technical question about internet radio in SL

the Professor · technical question about internet radio in SL

I think many of you know the answer to this one . . . please enlighten me . . . you may need to correct my understanding along the way.

An SL landowner sets the url to a given media stream. When avatars enter the land and hit the music button, their computers are directed to that stream.
1) I assume that the connection is direct from their computers to the station . . . that SL and LL's servers are not involved.
2) However, is SL being used as the PLAYER? That is, I never notice (for example) iTunes opening on my machine. So SL/LL must be implicated/involved as more than a 100% total pass-through as they are providing the player? That one folds back on #1 above... if SL is the player . .. it can't be a direct connection from my computer to the streaming server/internet station?
3) I assume the internet station is able to count the number of streams that are opened (the number of listeners) . . . but can they differentiate listeners who hit them via SL from web-based listeners?

you can answer here or direct to <ell@bradley.edu> (or both) as you wish. But if we are going to "chat" about it, I prefer email. Thanks
Peace.

RayW

/begin knowledge ...

In my limited understanding ... and I know several of you know this better than I ...

SL sends the LINK of the station to the client. And, of course, it gets that link from the media properties on the parcel of land.

The Client then has a player built into it that uses that info to play the station. But, that client does not have to be an LL provided client, now that it's open sourced. It just mostly is.

So, SL is not playing the music. SL does play ambient sounds, either server-side or client-side. But, not music or video (and with video, the client uses the Apple Quicktime player).

And, yes, internet stations can count the streams open (I have such a display for what's going on with the stream inworld). But, no, they don't know who is listening: be it an SL client or a Winamp on the desktop (completely outside of SL). They may be able to count the people listening on a website and compare their IP address (if they wanted to) to separate the web-based listeners from the others. But, that's as good as it gets. They still couldn't tell if the rest were in SL or someplace else: desktop or some other VW.

/End knowledge ..

the Professor · ray wrote

"The Client then has a player built into it that uses that info to play the station. But, that client does not have to be an LL provided client, now that it's open sourced. It just mostly is. "

If the station is being accessed via a player that is built into SL (though I know this doesn't have to be.... one could use another player), then for that use, although the stream doesn't go through their servers, it's playing through software provided by LL.

correct?

Distilled1

ticious · Re: technical question about internet radio in SL

the Professor · part of the reason for my question

there has been much made about LL having no liability for music . . . roughly, cause they claim to be acting as an ISP that is not responsible for content . . . they make a big deal out of saying that they don't play the music . . . etc.

And stream-wise, that appears to be the case.

However, I think that their provision of the player, within the software in a way that most users would have great difficulty over-riding/opting out of it, would make it very difficult for them to argue pure ISP status in this matter.

Even though the music isn't playing IN Second Life, technically, speaking, the player through which the music is playing is only open on the user's machine when SL is open, is the only player playing the music, is an LL product and plays in concordance with Second Life. Though not using the SL servers at the moment, arguing that they have no role appears to me to be silly and I'd be willing to bet it will not hold up if challenged in court. They are NOT the station, nor are they the music provider. But neither was Grokster.

Distilled1

Prof. I knew this is where you were going, and I concur.

thats why my answer was yes.

IMHO it would behoove LL to just buy an all over blanket License for RIAA music to stream from they're platform.

What a mess really a mess and so new on the frontier that it will take years and years to figure out.
those of us "renting" land (basically a web page in 3-d on a server with certain space) I think at this time even if I stream Pink Floyd 24/7 radio that I produce, the most that will happen are take down notices for the time being... why? most of our streams that are rented are auto set to not public, and the ones that can be set can be set to private as well, witch I feel says they would have to log an av in go to each parcel and check whats playing.

or maybe thats what a lot of the bots are doing?

RayW

One thing I believe would be a stumbling block is that LL would have little idea (at the moment) as to who was listening and who wasn't ... because once they pass the URL on to the client, they are done. They don't know whether the client is using that info or not ... only the source server knows that (be it Internet radio or relay stream).

So, how would LL answer all the questions Distilled raised in his excellent post in another section (on copyright)? I don't think they could possibly give a close guess, much less track the info required by some of the licences.

Radio stations pay license fees based on their estimated listening audience. And, they keep very detailed records of their song plays and revenue. I don't think LL can do any of that.

