November 15, 2004
Downloading Internet Radio
This Hiawatha Bray article (via Frank) brings up a really important point. At some point soon, it may be necessary to revisit the wall between audio streaming and downloading. People can record audio streams all they want, and, even if it’s illegal, it may be very difficult to stop. Moreover, given how the sound recording compulsory license for non-interactive steaming services, radio stations can acquire licenses without having to use copy-protection. (Note: I am not sure how the composition ASCAP/BMI licenses fit into this, but it appears their terms do not require such copy-protection either – look around, you’ll find people streaming in MP3 format.)
17 USC 114 has two interesting clauses in this regard. 114(2)(C)(vi) basically says that streamers can “take no affirmative steps” to enable recording and should restrict such activity to the extent is able to do so. 114(2)(C)(viii) states that streamers cannot interfere with “technical measures that are widely used by sound recording copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works.”
Nothing here seems to requires streamers to use an encrypted format. I’ve wondered whether these clauses would get dealt with in court, or whether we’d end up seeing an amendment to mandate DRM use to get the compulsory license. Because, the Internet radio compulsory license couldn’t get any messier, right?
As Bray points out, this is another area where social norms and expectations are incredibly out of line with copyright. Most people I’d bet think recording and permanently keeping copies of TV programs is totally legal. Maybe, but I’d bet not, in that they’d be regarded as superseding a purchase. With Internet radio, a copy is ending up on my computer in some form – whether you call it a stream or a copy, the bits are on my computer. Yet I can only acquire those bits on the condition that I not render them in a permanent state to replay them.
Can norms reach this level of complexity? Can technology fill the gaps? Open questions I will have to get back to another day….
Filed by Derek Slater at 8:37 pm under General news
2 Comments
This is the bind I am in. Years ago I became sick of the unoriginal bands of america and went looking for better music. What I found was trance mixes. Trance music is just another genre which is somewhat like Tencho, but with a lower BPM. Trance mixes on the other hand are hour long mixes of these trance songs. They are made by DJs, generally located in europe. What is signifigantly different between the mixes and the songs is that a mix might only use 10s of a song, or the full amount; but irregardless, they don’t simply play back the original song. They heavily modify it, play other effects overtop it, etc etc. The result, at least to my ears, is some of the most incredible music I’ve ever heard.
Now here is the problem. I can only listen to this stuff on internet streamed radio. It’s not available for purchase in stores, let alone in the USA. I have to stream it from Swedish or UK radio stations and save it to mp3 format. Would I buy it if I could? Sure thing. Is it available for purchase? Nope. So I’ll continue to stream-and-save.
Derek… I’ve been back-reading a bunch of blogs lately (in pursuit of my own! http://www.paultopia.org/blog/ ! Link it, learn it, love it!), but this struck me…
“Most people I’d bet think recording and permanently keeping copies of TV programs is totally legal.”
Isn’t it? I say it has to be. The Sony case is directed at the making of recordings, and held that time-shifting is ok, of course. So the only thing that can be illegal is the “permanently keeping” bit.
But doesn’t the first sale doctrine, plus the basic premise of copyright law that copying is the wrong, imply that, absent a clear statutory command to the contrary, once you’ve made a legal copy, you can do with it what you will? (Absent, of course, making another copy.)
Sony time-shifting + First sale doctrine = recording and permanently keeping copies of TV programs is totally legal.
Non?