Doesn't this prove that a stream is the same as a download?

[DC-Choppah]

So http://www.getlinksoundcloud.com is not affiliated with sound cloud. Yet they give you the ability to download anything on soundcloud.

Hmmmm

Folks on this forum have heard me say many times that a stream is exactly the same as a download. And therefore, the folks who distribute music through streams owe the same mechanical royalties as a download, not some arbitrary tiny fraction.

This clinches it (for me at least). I mean now anybody can do it with a click of the mouse.

I'm sure the same technology could be used for any streaming site.

Anything that is streamed can be trivially downloaded too. The value is the same.

[VOLOVIA]

yes, this reminds me of a very naive (stupid?) man that a few years back run out of his download allowance within days of his monthly quota. He complained to the provider saying "I don't ever download, put I listen to the BBC radio", "no, I don't download movies, I just watch them from YouTube", etc.
It was made clear to him that 'watching or listening live', i.e., streaming, is the same as downloading, probably even more bandwidth consuming. And yes, that was me...

I have also discovered that all my Soundcloud files and YouTube videos are available to download from many website mirrors from around the world.

However, there is nothing any of us can do any longer. I repeat the tired fact: if something can be digitised it automatically becomes free for all. Still, yesterday, but I lost the link, I stumbled across a singer-songwriter's website where she advertises anything to do with her music, available in a plethora of platforms, from USB keys to 10 types of vinyl, CDs, etc. you name it. Signed copies, demos etc. Then her equipment, pedals, accessories, all signed. Finally, all kind of personalised gigs, including 'private home concerts'. And all clearly priced, all inclusive, credit cards welcome.

Even the great Allan Holdsworth uses this: http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/allanholdsworth.

In short, recordings, on their own, done in a bedroom and placed on any websites hosts are inherently free for all. But money can be made, even more than in the past, by those who will make it a business, leave their bedrooms and go live where s/he can sell hard copies, push the music to soundtracks, etc.
Basically, and I end, my songbook for one, is on the web as a way to make my music available to others to listen too (it's my hobby, I don't 'need' money from them), and to promote my (rare) live outings. Sadly, I have no backing of a major to engage a professional producer, top musicians, mixing, mastering etc. So, why should I charge people for listening to my views on life while I have fun on my guitar? Hoping to make a pound every time anyone stumbles across my tune in Indonesia and listens to more than a couple of seconds of it, is a very wishful (and lazy) thinking indeed... And the likes of 'produced' artists can make fortunes nowadays from TV appearances, summer festivals, merchandise, etc. etc.

I see Spotify as a radio, advertising ones wares, for free. If they make money out of it, good to them. I discovered so much great music just listening to the weekly "New for You"...

[DC-Choppah]

I have also discovered that all my Soundcloud files and YouTube videos are available to download from many website mirrors from around the world.

However, there is nothing any of us can do any longer. I repeat the tired fact: if something can be digitised it automatically becomes free for all.

But wait, free you say? Hardly. Everyone PAYS for their internet access and the internet suppliers have become some of the biggest companies in the world because of their value proposition.

Their value proposition is that they make available massive amounts of content that would be much more expensive to obtain without their service. They are simply distributors.

The users directly pay for this access through their ISP, or through the bandwidth provider (Spotify, Pandora, etc.) or by watching advertising.

So my point is that the content is being used by the ISP and streamers to generate huge amounts of revenue (not free at all).

And since a download is the same as a stream, they are required to pay the full penny rate for each copy that they make use of. It is only because they have argued that a stream is NOT a download, that their business proposition works.

If you say the content is free, you are just giving it away by choice so that the distributor supplier makes the money instead. No problem, that is your choice. But for those that don't agree, the internet business model is a de facto copyright violation.

Arguments that a stream is different than a download are simply wrong.

[chris...]

Yet they give you the ability to download anything on soundcloud.

Obviously, pretty much anything that can be listened to can also be downloaded / ripped / saved-for-later, or whatever you want to call it. That has never really been in doubt. Regardless of what DRM type measures are in place, ultimately anyone can, if they so choose, always record audio from analog leads connecting to the loudspeakers.

