| VIP |
|---|
Subscribe to become a VIP member of SST!
· Request More Often
· Unshared Requests
· Request Countdown Timer
· Request Ready Indicator
· Your Request History
· Access To The VIP Forum
· Add More Favorites
:: Click Here To Upgrade ::
:: Give VIP as a Gift ::
|
|
|
|
View previous topic ::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SimonC
Cadet 3
Joined: May 02, 2002
Member#: 76
Posts: 14
Location: Manchester
    
|
 Posted:
Sun May 05, 2002 4:37 pm Post subject: Bans |
 
|
I was wondering what is justification for a ban, and how fair or useful it is. Since I use a dynamic IP it would seem that it would be possible for me to get banned for someone else.
Also, how do you know if someone is ripping a stream? I was struggling with WinAMP on my parents' PC earlier, which seems to have been set up to dump to disc. I wasn't trying to rip the stream, I just didn't know the software (I normally use a completely different OS, let alone player). There would be no need for me to rip the stream, anyway - I've got a lot of what I want to listen to on CD anyway (somewhere!) |
|
 |
Soundy
Cadet 1
Joined: May 05, 2002
Member#: 79
Posts: 3
Location: Burnaby, BC
|
|
Posted:
Sun May 05, 2002 5:30 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
I was kinda wondering the same thing. Granted, Shoutcast is not my area of expertise so I don't know what sort of tracking may be built-in, but it seems to me that it would be difficult if not impossible to detect, let alone prove, all but the most rudimentary, ham-handed methods of ripping a stream.
What really concerns me is the thought that it may be based on an assumption made on connect time or usage - I like to connect to the stream first thing when I get to work and play it all day in the background. Does 8 or 9 hours straight flag me a potential ripper?
And of course, you're absolutely right about the dynamic-IP issue - personally, I have a static IP at work (actually, two full class-D ranges, so nealry 500 available), and a very stable reserved dynamic IP on my cable modem at home (only changes when they reorganize the network), but I have friends on other cable-modem and DSL systems whose IPs change daily. And dialup, of course, is a whole other world.
_________________
MSN Messenger:
soundy106@hotmail.com |
|
|
|
 Morg 
Admiral (Administrator)
![]()
Joined: Apr 20, 2002
Member#: 57
Posts: 428
Location: San Francisco, CA
 |
|
Posted:
Sun May 05, 2002 10:45 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
Shoutcast logs the way people connect in a similar way that a web server does, by showing how the people are connecting (ie, IP address or hostname), and what software they are using to connect (ie, Winamp). When we check through the logfiles and see that people use a certain type of software (ie, StreamRipper) we ban that person.
As to banning IP's, we hope it would not come down to it, but if it ever did, we would have the ability to ban an entire domain (we would only do this in extreme circumstances). Otherwise, we try and work on good faith on the behalf of our listeners.
_________________
“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols |
|
|
|
Caliburn
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Sun May 05, 2002 11:24 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Morglum:
we would have the ability to ban an entire domain (we would only do this in extreme circumstances).
First of all, I like your banning policy. Always fun to see which IP's are banned before I start working ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . But to ban an entire domain sounds a little extreme to me. My ISP uses the same domainname through the entire city. So you would ban a whole city here if you want to ban my domain. I find that a little too extreme ![[Wink]](wink.gif) |
|
|
|
Morg
Admiral (Administrator)
![]()
Joined: Apr 20, 2002
Member#: 57
Posts: 428
Location: San Francisco, CA
|
|
Posted:
Sun May 05, 2002 11:28 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caliburn:
quote:
Originally posted by Morglum:
we would have the ability to ban an entire domain (we would only do this in extreme circumstances).