So, if you guys are thinking LL is gonna pony-up... things will get ugly fast, IMO.

the Professor · virtual worlds are different

Ray,
I agree.
And Distilled, I think you are also correct.

My position is, roughly, that virtual worlds are SO different that we do not yet know how they will work. The questions of whether in-place laws and practices will apply, how, when, etc. are totally up for grabs. Duranske makes this point repeatedly in VIRTUAL LAW (ABA, 2008). In some respects, there is clarity; in others, there are only murky analogies. We won't know most of the answers until suits actually get brought (or take down notices issued) and cases go to court.

I'm not the only one who speculates that Linden Lab, in the end, is not going to get away with most of what they do under the auspices of their user agreements, terms of service, and claims to ISP status. They've already lost a major case that forced them to re-write their TOS (over land ownership); that one's just the tip of the iceberg (and of course, they are not the only virtual world or software game operator). The case they lost in PA potentially compromises ALL software TOS, esp. those in virtual worlds. Contract law is even murkier than is copyright law as it applies to virtual worlds.

Those on all threads who have noted that there currently isn't an appropriate license (so what would they buy and what would they pay?) are absolutely right. There is currently no such thing . . . AND developing one that works differently for virtual worlds or just for SL is going to be challenging, or impossible.

However, there is very little law and there are few business practices that DO flop over to virtual worlds whole cloth. Or they all do. We just don't know. I suspect that someone's going to have to innovate. Virtual worlds aren't RL; they aren't exactly an internet radio station or web site. They blend elements of many new media aspects.

Look. If we just apply the law as is . . . most of the cover artists are probably out of business in SL. But then, if we take that a step further, most of the designers are in trouble for trademark infringement too. Or maybe it's all protected under the 1st Amendment as art or free speech. We just don't know at what point which RL laws are going to be applied, though the courts HAVE been willing to take stabs at it when specific cases have come forward. There just aren't many to go by. None that I'm aware of in the music performance area (or theatre or the arts, etc. So far, only property ownership and copyright violations of graphic and scripted elements).

My suggestion isn't that it would be easy. Nor have I suggested that there's a ready formula. I've simply suggested that if most of the musical performance gets chased out of SL . . . it won't be good for SL OR for the musicians. Given that there's not much left to do in SL (after the gambling and banking leave), I think that it's in LL's best interest to save live music at all costs. There isn't revenue enough in SL to bring in high profile professional musicians with all original material. The mix we currently have is hard enough for venue owners to sustain. I have trouble seeing how they can go much longer without trying to cut a deal of some kind.

I don't think the deal would be based on real numbers. I think it would be arbitrary, and probably temporary. The music publishers would accept X amount, yearly, and see how it goes. At some point, we might get rating services or play surveys or live performers might be asked to submit playlists and venue owners patron counts.... there is probably a viable system for some accounting. But I doubt that can be worked out, front end.

Here's an analogy (gawd, sometimes I hate them). Remember that Congress has, more than once, decided to hold fire on the fact that every computational transaction on the web is a copy . . . almost all of it is illegal . . . if we count what goes on in cache on every machine. Technically, it's all one big copyright violation. In their wisdom (not often), despite advice they got from adherents to strong protection, Congress decided to belay, for now, enforcement on cache copies, in part cause they knew that not doing so would stunt the growth of the internet beyond all measure. There have been case interpretations that put this "cache as illegal copy" issue back on the table . . . we don't yet know how the cases are going to turn out or what their implications will be.

This is what LL and the music publishers need to do. The music industry needs to realize that it has to cut a deal at some point, or risk killing the goose before it can lay the golden egg in virtual worlds. It's to the mutual benefit of LL and the rights holders to craft a viable solution. Maybe the solution is a fee. Or maybe it's just a moratorium on prosecution of infringers in certain specified zones. . . .

I don't want to cry wolf before the sky starts falling.

