> For streaming applications, and for most practical storage, digital
> copies are not exact copies of the original, but lossily compressed
> ones.
>
> Sure they can be infinitely recopied without loss, but they still
aren't
> as good as the CD.
>
> And even if they were, or if radio broadcasted sending raw audio
> digitally, I WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE COPIES.
>
> Streamripper and similar tools are perfectly legitimate tools that have
> perfectly legitimate purposes.  I find these things most often used by
> the broadcasters themselves to make archives of their broadcasts, since
> a lot of the broadcasting tools out there don't do this for you.
>
>
> The intent behind using streamripper to save a stream you like, and
> taping a broadcast from radio, is the same.  And both _should_ be
> protected by fair use, to hell with what the DMCA says I can or cannot
> do.
>
> jack.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>
> To send a message to the list, email pho@onehouse.com.
> To send a request to majordomo, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put your
> request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
> To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put
> "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.

To send a message to the list, email pho@onehouse.com.
To send a request to majordomo, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put your
request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put
"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.

----- End forwarded message -----

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

k' then.
now our problem...
We have (in the netherlands) a site which has the top 100 singles in Real.
We have the copy bit on, still Warner wants us to only stream 30 seconds of
each song.
Even worse, our on demand 'radio station', which has thousands of songs
on
request is threatened too.
Any idea how we stand?

Maarten

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Moffitt" <jack@icecast.org>
To: <icecast@xiph.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:21 PM
Subject: [icecast] [fred@vonlohmann.com: Re: pho: How Live365 fights
back...]
> This is a mail in response to streamripper being threatened by legal
> action from Live365.  The DMCA strikes again.
>
> jack.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Fred von Lohmann <fred@vonlohmann.com>
-----
>
> Delivered-To: jack@localhost.cantcode.com
> Delivered-To: jack@icecast.org
> X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.onehouse.com: majordomo set sender to
owner-pho@onehouse.com using -f
> X-Sent: 31 May 2001 19:05:59 GMT
> Reply-To: "Fred von Lohmann" <fred@vonlohmann.com>
> From: "Fred von Lohmann" <fred@vonlohmann.com>
> To: "Jack Moffitt" <jack@icecast.org>,
<pho@onehouse.com>
> Subject: Re: pho: How Live365 fights back...
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:18:39 -0700
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
> Precedence: bulk
>
> 1. I agree with Jack's sentiment -- Americans who tape the radio
don't
think
> they are breaking the law, and the same goes for those who save streams.
>
> 2. Now what the law *actually* has to say about taping from the radio is a
> complicated subject, as it happens. If you do it with an analog cassette
> deck or MD player, it's legal (17 USC 1008). If you do it with a
computer,
> well, who knows? AFAIK, a court has never addressed the fair use argument
in
> this context (partly b/c the RIAA has no incentive to litigate in this
case,
> which it would likely lose).
>
> 3. But, after the passage of DMCA's section 1201, a court may NEVER
reach
> the fair use question for digital streams. According to at least one
court,
> all you have to do is embed a "no copy" bit in your stream (even
if the
> stream itself is unencrypted and in the clear), and anyone who builds
> software that ignores the bit is liable for unlawful circumvention, *even
if
> the recording would otherwise have been fair use.* See Real Networks v.
> Streambox, 2000 WL 127311 (W.D.Wash. Jan.18, 2000).
>
> Anyone want to venture a guess on whether Live365's <smirk>
sophisticated
> <\smirk> anti-copying measure, detailed below, qualifies as a
"technological
> protection measure" under 1201?
>
> >Live365 put a large string in one of there HTML files
> >that reads:
> >
> >// DEFINITION clegg n - large swift fly the female of
> >which sucks blood of various animals [syn horsefly,
> >cleg, horse fly]
> >
> >repeated about 100 times. they did this to over run a
> >buffer in my html parsing code, thats why streamripper
> >crashes.
>
> If Real's "no copy" flag qualifies, I don't see why
Live365's html
wouldn't.
> Ah, how I hate DMCA section 1201!
>
> Fred
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Moffitt" <jack@icecast.org>
> To: <pho@onehouse.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:07 AM
> Subject: Re: pho: How Live365 fights back...
>
>
> > > I think it's unfair and inflammatory to call the copying of a
digital
> stream
> > > analgous to the analog taping of analog broadcast radio.
> >
> > I think it's also unfair and inflammatory to misuse
'digital'.
> >
> > For streaming applications, and for most practical storage, digital
> > copies are not exact copies of the original, but lossily compressed
> > ones.
> >
> > Sure they can be infinitely recopied without loss, but they still
aren't
> > as good as the CD.
> >
> > And even if they were, or if radio broadcasted sending raw audio
> > digitally, I WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE COPIES.
> >
> > Streamripper and similar tools are perfectly legitimate tools that
have
> > perfectly legitimate purposes.  I find these things most often used by
> > the broadcasters themselves to make archives of their broadcasts,
since
> > a lot of the broadcasting tools out there don't do this for you.
> >
> >
> > The intent behind using streamripper to save a stream you like, and
> > taping a broadcast from radio, is the same.  And both _should_ be
> > protected by fair use, to hell with what the DMCA says I can or cannot
> > do.
> >
> > jack.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
> >
> > To send a message to the list, email pho@onehouse.com.
> > To send a request to majordomo, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put
your
> > request in the body of the message (use request "help" for
help).
> > To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put
> > "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>
> To send a message to the list, email pho@onehouse.com.
> To send a request to majordomo, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put your
> request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
> To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put
> "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> --- >8 ----
> List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
> icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
> containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
> Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
>
>
--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

from what I understand, and I have a bit of personal experience on the 
matter :) , Live was not as concerned about the "streamripping" as
they
were about the unauthorized interaction with their website.   Streamripper 
had to do this in order to get the song titles, and they didn't like the 
idea of someone circumventing their "playlist window" which from what
I
understand was one of their money makers....

