Stream ripping of popular music services like Pandora, Spotify, Rdio and others might be a serious threat to the future success of the music subscription model.

The music industry has been forced to reinvent itself thanks to the Internet. Ever since Napster first appeared on the scene, consumers have been finding ways to get their music for free, at the detriment of recording labels and artists. One answer to this issue has been the subscription music model: Services like Spotify, Last.fm, MOG, and Rdio are compromises between a market that is searching for profit models and customers who simply won’t spend what they used to.

How well this new business model works is up for debate. Indie artists say they’re getting ripped off by such services, and some established musicians won’t allow their music to be sold this way. Selling access to music rather than selling the commodity is a very new idea, and one with its drawbacks and benefits. While in the case of most services consumers don’t actually have ownership over this data, it has largely been linked to cutting down on piracy.

Still, there are always ways around this. Via stream ripping, users are still able to pirate music, even within what are supposed to be safe harbors for artists.

And Spotify is one of the services to fall victim to the tool. The site is still relatively new to the U.S., but sites like SpotifyRipper and dozens like it give users a loophole in the system so they can get their music for free. Using applications like ReplayMusic, they can record from the service to access the music offline.

“This is a grey area as the concept has not been tested in court,” according to the SpotifyRip website. “However it’s legal to record from Internet radio and it could be said that Spotify is a type of Internet radio.” Still, the site admits this is against Spotify’s user policy. There are such services available for a variety of applications, like MOG and Pandora. Developers are actively making and selling software to help consumers (of every tech skill level) grab and keep their music.

“Stream ripping is nothing new and there are a number of cheap and free software tools available online to enable this activity,” says Mark Mulligan of Music Industry Blog. “It has been a risk of streaming services for years. The reality is that stream ripping will happen, but I do not consider it to be a major risk.” He says that while many services are user-friendly, all metadata is stripped from the files, so the process itself can be time consuming.

“That is not to say this isn’t a problem for Spotify, it is,” he says. “But it is much less of a problem than issues such as hitting profitability, creating long-term financial viability, [and] competing with other streaming services.”

Music industry analyst Kevin Erickson also says that while Spotify has legally covered its bases with its terms of service, stream ripping can still hurt it. “If SpotifyRip becomes popular, then the press will not be favorable. Spotify claims to have stopped piracy (or reduced it) in some markets, so that claim will go out the window if SpotifyRip makes inroads.”

While it’s seemingly not a major issue, it could continue to give streaming services an uphill battle with record labels. Google Music has had trouble getting all four major companies on board with its application, and Spotify’s launch was delayed because of contract negotiations. Back in 2007, the RIAA said stream ripping wasn’t a threat to the industry, but that it hoped technology to prevent it would be adopted to circumvent the issue altogether. Of course music consumption has undergone vast changes since 2007, and it’s looking like the powers that be didn’t fulfill the RIAA’s plan, and the notion the industry would bypass stream ripping entirely was in vain.

There seem to be endless hurdles on the road to an artist-profitable, consumer-centric music market. Stream ripping has been happening for years without much concern, or mainstream users being aware of it, but the increasing popularity of the subscription platform could seriously change that. If stream ripping were to become a more popular activity, new services could have trouble getting off the ground.

Spotify could ultimately serve as a cautionary tale for this: “[It] could begin to receive pressure from the labels to close the tech gap in the platform to counteract the SpotifyRip technology,” Erickson notes. If it becomes a big enough problem, labels will start to turn toward services that have prevented or are taking steps to prevent stream ripping. 

It also means that consumers have a loophole at their fingers. Authorities have known about stream ripping but either thought that technology would eventually disable it or that the music model wouldn’t lend itself to it. But the opposite has happened, and that means that yet again there’s a small window for music lovers who want some ownership over their digital content. 