First of all, I like your banning policy. Always fun to see which IP's are banned before I start working . But to ban an entire domain sounds a little extreme to me. My ISP uses the same domainname through the entire city. So you would ban a whole city here if you want to ban my domain. I find that a little too extreme
As I said.....
only in extreme circumstances. Believe me, I would not ever want to take it that far
_________________
“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols |
|
|
|
JERIC
Fleet Admiral (Proprietor)
Joined: Feb 12, 2002
Member#: 1
Posts: 4939
Location: Richmond, VA
    |
|
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2002 9:17 am Post subject: Bans |
|
Sorry to cause such a uproar about this. Let's see if I can ease some minds...
What is Ripping?
In internet lingo it's usually means extracting media from its original source. In this case, people have been using devices to essentially download the stream into their own mp3 library.
Why are you banning "Rippers"?
1. Is is Illegal
2. It is Immoral
StreamingSoundtracks.com is not a file share utility. We want to suppport the atrtists and music industry as much as possibe and Stream Ripping contradicts that. If CARP gets their recommendation May 21st it will be mostly because of these theifs.
[I}Does 8 or 9 hours straight flag me a potential ripper?[/I]
No, but I boot people sometimes if they go over 8 hours just to make sure they're still around. It would be pretty inconsiderate to leave the stream open when not actually listening. You could get back right back on after being booted.
I wasn't trying to rip the stream, I just didn't know the software (I normally use a completely different OS, let alone player).
If you find your IP as being banned and you have a good excuse as to why then you may be unbanned depending on the cirumstances.
As far as the whole static/dynamic IP thing. I think we can do a good job filtering out these rippers without many incindents. We'll use our better judgement on who and what to ban and if something comes up out of the ordinary we'll deal with it when the time comes. Try not to worry about this unless you are doing something (as I mentioned ealier) illegal or immoral to StreamingSoundtracks.com.
Thank you for your support,
JERIC
_________________
"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?." -Maximus
Please do not PM me. Use email, Feedback or Contact Us links. |
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2002 12:00 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
<b>1. Is is Illegal</b>
Please show me where I can find laws against StreamRipper/RipCast/etc.
<b>2. It is Immoral</b>
Since when does morality factor into anything? |
|
|
|
JERIC
Fleet Admiral (Proprietor)
Joined: Feb 12, 2002
Member#: 1
Posts: 4939
Location: Richmond, VA
|
|
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2002 12:25 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
1. It is not illegal to use StreamRippers, etc. But it is illegal to rip webcasts that stream copyright protected material. The fact that I even have to clarify that disturbes me. Have some common sense.
2. Since civilization.
_________________
"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?." -Maximus
Please do not PM me. Use email, Feedback or Contact Us links. |
|
|
|
SimonC
Cadet 3
Joined: May 02, 2002
Member#: 76
Posts: 14
Location: Manchester
|
|
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2002 12:47 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
quote:
Originally posted by JERIC:
I wasn't trying to rip the stream, I just didn't know the software (I normally use a completely different OS, let alone player).
If you find your IP as being banned and you have a good excuse as to why then you may be unbanned depending on the cirumstances.
No, I've no been banned. I was merely curious about how it would work. At least I don't think I've been banned - there have been times when I've not got anything, but I've put that down to other problems.
As long as unknown software doesn't cause you any problems I should be safe (I think it reports itself as "WinAMP compatible" by default).
Thanks for clearing this up. |
|
|
|
BabyJP-FU-
Ensign
Joined: May 06, 2002
Member#: 84
Posts: 24
Location: West Los Angeles
|
|
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2002 6:34 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
Let me start off by saying that I don't rip streams from StreamingSoundtracks because I respect the rules and policies of this station. I use to, but that was before I was made aware of the anti-ripping policy. Sadly, this policy shocked the hell out of me because I absolutely love the MP3 format ever since its inception back in 96. Especially now since it's starting to be widely used. I see absolutely nothing wrong with ripping streams when I'm listening to the stream at work, or at off peak hours at home. I love this station, I love this site, and I love the selections here. Unfortunately, I don't have internet connection on the train, or in the car, or while I'm walking or working out. If you haven't guessed it by now, I have an MP3 player. Would I still be banned if I were recording the sounds coming out of my computer straight from this station onto a cassette tape?.. what about a burner? Where do we define this line? The only difference between recording it on tape, and ripping to a hardrive... outside of quality, is probably the amount of work required. But that's what technology is for. To reduce the work. To make things easier... to be able to broadcast, surf, save space, increase efficiency.