But I am going to slink off and write some more material. Cause at this point, I can only play about 45 minutes worth of original stuff . . . and that single, short show would get REAL boring after one or two nights. I enjoy being able to play/entertain in SL and I'd like to be able to continue doing that.

ticious

My guess as to what LL is likely to do if pushed on this point is disable the player and leave users to use some sort of open source option or 'plug in' (which actually, I think they might argue is the case now). Live music seems like a big deal to us, but it's barely a blip on their radar. They see marketing (as in corporations such as Gibson), education and meeting space as the big future here. Look at the numbers. 50k on line, less than 500 attending live music events. Also, look at the money. How many sims are there dedicated to music? How many does IBM have?

I still haven't heard any business reasons which LL would be likely to consider compelling for taking on this expense.

Edited to add: Live music vanishing from SL is not likely to have any real big impact on SL outside our little community. Not when so much of SL still doesn't even know we're here. Remember that post in the resident forums the other day where they were wishing it was possible to do what we do every day and a couple were arguing vehemently that the technology doesn't even exist. Very few came back and contradicted them and no one, not one person, came forward to say they attend live music events regularly. A couple musicians posted, but no regular live music event attendees. We don't have the profile needed to make financial demands on LL. Not yet anyway.

Soundcircel Flanagan

why wonder ?

it seems no one is listening ?

ticious

Please don't take my post the wrong way (in re-reading, I realize it can be taken VERY badly).

Live music in SL is VERY important to me and my Second Life would be devastated if it were to go away. I fully intend to do everything I can to keep it alive and help it grow. I'm just trying to point out what it looks like from LL's perspective. It's big to us, very big to us. But not so much so to them. That doesn't mean we should give up, it means we should try harder and we probably need to look to ourselves, not to the Lindens. At least for now, we're the ones that care enough to open our wallets.

Silas Scarborough

Lindens build the infrastructure and residents build the city. They're not going to pony up a dime and why should they.

Kim Seifert

Would be great if LL were responsible. Again, I just don't think they are.

Consider this scenario. A developer decides to build a strip mall. He builds four spaces of varying size and whatnot, makes sure it is all wired, cables going to each space, etc., sets it up to lease out. A tanning store leases one, insurance agency gets another, irish pub moves into one and an individual gets the last one. They all pay their lease amounts to the owner of the building who built and provided the cables and wires for all of these folks to hook their "stuff" into to run their businesses. They are all allowed to do their thing whether that be providing live music, licquor, or just sitting in the middle of their rented space and locking it so no one comes in.

So here is my question. Each place requires different sets of licenses and insurance policies, etc. Who is responsible for obtaining those licenses? The owner of building? Or the lessees?

Soundcircel Flanagan

in holland the people that are hiring the building need to take care of the licenses and insurance.

You cant expect that the owner has licenses for almost everything.

Kim Seifert

It is the same here Sound. And that is the point I wanted to make. LL is renting out pieces of their servers to us to use as we like and they give us a great amount of control over how we use it, to the point of even allowing us to deny access to that rented piece of server to anyone but ourselves. They provide the framework, or the "wires," but we put in the urls of streams, or "radios."

Distilled1

Kim that makes all the sense in the world, just like renting server space for a web site a host etc.

A Question I brought up in that other thread, if this is so and my land is group deeded to the company that holds a blanket license, then any sound on that land "rented server space" should be covered or the stream that also has a license., if the said land is said web sites virtual land?

like the Prof. said its all so new, that there are no RL laws that fit and or maybe they do but it will take courts to decide. (and Prof. Great notes, ideas and comments on that one ) its the same still with the internet in genral (or 3.0 you tube and the like, those cases are just starting, and so far its working in our favor (our I mean people playing live covers of music and posting for free) but that is likely to change if people do not get involved and get informed.

ticious

Kim Seifert

Actually, I believe that LL is the building owner, that the stream url is the "radio station (WKRP in Cincinatti-like)" and the Linden landowner or lessee of a piece of server is the person that puts the radio out in their land or store or club.

Silas Scarborough

Agreed. LIndens aren't liable for a dime and a subset of those who are liable is reading this forum.

Carry Kim's metaphor forward and make all of the sections of the mall Irish pubs with different music going. Who knows if they could work an aggregate license for all of them or they would have to be individual.

ticious

But Kim, isn't the problem with that analogy the fact that, while the stream is plugged into my parcel, and my guests are all listening to it, there may be others listening to the stream, if it's not my stream (in that I'm not the person with admin powers over the stream) others not even SL, over whom I have no control (and may not even know about so can't even provide a count on) unless I have control access to and control of the stream?