But I think this is a separate issue from how people want to consume / pay-for music. Yes, some people prefer to buy CDs or buy WAV/mp3 files to own. But the pay-for streaming model is extremely convenient, nowadays making it the preferred choice for many people. No need to have a load of shelves stacked with plastic CD cases. No need to keep and carefully maintain an electronic "repository" of bought WAV/mp3 files, with multiple hassles associated such as how to make it available on multiple devices, and in many cases the requirement to back it up.

I'm not saying pay-for streaming is the preferred model for everyone, but, it may well be for a significant portion of customers. Therefore, the rightsholders could do well to cater for it - and find a way to make a good job of doing so. History does not generally look kindly on those who ignore their customers' wishes, unfortunately.

[VOLOVIA]

The users directly pay for this access through their ISP, or through the bandwidth provider (Spotify, Pandora, etc.) or by watching advertising.

I agree on everything you say in terms of streaming the same as downloading. The only point I disagree is that sentence, although it's technically true. I still would use internet without any social aspects or downloads, just to keep in touch with the rest of the world and news that I am interested in.

Anyhow, I also agree that if the BBC or RAI (it) allow me to listen to their music programmes for free, and I know they pay substantially higher rates than the likes of Spotify/YouTube should at least pay a comparable fee to 'radios'.

My 'problem with Spotify, for instance, is that they allow me to listen to the music for free, as long as I hear a short advert spot every 5-6 songs. This is very bearable and a smaller break than commercial radio. So, I get a great deal, for free. However, since my CDs are also on Spotify... I suppose I am one of those losers too. Mind you, with the handful of listens that I get I would make no money even if they paid a tenner per play....

You see, in the end I agree with you...

[DC-Choppah]

But I think this is a separate issue from how people want to consume / pay-for music. Yes, some people prefer to buy CDs or buy WAV/mp3 files to own. But the pay-for streaming model is extremely convenient, nowadays making it the preferred choice for many people. No need to have a load of shelves stacked with plastic CD cases. No need to keep and carefully maintain an electronic "repository" of bought WAV/mp3 files, with multiple hassles associated such as how to make it available on multiple devices, and in many cases the requirement to back it up.

I'm not saying pay-for streaming is the preferred model for everyone, but, it may well be for a significant portion of customers. Therefore, the rightsholders could do well to cater for it - and find a way to make a good job of doing so. History does not generally look kindly on those who ignore their customers' wishes, unfortunately.

Right, and I agree 100%. It's all about the music and keeping it flowing.

Please consider the following plan. When you stream a song you like, BAM! the music rights holders get his royalty at the same penny rate as a download. But now that I (the distributor) have recorded your download, the next time you stream, I the distributor don't have to pay the copyright. I am providing a service to you to manage the rights and copies of what you own. That is also a service you will pay for, so I charge a fee for that. That's my job as a distributor. So it is up to me (the distributor) to keep track of who has paid (once) for their download and that each time you re-access, it is already yours. That is exactly what it means to be a distributor. Any legit distributor can give this data for their product regardless of if it is diapers, milk, canoes, or songs.

[DC-Choppah]

However, there is nothing any of us can do any longer. I repeat the tired fact: if something can be digitised it automatically becomes free for all. Still, yesterday, but I lost the link, I stumbled across a singer-songwriter's website where she advertises anything to do with her music, available in a plethora of platforms, from USB keys to 10 types of vinyl, CDs, etc. you name it. Signed copies, demos etc. Then her equipment, pedals, accessories, all signed. Finally, all kind of personalised gigs, including 'private home concerts'. And all clearly priced, all inclusive, credit cards welcome.

Even the great Allan Holdsworth uses this: http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/allanholdsworth.

Oh man , this is sad. He has given in and has decided to give his material away for free. I contend that he has been forced to do this because nobody respects his copyrights. Does he realize that once his digital media is out on the internet that people will scavenge it for free? Nobody is tracking his rights. The distributors who will protect everybody's 'right to privacy (I mean piracy) is actually making money by giving his content away for free. He seems to be clueless about this. Kind of sad really.