You see, I don't think stream rippers are killing internet radio at all, nor will they harm the music industry for that matter. I think the old traditional accepted business model of this industry, and the powerful people who head it are going to kill independent internet radio, and ultimately hurt the music industry more than most people can imagine. I completely believe in generously compensating artists for hearing their music. I want to purchase their products. I want to go to their concerts and buy their 10 dollar posters and 30 dollar T-Shirts. But here's the thing... buying that CD SUCKS!!! I can't believe the only affordable way to compensate artists, outside of concerts, is buying a damn CD. I have the money to get all the CD's of every single artist I enjoy hearing, but if I do that, I'll be knee deep in CD cases. I'd rather have a collection of my favorite songs on my HD, and I would PAY a fair price for that without a second thought. Having all your MP3's accessable from a HD has MANY MANY MANY more advantages than having a collection of CD's on ANY LEVEL. Sure I can buy and accumulate 8 tons of plastic and metal, only to convert them to MP3, and then stack the CD's out in my backyard, but WHY? I know there's something to be said that a CD holds some kind of value.... just like vinyl holds a certain value... or 8-tracks hold a value.. or minidiscs hold a value...well guess what... 10 years from now.... playing that one file I downloaded 10 years ago will have that same value for me, and probably for the new generation of listeners.
Now is it OUR fault that the executive pigs in the music industry are too slow to adapt to new technology? Do we have to be punished for their slowness?... their stupidity?.. their ignorance? I mean think about it, they KNOW their business model is old, and there's no way in hell the model is going to work in the new digital generation. They know this because the CARP proposal is a perfect example that they know. I mean, they're bascially left with two choices:
1. Change the business model to align with, and embrace the new technology such that all parties can benefit(listeners, fans, independent broadcasters, corporations, artists, etc...) from it, OR
2. ABUSE their POWER, and CRUSH ANYTHING that could potentially, ignorantly hurt or dent their monopolistic business, potentially making them miss their payment on their 8th BMW or third mansion in the Hills...AND PASS IT off as "TRYING TO WORK THINGS OUT FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LISTENERS/ARTISTS"
Now since no one in hell can convince me that 99.99% of all major corporate executive officers in the music industry aren't a bunch of greedy scumbags who wouldn't pulverize the little people if they percieve a threat in two blinks of an eye given the chance because their pockets won't get as FAT as if they went with the alternative option because they're too stupid, too lazy, and too SCARED to work for an obviously better solution, I'd have to say the industry is blatantly abusing their power. Sound familiar?...*cough* CARP *cough* RIAA.
Slightly off the subject here, there IS one thing I do agree with CARP, and I believe this plays a VERY important role in compensating artists.. and that's logging in how much air time an artist gets on internet radio and how many listeners are listening. I know there are loop holes and flaws in grabbing this data, but I honestly believe this plays a very important role for compensating artists in the digital environment. All of MTV's artists are nothing until they hit "Double Platinum", or when they sell "5 million" copies of their new album in one week, or has been "No.1 on TRL" for the last 4 weeks, or something to that nature. Who's to say 10 years from now, you won't be hearing something like "10mm downloads" in the past week, or "300 hours of play time" last month when an artist "Breaks Through"?.. I believe this type of data CARP is asking is far more important if not as important to the artist than % of revenue. Don't get me wrong, I also believe that broadcasters with serious volumes of listeners (over x users/time/whatever per month) should be the only ones required, and generously compensated by the RIAA in order to purchase equipment/software to handle this data....the rest can do the %revenue thing. I mean, this type of compensation could bring about manufactured crap like Nsync and Britney Spears into the lime light, but at the same time, it would definitely bring about new fresh sounds and genres to be popular as well. Now I do believe CARP wants the data so they can use it to FATTEN their own pockets, but I also think the data itself will be a very valuable tool in measuring the success of an artist or genre along with other things not mentioned here. All of which would be very beneficial to the music industry.
