Hello,

I'm thinking about streaming musics from my computer, so I and my friends can listen to it.

But I afraid that will be consider illegal, so is there any guideline for such thing? How music store let their user listen to the samples?

Don't adverise it, perhaps? I just slap my Shoutcast link into the IRC channel and let my buddies tune in. Same for them, when they want to itch that DJ scratch. Unless, you're talking about a RealMedia type dealio, where you can click the song and play it -- I wouldn't do that. Just broadcast a little show. I add fake commercials to mine, always gets a laugh from my crew.

Would you consider it illegal to read a book to your kids without buying a copy for each first (or the publishing worlds equivalent to a VLK ) ? Would you tell your friends to cover their ears if you were playing music while they were visiting you? I know those are crap analogies, but as long as you aren't "sharing" the music you're playing, forget about the legal issues.

Rest assured, record companies would charge you "per play" of CD's you've went out and purchased if they could get away with it (and an additional fee if more people were present while playing them.)

It's immoral to steal, but not to share.

It would be interesting to know the legal status of "private" broadcast - i.e., letting only 4 friends stream but no one else. This would not be much different than inviting 4 friends to your home and letting them listen to music - which IIRC is not illegal (but who knows? they may decide to cash in on that as well).

Of course this is purely theoretical, because in practice no one will care - where no one sues, no one gets punished. "Crimes" always rely on being "detectable", so there you go...

Lets assume that they had both the ability to detect you streaming music to your 4 friends, and the desire to sue you for it. What would the damages actually be? Four copies of your music? Is it really worth their time to prosecute something that minimal?

The question is both one of detectability (unless you advertise it, nobody knows about it...) and one of accountability (streaming music to 4 people is nothing compared to sharing music files with 4000 people).

Hell, I'd just set it up and do it and not tell anybody else. Done.

Hmm, interested, I'll set it up...

But, just my curiousity, is there any way to legally distribute musics without being considered illegal? Like distribute it with only 8kbps bitrate (just an example)

Not really. Only defined "fair use" is limited clips for review purposes only. You can, however, start a radio station on something like http://www.live365.com that takes care of paying any playback royalties.

I think it's theoretically possible. Aren't there domains which are located in countries that have no restrictive laws (Palestine?) or simply located where there's no jurisdiction (somewhere in the ocean maybe)? I've been interested in this information myself for a while to set up a website encouraging discussion without any government control. It's getting on my nerves when the hypocritical politicians pass a new law infringing privacy+freedom over internet, which happens quite often these days. I'm curious if anyone knows how this is possible (apart from using freenet).

Edit: I am sure it's possible. See the news article "Techno-Rebels in West Bank?"...

For such things, it is more reliable to wait for distributed anonymous encrypted networks becoming efficient and userfriendly. Hint: wait 1-2years and it will be ready for the public.

Edit: just for the record - freenet is not what i would call "efficient".

I've always figured if I ever got busted for broadcasting music to friends I'd give a good fight in court. Seems to me that an mp3 is not a copy of the music. Seeing as it is a lossy reproduction of the original material. Especially when streamed they are heavily artifacted. IMO mp3 is like copy protection in itself. So if they think I am violating a copyright by allowing friends to listen to a very poor replication of a few songs I think we are all screwed. Thats my opinion anyway. If it's not lossless it's not a true copy and not the same giving out the music for free.

I guess we can discuss this issue without going off topic on this thread.

Freenet, as a concept and underlying principles, looks quite promising to me. It's the current java implementation that's inefficient which causes the trouble. I guess with java compilers it could work. I was running a node a while ago and it occupied so much memory I had to stop.

What else is there? I've heard of Tor, but it's not a network -- just a way to connect to a web site anonymously. Thus there's no anonymous publishing with Tor.

I think I'd argue that it's the mp3 decoder that interprets the stream of bits sitting on my computer as copyrighted music. What if the same stream of bits corresponded to something I typed up on my own? It simply makes no sense that one company has exclusive the rights to a particular string of bits.