now don't get me wrong, this does not mean that they were all too happy 
about the actual saving off of the streams, I'm just saying their
"legal"
description of the suit (as far as I could tell) was more concerned about 
the behind the back website interaction...

o a more interesting question is who owns the actual broadcast...I'd say 
there are many people who use 3rd party bandwidth to stream their station, 
do these parties have a right to prevent access to the broadcast because 
they are doing something they find offensive ?

and is it wrong for someone to save off a stream to listen at a later time 
? I think not, otherwise there would be a lot of unhappy TiVo users out 
there...

also, I do not necessarily believe that Live was really the ones behind 
this "legal action", although being paranoid about these thing is not
good
kharma...

oddsock
At 02:21 PM 5/31/2001, you wrote:
>This is a mail in response to streamripper being threatened by legal
>action from Live365.  The DMCA strikes again.
>
>jack.
>
>----- Forwarded message from Fred von Lohmann <fred@vonlohmann.com>
-----
>
>Delivered-To: jack@localhost.cantcode.com
>Delivered-To: jack@icecast.org
>X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.onehouse.com: majordomo set sender to 
>owner-pho@onehouse.com using -f
>X-Sent: 31 May 2001 19:05:59 GMT
>Reply-To: "Fred von Lohmann" <fred@vonlohmann.com>
>From: "Fred von Lohmann" <fred@vonlohmann.com>
>To: "Jack Moffitt" <jack@icecast.org>,
<pho@onehouse.com>
>Subject: Re: pho: How Live365 fights back...
>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:18:39 -0700
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
>X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
>Precedence: bulk
>
>1. I agree with Jack's sentiment -- Americans who tape the radio
don't think
>they are breaking the law, and the same goes for those who save streams.
>
>2. Now what the law *actually* has to say about taping from the radio is a
>complicated subject, as it happens. If you do it with an analog cassette
>deck or MD player, it's legal (17 USC 1008). If you do it with a
computer,
>well, who knows? AFAIK, a court has never addressed the fair use argument in
>this context (partly b/c the RIAA has no incentive to litigate in this case,
>which it would likely lose).
>
>3. But, after the passage of DMCA's section 1201, a court may NEVER
reach
>the fair use question for digital streams. According to at least one court,
>all you have to do is embed a "no copy" bit in your stream (even
if the
>stream itself is unencrypted and in the clear), and anyone who builds
>software that ignores the bit is liable for unlawful circumvention, *even if
>the recording would otherwise have been fair use.* See Real Networks v.
>Streambox, 2000 WL 127311 (W.D.Wash. Jan.18, 2000).
>
>Anyone want to venture a guess on whether Live365's <smirk>
sophisticated
><\smirk> anti-copying measure, detailed below, qualifies as a
"technological
>protection measure" under 1201?
>
> >Live365 put a large string in one of there HTML files
> >that reads:
> >
> >// DEFINITION clegg n - large swift fly the female of
> >which sucks blood of various animals [syn horsefly,
> >cleg, horse fly]
> >
> >repeated about 100 times. they did this to over run a
> >buffer in my html parsing code, thats why streamripper
> >crashes.
>
>If Real's "no copy" flag qualifies, I don't see why
Live365's html wouldn't.
>Ah, how I hate DMCA section 1201!
>
>Fred
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jack Moffitt" <jack@icecast.org>
>To: <pho@onehouse.com>
>Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:07 AM
>Subject: Re: pho: How Live365 fights back...
>
>
> > > I think it's unfair and inflammatory to call the copying of a
digital
>stream
> > > analgous to the analog taping of analog broadcast radio.
> >
> > I think it's also unfair and inflammatory to misuse
'digital'.
> >
> > For streaming applications, and for most practical storage, digital
> > copies are not exact copies of the original, but lossily compressed
> > ones.
> >
> > Sure they can be infinitely recopied without loss, but they still
aren't
> > as good as the CD.
> >
> > And even if they were, or if radio broadcasted sending raw audio
> > digitally, I WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE COPIES.
> >
> > Streamripper and similar tools are perfectly legitimate tools that
have
> > perfectly legitimate purposes.  I find these things most often used by
> > the broadcasters themselves to make archives of their broadcasts,
since
> > a lot of the broadcasting tools out there don't do this for you.
> >
> >
> > The intent behind using streamripper to save a stream you like, and
> > taping a broadcast from radio, is the same.  And both _should_ be
> > protected by fair use, to hell with what the DMCA says I can or cannot
> > do.
> >
> > jack.
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
> > This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
> >
> > To send a message to the list, email pho@onehouse.com.
> > To send a request to majordomo, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put
your
> > request in the body of the message (use request "help" for
help).
> > To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put
> > "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>
>To send a message to the list, email pho@onehouse.com.
>To send a request to majordomo, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put your
>request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomo@onehouse.com and put
>"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>
>--- >8 ----
>List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
>icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
>To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
>containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
>Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

> Even worse, our on demand 'radio station', which has thousands of
songs on
> request is threatened too.
> Any idea how we stand?
Threatened?  I don't believe it.  It's mine, and every consumers right
to copy things as we see fit for personal use.  You are not threatened
by this.  

The DMCA is an abomination of a law.  It will be stricken from the books
in due time.

Warner can say nothing about streaming audio.  They are required to
provide you a statuatory license if you meet the requirements, and
streaming in .wav format can still meet the requirements.

As for on demand stuff, you're in nebulous territory anyway.

jack.

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'icecast-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.