I know, this would all have to play out in courts, we don't have answers. But I don't see how a parcel owner can be the responsibility party if they don't have control of the stream. Or is someone else, as in the case of the radio station actually, responsible to pay fees to cover anyone else listening to the stream?

Case in point, Mankind did a show last weekend that was simulcasted to several venues in SL (we'll leave out the fact that he was streaming from Amsterdam, as an unnecessary complication). Would each venue be liable to pay fees individually? And the url was published (at least I think I heard that, and it's often the case in these kinds of events) so there were likely listeners who were not in SL. How are they covered? Only the person with Admin access to the stream can actually say how many people were listening.

RayW

Ticious's point is the true heart of this matter, and why LL is NOT responsible.

The stream may LOOK like it's coming from SL to the person viewing it on an SL client. But, in truth, it is originating from the stream source (the performer/DJ's computer) and being relayed from another source (the stream relay server). After this point, the performance can be picked-up by ANYONE IN THE WORLD!

The whole thing is complicated by the fact that we try to create the illusion of RL in SL. But, are things really happening there?

With a Pub analogy (sorry if someone already said this) it could be like playing the radio or TV (Tele) there. But, I doubt it's LL playing the radio. It would most likely be the venue or land owner ... which could be Governor Linden, but most likely won't be.

Now, some clever lawyer could muddle the whole thing up. But, being just a logical person on this and not a lawyer, I would hope a sensible solution would evolve soon!

Playing of prerecording material is a whole different animal than Live performances. And, the RIAA may have more to say on this. But, for playing material with the agreement of the copyright owner, everything should be cool. I gave up my rights for collecting a fee on several of my songs for RL college radio ... just to get heard by people.

Fyrm Fouroux

Kim Seifert

Tish. In rl, the radio station has responsibilities but so does the club owner that turns on a radio and tunes it in to that station. Thousands of clubs can tune into the same station and each one is individually liable for playing a sound recording in public at their place. Those clubs only have to be licensed to play covered sound recordings. I don't think this applies to sl venue owners that have no commercial advantage but that is just my opinion.

Live performances are not playing covered sound recordings that are owned by the record companies that would have a vested interest. Live performances make derivative works and therefore, even if you could argue that those performances are recorded for the time that it takes to put it on a server temporarily and rebroadcast for all to hear, the rights to the new sound recordings made are owned by the performing artists and original songwriters. A license to perform covers in this regard is the license to perform musical works, not play sound recordings. It is my belief that the stream owners are liable for that.

So with respect to live music in SL, it is my belief that stream owners are liable to pay fees for performance of musical works and the live performers are then covered and so are the sl venue owners.

With respect to streamed music that is prerecorded and those sound recordings are owned by record companies, it is my belief that the stream owners are liable to pay for a license to play sound recordings and sl venue owners may or may not be liable to pay for licenses as well based on the structure of their business.

I speculate (and I emphasize speculate because this is not something that I have researched in depth nor discussed in detail with credible sources), that a sl landowner would be liable if he used a radio at his place of business where he is making a good amount of money. On the other hand, if a sl landowner is playing music from a radio and has not paid the radio station or charged a fee to listen to that music and has no commercial advantage there, then I think he is exempt. But again, this part of my analysis is pure speculation. - Edited to clarify that this paragraph pertains ONLY to sound recordings owned by record companies.

the Professor · a few quick points

I think that some of this misses the point a bit.

1) RL analogies may or may not apply at all in virtual worlds. We just do not know. RL analogies are often how one tries to figure out what laws and practices apply . . . and in the end, everything RL might just flop over to virtual worlds. But we don't know that.
2) US law may apply to SL (given the location of it's servers). But there is a HUGE amount of internet case law that shows that venue and jurisdiction are NOT set, taken for granted, or fixed. Venue and jurisdiction are contested in these spaces, so, again, assuming that US law just applies, by analogy, isn't "sure," (though it IS what we often work with here).
3) I have NEVER EVER EVER said or implied that Linden IS RESPONSIBLE. The degrees of their legal responsibilities for stuff (for that matter, the responsibilities that any provider of virtual worlds has) are all highly contested issues. There just isn't enough legislation or case history, either, to be sure how terms of service, click-through contracts, codes of conduct, etc., are going to hold up in US (or any other) courts over the next decade or two. Right now, virtually every user agrees to everything cause they don't read much of it and the provider of the software is totally in charge as contract law often trumps IP law. But cracks are starting to appear in that facade, some even at the case level.

