Slashdot Mirror
Webcasting and the DMCA
nknouf writes: "A recent article on Salon talks about how college radio stations that webcast could face fee increases from $623/year to $10,000 to $20,000 per year. What's more interesting is information that Congress is considering a bill called the Music On-Line Competition Act, co-sponsored by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. The bill aims to "break the hammerlock the recording industry has over music distribution." My favorite quote, from Rep. Cannon: Napster is "one of the coolest inventions of modern times.""
Finally, they picked on a user-base large enough to pick back...
I sincerly hope this signals the beginning of the end...
More permanent link to the Music Online Competition Act
HR 2724.
Mmmmmmm
Since the link to the bill is dead, here are some links to pdf copies of it:
Digimedia.org pdf
house.gov pdf
A summary of the bill here at house.gov
And the google cached version here
There if you can Slashdot all of those, we deserve a collective cookie.
Too bad the link to the bill is already broken, I would have liked to have read it.
OK I did a search and found a PDF copy of the bill HERE. Also found a site to organize support for the bill, it has a form to send your representative an email. Since Cannon is mine, I guess I'm already OK on that one. However, I have been pretty unhappy on his stance on several issues in the past, hopefully he won't drop the ball on this one under the intense politial pressure of the RIAA.
Enigma
Great... one dead link, the other one links to page 2 of the article. Have you /. editors ever considered checking your links before posting a story?
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
For instance, consider the following scenario: radio stations N and L, located in New York and L.A., are owned by the same person. N webcasts their content (for free, under the old regulations), and L rebroadcasts it. Why wouldn't L get to rebroadcast it for free, considering that everybody in L.A. already has access to it? ASCAP is there for a reason: the more you distribute the music, the higher the price, because: the more you distribute the music, the more you can charge your advertisers.
There is a time and a place to bash the RIAA but let's choose our battles a little more wisely, okay?
Bill
How many people could these webcasters REALLY reach? If everyone in LA listens to a station at once that's fine, and you have millions of listeners - but since the practical reality of many webcasts is one of limited bandwith, perhaps pricing (if any) should be reflected based on how many simultaneous users could really listen at once.
The other thing to consider is how many of the artists a station is playing are really going to get a piece of that ASCAP pie. If all you're playing is experiminetal stuff, why should ASCAP get anything from you? How about a pool composed of exactly the artists played, that seems a lot more fair.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some of my favorite stations have been college radio stations. My personal example is WSOU, Seton Hall University's station in NJ. There's no way I can hear them w/o webcasting anymore because I've moved across the country.
Poor record companies - no one sympathizes with their "dilemma". The Internet has revolutionized music and it's about time they realized that the more they make access to music difficult, the less people want to buy their music, and the more people will find other ways to get it.
Some of the more interesting music I've heard has been on college radio. Treat an academic institution's radio station like an enterprise is beyond disgusting. The best part of college stations is that their playlists are often less strict, and much of what gets played wouldn't fit into the "mainstream", or even a format, for that matter. It's way better than having a radio station pump their "Heavy rotation" down my throat.
try this
God damn, I'm so tired of this. Please, take my karma, I don't care.
2001-12-14 16:50:32 dmca and college radio stations (articles,news) (rejected)
This is like the 3rd or 4th damn time this has happened to me. In the beginning I submitted stories because I loved the site and what they'd done with it and wanted to help them. And then that feeling faded away, and I submitted stories because I cared about helping make sure that important news was seen by all the like-minded people who come here. Now I wonder what I even bother anymore at all, cause they'll just reject whatever I submit anyways.
From the interesting stories I have submitted and had shot down, I realize there must be so many great stories out there just waiting to be told, and the only thing holding us back is that we have no way of getting them to the audience because the powers that be decide that Bozo the wonder toaster powered by Linux is more interesting than people getting arrested for the first time in the world for using File Sharing clients (in Japan, look it up) or anti-cancer molecules which self-reproduce. Pisses me off.
I wish there were someway I could read through the submissions directly, and cut those worthless editors, with their inane, poorly-written comments, right out of the process since I could really give a damn about those little biased blurbs they throw on the end of each post. What would be really great would be to see the same moderation applied to comments applied to articles, or to see each rejection or acceptance by an editor labeled with a numerical value that he decides, and we can choose the level at which we want to browse articles, just like we can do with comments. Of course, for them to implement either of these might require them to take time out of their busy schedule of randomly picking marbles out of hat while blindfolded to choose which stories they post........