Back to the matter, I don't see how ripping streams will hurt internet radio at all ESPECIALLY STREAMINGSOUNDTRACKS! I listen to StreamingSoundtracks.com because I LOVE the live stream, I love how I can request songs online, and I love how I have to wonder who's going to play what next and who picked it. I love how I can meet many friendly people and chat with them everyday, and how I can give my opinion on hot issues in the forums....all in one place. Yes I ripped some songs before I was aware of the policy, and I deeply apologize for violating the policy, but I tune into StreamingSoundtracks.com everyday because I love this genre, but it's also because of the design, because of HART, WOLF, EK, SlowMO, Snowy, jkII*, guy, SimonC, etc..... It's just a shame that no other station has the features StreamingSoundtracks has. And perhaps StreamingSoundtracks will lead the way and set the bar to what a REAL internet station should be like. Jeric.. perhaps you can put out your source code to other stations out there? Sigh... if only the fat executive pigs can see StreamingSoundtracks... err... maybe not.. they might pull a 1960's Mississippi lynching on you...
Lastly, until all these models, concepts, and ideas can be put in place to accomidate for the new technology so that everyone can benefit from it, I believe internet broadcasters should still be able to broadcast without being charged per song per listener per instance. And listeners should be able to record what songs they like so that they can listen to it when they're not by a connected PC. Those who choose to do so should be able to enjoy the many advantages and conveniences MP3 format has to offer, and not have to pay an arm and a leg for those services that do offer pay per song, or have to buy cumbersome CD's only to convert them BACK to MP3 format in the first place...THAT'S STUPID!! I'd GLADLY pay a FAIR montly fee to be able to record my favorite stations, but until then I'll comply with the policy. In this respect, I do not believe I'm anywhere near being a Thief or Immoral for conveniently wanting to enjoy the music I hear from my favorite stations when I'm not at home or at my desk.
That's my take on it!!
Anyone is encouraged to comment on this....
-Baby JP{FU} (if you wanna know what {FU} is.. go to www.fuclan.com.. it's not what you think!!)
_________________
-Baby JP "A member since 2001" |
|
|
|
T2
Ensign
Joined: Mar 26, 2002
Member#: 31
Posts: 28
Location: Virginia - Some say a state of mind, not me mind you. ;)
|
|
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2002 11:39 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
Technology to the technically inclined can be good and bad...
if you can afford every cd of the artists you like, then simply buy them, pay a friend or service to convert them all to MP3's of the quality you seek, and then store the CD's someplace.
You see the point is really do you own the music? If not, then any recording of it that you use to get away from having to go out and compensate that artist for their work is wrong.
The morality issue is this.. is it right or wrong? And as such, do others agree with your statement immediately or do you have to shade it in 8 bits of grey?
(8 bit grey = 256 shades of grey)
when you get into the "yeah but" and the "its not like" arguements, you've already left the 1's and 0's behind...
Now if you want to continue the Taping arguement.. lets look at the regular radio industry...
Sunday, a local station WWDC (DC 101 of Wash DC) did their normal 7 sides at 7 program. This is where they take 7 albums or CD's and play them all the way through, no commercials played during a 'side' but inbetween albums they'd take normal breaks.
The idea behind this is that people get a chance to hear more of an artist's album than just the one or two songs that make the pop/top 40 cuts.
I was surprised to hear Pink Floyd's The Wall, but then knew exactly why the station was putting their promo over the softer parts in-between the songs... its so that if we were taping the CD, we would not have an uninterrupted clean (fm) copy of the cd and thus wouldn't have the want to go out and BUY the album.