With regard to paying the license freight for (especially) live music . . . I've suggested that it is in Linden Lab's best interest to see that cover artists are able to continue providing entertainment in SL and that the venue owners who host them are able to continue their businesses. I think that if standard fees were assessed to those venue owners, most of them would either go out of business or not hire people who play covers. The result of either of those outcomes would, in my view, deal a crippling blow to the range of available and enjoyable social activities in SL . . . I think it's a risk that LL should not take. I am NOT as clear (in my head, for me) about what LL should do concerning internet radio stations that get played inworld. I sort of suspect that they are going to have to operate by whatever rules and practices the FCC has set up for internet radio, modified (0r not) by accommodations for virtual world considerations. I DO NOT have a proposal for internet radio. My comments and proposal only apply to what we know and participate in as "live music performances."

btw: more Senate hearing s on internet radio today: Senate panel to debate radio rules, royalty rates
Associated Press 07.29.08, 6:16 AM ET
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/29/ap5263613.html

Kim Seifert · Re: a few quick points

DjaiSkjellerup

Soundcircel Flanagan

/me steps out of this dicussion cause his head hurts and he has a holiday

To complicated for me.
If Gary Moore, John Miles, Nickelback or Marillion wants to sue me,
be my guest....

I dont have money anyway.

Laughing

Cher Harrington

ticious

Fyrm Fouroux

DjaiSkjellerup

Wow that's such an informative post for me and I hope useful for others. Many thanks Fyrm I owe you one Smile

Fyrm Fouroux

You are very welcome Djai - it is such a pity we didn't get to meet at the Oxford gig that would have been this weekend Sad

Soundcircel Flanagan

/me steps in again cause he doesnt understand it

so if i understand it correctly, the stream owner is liable ?

i don't believe that ?
sounds really weird.

think about it ?

maybe this works with applications that can be controlled, like youtube or P2P sites ( allthough it would be hard to do )

but a stream owner has NO control over the content.

i could sign a contract with them where i promise that i dont do anything to inflict with copyrights, but as soon as i start streaming i could do anything i want......

they are just providing a service, you cant blame the guy that sell a hammer that you can use it to slam somebody in the face.

Kim Seifert

Sound. Stream owner as we have used it means the person who owns (and uses) or rents the stream from a stream provider. For instance, I rent a stream from an entity. I use the stream how I see fit, I control the password, who uses it, etc. I am responsible just as a real life music venue would be responsible. It is essentially a stage and I have the keys to open the door to the hall. However, the entity I rented it from (the actual owner of the stream) is not liable. So in strict terms, the stream owner is liable unless he rents the stream to someone else and then in that case, the stream renter is liable. I have been using the term "stream owner" pretty loosely and had not clearly defined how I was using it causing confusion.

Edited: Perhaps a better term to use would be "stream controller," whether that be a "using" owner or a renter.

ticious

And as the guy who rents the stream, yes, I do have control. If you get on the stream and do something contrary to what we agreed, I have the ability, with a single click, to shut you down. If I'm not given this authority by my provider (the stream owner from whom I rent the stream), I might have some legal recourse or it might just be a case where I should find myself a different provider who WILL give me the tools I need to protect myself.

Speaking strictly my case and the stream I rent from the provider I rent it from, yes, I have this access.

Soundcircel Flanagan

ah i get it Smile

/me sits and waits for the claims to pop in.....

can't wait to be honest,
i mean we talk about this, but im curious to see what would happen....

Soundcircel Flanagan

addition :

then the venues could be off the hook.

Dont have your stream ?

then the artist would have to hire one and they are liable then.

ticious

There is definitely potential that that could become a much less amicible situation than it has been in the past.

But I'll tell ya what my guess is. This whole topic will once again die down and we'll have this same conversation again in a few months.

technical question about internet radio in SL

ray wrote

Re: technical question about internet radio in SL

part of the reason for my question

virtual worlds are different

a few quick points

Re: a few quick points