...is to recognize the nature of their audience and the utility of the Open Audio License. All of the colleges I am aware of have a significant population of aspiring musicians eager to be heard, as well as many young, fresh minds open to listening to something other than what "Mom and Dad" listened to at home. So you have willing producers and open consumers, and the Open Audio License allows the college radio stations a way without fees to bring them together.
In such an environment, a college radio station should actively promote the Open Audio License and encourage student musicians to release their work under it -- and then give it plenty of airplay (it costs them nothing). Open Audio might not work well in some markets (i.e., those where listeners expect to be given what the music industry convinces them to listen to via advertising), but I can imagine no market more prime than college radio.
No Laughing Allowed!
Hell with that.
We need a "Music Competition Act." On-line, off-line, on-air, whatever: the problem is that the music mafia -- let's start calling them by their true name -- have their greasy, pudgy fingers wrapped around the throat of every artist, choking the life out of them.
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels? It's because they want ownership of the music they create, control over the production process, and aren't willing to whore themselves out to the mob any longer.
The only ones who stick with the bigname labels seem to be the ones that are just manufactured puppet bands: the boy/girl bands that pump out mindless pap for the gullible teenage market. Without a mobster's hand up their ass, making them perform their puppet moves, these glam-bands wouldn't be able to make a living wage, so they're forced to stick with their masters.
But there are legitimate artists who have been strung up by the puppeteers. Binding contracts that guarantee their whoredom for many years, loss of ownership of image and name, mounting debt because the mafia loaned them the money to become successful and demand payment back.
We need a Music Competition Act that cuts the hands off the music mafia. It's currently not plausible, if not completely impossible, to break into the music market without sponsorship of the mafiasio. Let's change that. Let's make it so that artists don't have to whore themselves to make a buck.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Well, clearly, you failed your civics class in school, but let's recap:
Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal government authorized under the Federal Constitution. It creates legislation and can, either in cooperation with, or independently from, the President, pass it into law. The Constitution enumerates a number of powers to be granted to the Congress. One power is the ability to create copyright laws.
Note that they're not REQUIRED to do so! Congress could abolish copyright tomorrow, and it would be perfectly within their authority.
Furthermore, within a few broad Constitutional limits that would not be applicable in a scenario where Napster et al are legalized, Congress can set up copyright laws however it likes.
The first Copyright Act, passed in 1790 by the First Congress only granted copyrights to books and maps that met certain criteria. (e.g. the copyright had to be applied for and approved, had to be held by an American, etc. IIRC) Do you claim that they were acting illegally by creating this law? If so, what law could a law-making body be breaking?
If Congress legalized Napster and its ilk, they wouldn't be advocating the violation of federal law, but encouraging people to exercise their free rights. Free and frank debate about the worth of our laws is the only way to improve them. Nothing wrong with doing a reality check and seeing that people aren't happy with the status quo.
Our government's pretty damn well good, all things considered. It's been stable for a few hundred years whilst remaining rather free, and that's definately an achievement.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
On a slight side note, it can be agrued that Congress was only given the power to CREATE a copyright law, not change it. While this may spell bad news for the legality of the current bill being debated, it also makes the extensions to copyright illegal, which I think serves a much greater good.
What, have teens started voting or something?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
greasy, pudgy fingers wrapped around the throat of every artist, choking the life out of them.
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels
Which is it?
IMO, it's closer to the former; there may be plenty of independent studios and labels producing excellent music but something is preventing them from getting wider exposure. It isn't lack of quality, so is it unfair competition from the bignames?
Mmmmmmm
Um, I hate to say this, but could somebody translate this bill into english for me?
...to spite their face. Most commercially successful records are first played by college stations. Also, many niche genres get their start on college radio! Those stations, mostly independent and with no commercial axe to grind benefit the record companies much more then I think they truly realize. To bite the hand that feeds you is pure stupidity! But then again when I see the arrogance of Hilary Rosen and her ilk I'm not surprised at all.
Isn't it about time the college radio stations said, "Piss off, RIAA, we're only playing non mafia-sponsored music from now on"? "KBBL: RIAA free and damned proud of it." The first radio station that has the balls to do this will get as much donation money as I can afford. -Legion
The link provided by the esteemed Slashdot authors gave me the following:
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
When Hitler got elected, it was with only 40% of the people voting. We are getting dangerously close to that here now.
hmmm...