While I disliked hearing the bumpers (Station ID's) I knew they had to be there to protect the work from people just mass recording the work. Of course in my mind they (dc 101) should have tried to make less obnoxious sounding ones that blended better to the music than hearing "DC101" with a music bed behind it mixed with lightning bolts and some generic rock sounding garble, I mean we are talking The Wall which often has parts that are very quiet and if you've turned up the radio.. you get blasted by the bumper..
But that's it in the nutshell.. I personally understand the desire to record music in ANY form so that you can listen to it when ever you are in a position that doesn't allow for broadcast scenarios, but then again.. that's why you'd go BUY the disks, convert them to MP3's yourself and build your mp3 collection that way.
I'm sure if you argue that you like to hear the mixes mixed as you get from StreamingSoundtracks, you could certainly note the queue from streaming sound tracks, and then play them in that order off your hard drive, but the original work to GET the mp3 is on you.. not StreamingSoundTracks.com
And lastly... Streaming Sound Tracks does NOT know that *you* own every CD you've tried to collect the MP3's for.. and in that they can't verify it in the least without you buying every cd through them directly (which they don't do) and so.. without the absolute proof that you own the work, why would anyone knowingly let you copy the work?
_________________
-T2 |
|
|
|
Wolf
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Mar 06, 2002
Member#: 16
Posts: 448
Location: Right behind you...
|
|
Posted:
Tue May 07, 2002 12:21 am Post subject: Bans |
|
I have just read all the posts above, took me some time, and I can say this:
OUCH! I personaly agree with Jeric, T2 and the rest who are against stream ripping. Just the concept of it, getting stuff for free and not giving any exchange for it, is wrong.
I am really wondering why this is so hard to see for some people. I mean, in life, what would you do to the guy who comes in your house without you inviting him, who lives off your food, sleeps in your guest bed and stays for months, all the while not moving his little finger if you ask him to help you on something or contribute? I dont know about you but I would kick the guy out pronto.
"Yeah, but what has this to do with streamripping, you lunkhead?" I hear you say. If you think the example I gave is unreal, open your eyes. I took it so it would be more real to people. Getting music for free, without paying for it is exactly the same. It is not stealing, there i no laws against it, it is just immoral, plain and simple. How would you like to be an artist and find out that half of the guys on a internet radio are using it to rip your songs so they dint have to buy it? (no offence meant Jeric) I dont think you would like it and this is why I am taking the side of the ones against stream ripping.
I think it is time you guys realize that you have to stop kidding yourselves. Getting stuff for free and not giving an exchange for it is just not the way this world works. Maybe what I am about to say will seem a bit extreme but here it is, the type of persons with this "all free for nothing" motto in their head? Well, the best examples of them are in jail and history is littered with these guys.
Now mind you, I am not saying that everyone on this website is immoral, I really like this website. The best things have happened to me since I found it, I have met great people with great personalities and it helped me get over my fears and get together with the love of my life. To all that I say thanks a million. This website is great and I would hate to see it close down. I think that by adopting the anti-ripping policy, Jeric, Morglum and POP took a hard step but I understand fully why and I will back them up fully on that.
As a last line, a wise man once said: "the day when everyone will trust the other, there will be peace on Earth". This starts by realizing that you wont get trusted easely if you keep getting stuff for free without paying for it. Just take the example of Gladstone in Donald Duck. He gets everything for free with all his "luck" but... do you think he is trusted or even liked as a friend? In my opinion, no.
Anyway, I could go on for hours. I just hope you guys get back to reality.
Regards,
Wolf
_________________
Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering. |
|
|
|
SlowMo
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Mar 20, 2002
Member#: 29
Posts: 390
Location: Ghent, Belgium
|
|
Posted:
Tue May 07, 2002 1:11 am Post subject: Bans |
|
Wow, now this is a LONG thread.