All you digital thugs out there. Is this what the promise of the internet really is? Take advantage of naive content creators? Are you proud of yourselves?!?

I remember the early days of the WWW. All the tech developers were screaming that all they needed was free content providers. That's the same desire of any distributor.

The internet is just a distribution system. Let's see it for what it really is.

[VOLOVIA]

Even the great Allan Holdsworth uses this: http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/allanholdsworth.

Oh man , this is sad. He has given in and has decided to give his material away for free.

Sorry DC, you got this wrong: he's not giving anything away but fundraising to have his back catalogue re-released and sold directly to paying customers (probably collectors and close fans), one by one. If any of them will make the tracks available for free afterwards, that's their choice, but I doubt it.

Yet another approach to financial returns from music-making in the age of free-digital access.

[chris...]

Please consider the following plan. When you stream a song you like, BAM! the music rights holders get his royalty at the same penny rate as a download. But now that I (the distributor) have recorded your download, the next time you stream, I the distributor don't have to pay the copyright. I am providing a service to you to manage the rights and copies of what you own.

Right - I guess that would be possible, in theory. Infact, you more-or-less described Amazon "Autorip".

However, in practice many customers seem to like the "monthly subscription" streaming model, and thus it would be good if sensible rates could be agreed.

[DC-Choppah]

Right - I guess that would be possible, in theory. Infact, you more-or-less described Amazon "Autorip".

However, in practice many customers seem to like the "monthly subscription" streaming model, and thus it would be good if sensible rates could be agreed.

Right, the rates fro downloading vs streaming are way out of balance right now based on the erroneous notion that a stream is different than a download.

[DC-Choppah]

Even the great Allan Holdsworth uses this: http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/allanholdsworth.

Oh man , this is sad. He has given in and has decided to give his material away for free.

Sorry DC, you got this wrong: he's not giving anything away but fundraising to have his back catalogue re-released and sold directly to paying customers (probably collectors and close fans), one by one. If any of them will make the tracks available for free afterwards, that's their choice, but I doubt it.

Yet another approach to financial returns from music-making in the age of free-digital access.

OK, maybe not free technically, but a sad, pathetically small amount of money will be made compared to a world not run by the digital pirates. And he has to basically beg for it like a charity. AND, you think it is OK if people post his material for free for anyone to steal at will. Please don't just parse my words for technical precision. Look at the state of how musicians make money now due to the internet piracy proposition. There is nothing inevitable about it. It is a business plan.

Musicians have given up. They have no business sense or backbone. Really sad really.

Come on guys follow the money!

[Drew Stephenson]

**** must. resist. commenting. ***

[DC-Choppah]

**** must. resist. commenting. ***

Passive aggressive?

[chris...]

For a while I subscribed to Apple Music. Then, I unsubscribed. As a result, now, I can no longer play the music I could while I subscribed.

Whereas, if I had downloaded music, instead of streaming it, I could still play it today.

So there would seem to be a difference...

[chris...]

~

[DC-Choppah]

For a while I subscribed to Apple Music. Then, I unsubscribed. As a result, now, I can no longer play the music I could while I subscribed.

Whereas, if I had downloaded music, instead of streaming it, I could still play it today.

So there would seem to be a difference...

I downloaded albums from Walmart a few years ago.- about $300 worth. Now I can no longer play them.

The way that the internet keeps track of which music you have a license for or not is broken all the way around.

Even if you had downloaded your music you would still run into issues trying to play it a few years later.

So once again a a stream and a download are the same.

[DC-Choppah]

For a while I subscribed to Apple Music. Then, I unsubscribed. As a result, now, I can no longer play the music I could while I subscribed.

Whereas, if I had downloaded music, instead of streaming it, I could still play it today.

So there would seem to be a difference...