Showing 13 comments

  1. Matt Aalto at 2:37am 8th January 2012 I love the Home Depot analogy. Let's not talk about guns either. Lord knows if we show people how to shoot them something bad could happen. People will do what they want to do regardless if an instruction manual is provided. I personally like the article, and I respect the feedback both ways.
  2. Damon Schmitt at 11:19pm 7th January 2012 Also, if this article is a how-to piece that encourages piracy, then by stating that high nitrate fertilizers can be cooked to create explosives - I have just taught you how to make a bomb, and therefore encouraged terrorism.If that is the case, then you endorse and teach murder any time you demonstrate your knowledge of how to use a fork and knife. How dare you.
  3. Damon Schmitt at 11:16pm 7th January 2012 Pretend it doesn't exist. Censor yourself. Shelter the public. Cowtow to 'authority'. OBEY.<3
  4. Jesse Wilson at 10:46pm 7th January 2012 By linking to them, you put the ripping services in front of more eyeballs and give them Google juice. So yes, ignoring them is the most responsible thing to do. I think piracy would be a much bigger problem if mainstream media were frequently directing their audiences to torrent websites and programs. I think Spotify would appreciate you removing this section: "sites like SpotifyRipper and dozens like it give users a loophole in the system so they can get their music for free. Using applications like ReplayMusic, they can record from the service to access the music offline."
  5. Digital Trends at 10:44pm 7th January 2012 Jesse Wilson Let me know how I can edit the article to compromise both sides. I am open to changing it.
  6. Digital Trends at 10:35pm 7th January 2012 Jesse Wilson This isn't even close to a how-to piece. We interviewed music industry experts about piracy and explored its impact on services like Spotify. Do you want us to ignore this altogether and pretend it doesn't exist?
  7. Jesse Wilson at 10:12pm 7th January 2012 I think it's disrespectful, rude and unprofessional to publish something that teaches people how to break the law more easily. Some things you just keep to yourself on behalf of the greater good. Otherwise, what stops you from posting step-by-step guides on downloading movies, music, ebooks, audiobooks and software for free? And blocking ads, jailbreaking and stealing apps while you're at it? By putting this out there, DT has lost its neutrality, taken a side, and promoted piracy.
    1. TechFreak at 2:54pm 7th January 2012 @Jesse - I couldn't disagree with you more. By asking the media to ignore the problem, it will just let people continue to steal music. If a news organization says that terrorists are using materials from their local Home Depot to build a bomb, that doesn't mean people are going to go out there and do it.Free speech my man. I don't recall any newspapers ignoring Limewire, Bittorrent or the other sites out there. Why is this different? Spotify should just sue the Spotify rip website or go after the software used to record it.
      1. Jim Mutdosch at 5:49pm 7th January 2012 I can see your point but also Jesse... I think the better thing to do was to talk about it but not give links or say what the name of these services are.
  8. TechFreak at 12:01pm 7th January 2012 So it looks like no meta data is brought over from the rip/recording. But you should be able to split up the stream into tracks, (or simply stop recording and start between each track you play), and then when you go to add it to iTunes or WMP, iTunes will ask you to help find the artist info. Then you just need to search the online iTunes database and tell iTunes what it is right?Sure it will take some work, but it's free music and the bit-rate is still high enough to sound great.
  9. TechFreak at 11:59am 7th January 2012 I remember back in the day using a Winamp plugin that let me record live streaming of some of my favorite DJ's and techno artists. I would then burn the stream to a CD and voila, 1-2 hours of my favorite artist uninterrupted!
  10. Jim Mutdosch at 11:15am 7th January 2012 I don't think so..People do this on Ditrectv and Dish. But most customers pay. I enjoy Spotify and music streaming services because it's easy and requires no work. I think the majority of the people feel the same way. Now if they start raising prices that could change.
    1. TechFreak at 12:02pm 7th January 2012 I don't think most people would do this either, but there are that Bittorrent crowd that I can see doing this. They would use the free service and just steal the tracks they want right?
Close Suggestion Unlimited listening on Spotify will vanish for U.S. early adopters next week
View Article