The flaw in your logic is that you asume "non-perfect copy == no copy at all". What you do is sending a copy which is inferior to the original - similiar to scanning a piece of art and then giving it away to others. So, mp3 IS a copy - it is just at a lower (technical) quality than the original. By your logic, faking a valuable painting would not be a crime.

- Lyx

While the client-resource-requirements of freenet are definatelly a problem, it is not really java itself which is the culprit. The real problem is its network-algorythm and design as well as current upstream-bandwidth bottlenecks. The first can be solved with better implementations - the second is just a question of time. Freenet usually has response-times of above 60secs - but with better algorythms, response-times of about 10secs are possible(running on a 400mhz, 512mb machine - with a better CPU, it may be less). How do i know? Because i've test-driven newer implementations which also run on java(sorry, i cannot name them because they couldn't handle much publicity right now(slashdot-effect)).

If you live in Germany, you are required to pay a fee to GEMA - at least 25 € per month.

Only if you listen to artists which were stupid enough to sign up with the GEMA (which unfortunatelly are quite many because of misinformation).

They'd put pressure on your uplink provider (probably a US based satellite service if you're in the middle of the ocean) to disconnect you.

Right. If I photocopied the latest Harry Potter book, would I be able to distribute it freely because it is not a perfect copy and therefore not within the scope of copyright?

Plus, in the United States at least, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Napster decision that an MP3 is a copy within the meaning of the Copyright Act.

Very good points. I agree. I hadn't thought of it in other context for some reason. In a way, an mp3 broadcast is like someone with a horrible lisp reading a book to the public; You still know what your hearing, but it doesn't sound right. The whole faking a painting thing is a bit far though since the real well known paintings you can buy are just copies anyway. Its the same reason I won't buy mp3's, the reproductions of a paintings are worth nothing compared to the original, and I feel the same about music. Plus no one is going to be burning a CD from an mp3 stream, so that effectively is not a copy. They might, but unless it's 128kbos or higher I wouldn't recommend it. Either way people are still going to do it and they should just be concentrating putting out more music worth buying rather than the sueing people that don't. Plus effectively by "sharing" music through a private radio stream you may be introducing new people to the product. If thats not fair use then we'll all have to keep the windows in our cars up when listening to music to make sure no one nearby can hear it.

Would it be? Surely not, unless you tried to pass it off as genuine?

Totally agreed, music these days are terribly mastered...

Edit: Correct spelling

And the posts terribly spelled... I'm not trying to be mean but would you invest a few more seconds in your posts and correct?

Uhm, I'm not a native English speaker (I'm from Vietnam)

Btw, I'll pay more attention to what I'm saying (or posting), thanks for your comment

slightly OT, but it should go this way :

I totally agree; music nowdays is mastered terribly / is mastered in a horrendous manner.

(EDIT)Explanation : music is an abstract concept, therefore regarded as singular, thus the use of "is"; the past participle "agreed" would refer to a past action, but your current state of mind requires a present tense. Also, in general, a sentence is more understandable if you do not use split infinitives (to master terribly vs. to terribly master)

Sorry for continuing this side track, but I learned something new and would want it confirmed.

I always preferred the latter construct (mastered terribly) because it's the way it works in my native tongue and I never reflected more over it until now. Is this something that there is general consensus on? That "mastered terribly" is better than "terribly mastered"...?

Hey dudes, this is not an English class

I've just setup the streaming server... but now the problem arise lol... I didn't notice that my music library contain lot of different format, MP3, AAC-LC, HE-AAC, even HE-AAC+PS, some FLAC, some WavPack lol...

Lossless files I have to transcode them, it's ok cause it's not practical to streaming them over the net. But there're lot of other lossy format files that's not practical to transcode them all, too.

What do you think, maybe I should setup a HTTP server and let ppl browse thru the music directories?

Burn onto a DVD and send the files?