I'm not going to add 200 lines to it, now, my basic thoughts on this subject are :
pro (streamripping):
StreamRipping is a very aggressive word really, it already has a negative sound to it, right? But don't you guys think that it's no worse than taping FM radio? Or recording a clip from MTV on a DVD? The only difference is that it can be digitally detected that you are ripping.
contra (streamripping):
Well, it's simple here, no philosophy or anything, just this : I LOVE THIS STATION. And due to the fact that it can be digitally proven that a stream is being streamripped, I think it is a very bad idea to streamrip this WONDERFUL station... (sorry if my shouting is disturbing).
Wouldn't you feel bad if you knew that you caused the shutdown of StreamingSoundtracks? I certainly would, I'd feel guilty for the rest of my life really...
ps : I don't use Streamripper, in case you wondered. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Well those were my 2 eurocents.
_________________
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -- Gary Larson |
|
|
|
BabyJP-FU-
Ensign
Joined: May 06, 2002
Member#: 84
Posts: 24
Location: West Los Angeles
|
|
Posted:
Tue May 07, 2002 1:14 am Post subject: Bans |
|
T2 -
I completely agree with some of your points. I too believe that artists should be compensated. And I want to point out that this is merely my opinion, and my opinion alone on this matter. I'm not saying what's right or what wrong because that's impossible right now...no solid laws have been set regarding this specific issue.
My point is the recording industry needs to get off their butts and work on another way to compensate the artist in this new era in addition to the traditional ways. I just can't see how the old way of compensating artists (CD-Sales ONLY..outside of concerts are things of the like) benefits everybody, especially the new generation of listeners.
Analogy: If you want to get to Chicago from Minneapolis using the most efficient route, why in the world would you want to take the Greyhound from Minneapolis to LA and then back to Chicago again? Just so Greyhound can get more money in order to give drivers and mechanics their annual raise? No. The problem in this analogy is people figured out a better route: Drive from MSP to Chicago themselves. Why? Because it's shorter, faster, cheaper. Sadly for Greyhound, people figured this out before they did. In this analogy, GREYHOUND doesn't yet know how to charge passengers for their trip from MSP to Chicago without having to stop off at LA because they're a little slow...maybe they're scared of getting lost.. I don't know. The technology is right there to drive people straight to Chicago. Pretty soon you'll have that one guy who says: Hey...why drive to chicago when we can fly there?! Now Greyhound is REALLY SCRWED(And everyone here knows what happens when a big powerful influentual company feels like their getting getting screwed don't we). And thus little people will develop open source software to make flying machines.. to fly, and not drive. Just as the recording industry does not know how to model their business to INCLUDE streams as part of compensating themselves and thier artists, Greyhound does not know how to directly fly passengers from MSP to Chicago.
Sony is a multi-billion dollar business, with a fully staffed Research and Development team. And a dude with cable modem is just a dude with cable modem. Yet... the dude with cable modem still is the first one to broadcast streaming audio via internet, and Sony isn't? Bull.
Sony is lazy and scared that their CD-sales might take a hit, and they won't know what to do because they won't have a business model in place to handle such an event. So instead, suggest some outrages solutions to drive the threat out of business so that they can take over, and monopolize the technology for their own interests while leaving the listeners and broadcasters out in the cold...
The law moves at the square inverse of the speed of technology(Baby JP's Law). Fair honest listeners should still be able to record music from the radio, from concerts, and certainly from internet radio without having to be forced to go from MSP to LA to Chicago, or until a standard can be put in place. Just as broadcasters are free to (and have been free to)broadcast songs for free until CARP and the independent webcasters can agree on a %of revenue compromise.
_________________
-Baby JP "A member since 2001" |
|
|
|
BabyJP-FU-
Ensign
Joined: May 06, 2002
Member#: 84
Posts: 24
Location: West Los Angeles
|
|
Posted:
Tue May 07, 2002 1:23 am Post subject: Bans |
|
SlowMo -
I completely agree with you.. hence why I am complying with the policy. But it just pisses me off that the fat cats in the recording industry are threatening to lynch internet radio in order to have it come down to something like this when you and I both know that there's a better way... a much better way.
_________________
-Baby JP "A member since 2001" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