And of course if you had used a website like the one I linked to, or simply captured the audio coming from your speakers trivially with a freeware, you could have had your own copy free and clear. Yes it would have taken a few minutes work to set up. But that is all that we are talking about. A trivial amount of time.

Frankly it takes me about 1.5 secs to set up my computer to capture anything that is streaming from any site.

[VOLOVIA]

And of course if you had used a website like the one I linked to, or simply captured the audio coming from your speakers trivially with a freeware, you could have had your own copy free and clear. Yes it would have taken a few minutes work to set up. But that is all that we are talking about. A trivial amount of time.

Frankly it takes me about 1.5 secs to set up my computer to capture anything that is streaming from any site.

And there you go, again and again, if something is digitised it can be cloned, not just copied. So, a nice photo on the web, just screen capture it. Music? Much easier.
So in my profound ignorance, I can't imagine a technical mechanism that would stop my soundcard into Cubase 'listening' to the web streaming and making clones. And as you just said, you just need some bits of free software to do that anyway (my nephews has it on his phone!).

If you can hear it on a computing device, it's free and yours to carry and share. NO copyprotect mechanism can stop that. One can make perfect CD copies just 'listening' to a streamed album on Spotify free (and cut out the couple of adverts spots).
There is no way back. The only way out is that recorded music, once is streamed, is considered as 'demos' to sell other wares, vinyl copies, signed CDs, live shows, etc.

Sure, this idea was much easier to accept when streaming was through poor MP3 like quality sound and a case could have been made to buy a 'CD' quality version. But now, especially pop music, streams are good enough quality to satisfy 'normal' listening.

Therefore, my simplistic idea would be to 'force' streaming companies to supply relatively low-quality versions for free, and higher quality for much more money (to feed back to songwriters, producers, etc.). I know, Spotify Premium etc. Does it work? I listen to Spotify free and still sounds very good to me...

[chris...]

For a while I subscribed to Apple Music. Then, I unsubscribed. As a result, now, I can no longer play the music I could while I subscribed.

Whereas, if I had downloaded music, instead of streaming it, I could still play it today.

So there would seem to be a difference...

And of course if you had used a website like the one I linked to, or simply captured the audio coming from your speakers trivially with a freeware, you could have had your own copy free and clear. Yes it would have taken a few minutes work to set up.

However, I didn't do this. Why would I, when it would be:

(1) In reality, perhaps more hassle than you think, to rip all tracks from streaming an album (or albums). Yes, there are tools with options like "auto detect silence" in order to try determine when to start a new file, but this is rarely reliable in practice, especially if the music has quiet sections.

and more to the point:

(2) Completely against the terms and conditions of the service. And presumably unlawful. I could be sued.

So although I could do that, I wouldn't. In the real world, chances are the majority (if not all) people who use subscription streaming do similar. This is where your argument falls down.

BTW, for what it's worth, the reason I unsubscribed from Apple Music was I also have a subscription for another pay-for streaming service, and decided I didn't need two, at this time. As I'm sure you know, there are now quite a few offering subscription streaming: Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Prime. Is Google/YouTube looking at (or already?) doing something similar.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the way this is going...

[DC-Choppah]

And there you go, again and again, if something is digitised it can be cloned, not just copied. So, a nice photo on the web, just screen capture it. Music? Much easier.
So in my profound ignorance, I can't imagine a technical mechanism that would stop my soundcard into Cubase 'listening' to the web streaming and making clones.

Hence the need for copyright laws!

Just because something is easy doesn't mean it is inevitable and we just have to accept it. Folks that argue along the lines you are arguing have simply not thought through what you are saying.

Should all movies and software be pirated for free too just because it is easy? Or do we make copyright laws BECAUSE it is easy?

The only point I am making in this thread is that we currently have copyright laws to protect music online from being pirated. It is required that when someone downloads somebody's copyrighted material for profit, they must pay the penny rate as established by these guys: https://www.loc.gov/crb/

They currently set the penny rate for a download to be much higher (10x) than a stream. I am simply pointing out (and everyone on this thread agrees) that a download and stream are the same thing. Therefore, the penny rate should be the same.

That's all.

No need to launch into defeatist theories of why the penny rate should be 0 just because it is easy to make a copy. That is anarchy.

[CS70]

Folks on this forum have heard me say many times that a stream is exactly the same as a download. And therefore, the folks who distribute music through streams owe the same mechanical royalties as a download, not some arbitrary tiny fraction.

Technically it's undoubtedly the same: the audio stream gets downloaded to the playback device (albeit temporarily, arguably).

Legally, as a customer you're paying for different rights - ownership of a copy (which you can play as many times you like whenever you like) vs. right to play it once there and then.

Whether or not that affects the mechanical royalties and its amount is a bit unclear to me, and (without really looking much) that might stem from the fact that the mechanical royalty definition isn't really that clear or good.

In principle, at least according to Wikipedia's definition, a mechanical royalty scope "is wider and covers any copyrighted audio composition that is rendered mechanically; that is, without human performers:". So that it should apply to streaming is nearly indisputable.

When it comes to the amount, however, when buying a recording (i.e. downloading it permanently) one doesn't have to pay a mechanical royalty every time he/she plays it (privately). The price of the physical medium sort of sums all the payments one should do, forever, but limited to that physical copy (say the cd gets damaged: one has to pay again for another identical one, and thus re-pay the royalties, which are baked into the price).

So in a way there's an argument for a lower cost of royalty paying for a stream, since the cost is not a forfeit sum for all the possible future playbacks, but only for that specific one.

Right now it takes more than 100 streams to equate the cost of a download. Perhaps that number is too high.

All this does not consider technically possible, but illegal, means of course.

[chris...]

They currently set the penny rate for a download to be much higher (10x) than a stream.

10x sounds reasonably plausible. (I'd though it was more than that).

I am simply pointing out (and everyone on this thread agrees) that a download and stream are the same thing.

Eh ?

[DC-Choppah]

They currently set the penny rate for a download to be much higher (10x) than a stream.

10x sounds reasonably plausible. (I'd though it was more than that).

From the document I linked to 'The rate for commercial nonsubscription services in 2016 is $0.0017 per-performance.'

The current penny rate for a download is around $.091 per performance or $.068 for a 75% deal.

So the difference in real practice is a factor of about .068/.0017 = 40.

So the current argument is that it takes 40 streams to be equal to a download.

My argument is that it takes 1. My evidence is the website I linked to in my first post.

The 40:1 number only applies to people who actually collect anything at all. If we factor all the YouTube illegal content, what does this number come out to be on average? But that is a different issue entirely.

You are paying to have access to the song ALL THE TIME. That is what ownership means. It is completely irrelevant if the data for the song exists locally on your phone, or in the cloud. You have been given access to that song any time you want it. You own it.

If you own your car, what does that mean? It means you can drive it whenever you want to. Ownership IS access.

SO the first time you stream it, the distributor pays the full rate. It is up to them if they distribute it again to somebody who has already streamed it - then they don't have to pay again. But that's the distributor's problem. The cost of doing business.

[chris...]

So the difference in real practice is a factor of about .068/.0017 = 40.

Agree - that's too much difference. Hopefully things will improve.

You are paying to have access to the song ALL THE TIME.

Until I unsubscribe.

If you own your car, what does that mean? It means you can drive it whenever you want to.

As I can with a rental car. (And the rental company doesn't charge the full price of a new car to everyone who rents it...).

[DC-Choppah]

You are paying to have access to the song ALL THE TIME.

Until I unsubscribe.

If you own your car, what does that mean? It means you can drive it whenever you want to.

As I can with a rental car. (And the rental company doesn't charge the full price of a new car to everyone who rents it...).

OR, you simply click a mirror site which downloads the song and you now have it forever. You CAN"T do that with a rental car. It is a real object that you must give back. That is exactly why a stream is the same as a download. You have access to it (with a trivial amount of extra work) forever if you want. The distribution system (the internet) is making no attempt to prevent you from owning the song forever, and in fact is encouraging it. The rental car company on the other hand will notice if you keep the car.