Reality has a liberal bias
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/12/13/colle ge_webcast/print.html
And it is a bit easier to read as well.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I recently ran into this snag about 2 months ago. My band was playing live on a community radio station in St. Louis (www.kdhx.org) and of course I wanted our fans and friends of mine to listen in, so I sent them I link to the radio station. I remembered the radio station had a live web stream and figured listing online was the easiest thing to do.
As I came to find out, the radio station recently (Like 2 weeks before hand) was forced to shut down their web-stream (a shoutcast server) because the RIAA had threatened to sue them unless the station paid the RIAA some obscene amount of cash (around 500K) to comply with this new charge thanks to the DMCA.
So let's think about this for a second -- My band (unsigned) cannot be heard by our fans because the RIAA thinks they should be getting money from music streams over the internet, in turn, my band playing (not signed to an RIAA partnered label).
What pisses me off the most is comments about the artist deserving the cash, yadda yadda yadda, so the RIAA somehow deserves this cash. That's a bunch of horseshit. I'm obviously not receiving any of this cash for my records being played on the radio, nor my live performances on a station.
In case you didn't know, the RIAA's been screwing the independent musician for DECADES. Take recording for an example: most independent musicians use small 4-track cassette based recorders to put record their music to sell at shows, give to stations, etc. But did you know, ALL blank cassette tapes have a RIAA tax attached to them? So when I buy a blank tape, not to copy a RIAA CD, but to record myself, I give the RIAA around 10%-30% of what I paid for the tape! To record *MY* music. Now they want to start taxing CD-R's, and hardrives. Go to hell guys.
Listen, I'm pleading with all of you -- if this stuff makes you angry, don't just boycott RIAA bands, support non-signed/non-RIAA bands! You don't even have to buy stuff, just go to shows, download free mp3's, anything -- just give the underdogs a chance. It's the last thing the RIAA wants. It's not about controlling their copyrighted materials, it's about controlling music -- who hears it, and what they hear.
"The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
democracy? who said anything about democracy? this country has never been one and will never be one.
it is a republic.
- The decision to change WSOU's format was submitted to WSOU from the executive cabinet of Seton Hall University in the form of a letter. The letter stated that the administration of Seton Hall desired the current "hard rock" format be dissolved by January 1st. This decision was by no means decided by the WSOU staff. Meetings are currently being held as to the future of WSOU. We will keep you posted on any new events. Thank you for your continued support of Seton Hall's Pirate radio.
Looks like WSOU's playlist just got a LOT stricter.All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Jamie Zawinski wrote a most informative rant on the labyrinthine regulations and pitfalls that potentially face anyone wishing to Webcast. As he owns and operates the DNA Lounge nightclub in San Francisco, which does its own share of Webcasting, the man has definitely done his homework. Definitely worth a read.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I live in VA. Rick Bouchers home state and have spoken with him about MOCA. While the RIAA and the recording labels spend millions to buy the congress, one thing has been emerging.
Your Congressperson and Senators need your vote MORE than they need the RIAA cash. Washington is about maintaining power, without the votes there is no cash, no lunches, no trips, no chance to make a difference. Make it clear to your congressperson that you support MOCA and as a consitutant of his you expect him to vote accordingly, not that of special interest groups such as the RIAA.
The text of the Music Online Competition Act can be Found Here . The MOCA is a even handed piece of legislation the strives to fix some of the roadblocks brought about by the DMCA, but faces a uphill battle. Congress is reading their e-mail these days, write, specify the topic in the subject line Music Online Competition Act, and as much as it pains you be nice. You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
or you could try to help build other sites like RadioFreeNation.net or GlobalFreePress.com, or AlternateNews.com, or SmirkingChimp.com, etc etc etc
The point being is that maybe one percent of people reading will even post a comment, and a lot less will submit a story. so when there are hundreds of submissions, there is a plenty good chance that someone will post it before you. It is again a scalibilty issue
Then you have to see if one of the editors will like your write-up or not. Or if it confuses them, or does it entertain them enough, etc.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I've had four stories posted out of five submitted. It's all about the writing. The all-lowercase title does not bode well for the writing style of your submission. You might want to work on that.
A lifetime of trolling has honed my writing skills to a fine edge. In fact, I believe that at any given time I could get a story posted on the front page withing 12 hours of deciding to try. So, quit whining and learn to write.
Oh, it also helps if you don't submit the same fucking things everybody else is submitting.
MOCA was co-sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat. A bi-partisan bill which is needed if it is to have any chance of passing. The RIAA spreads its money across the board, Republican's or Democrats, it doesn't matter. The RIAA is losing a lot of credibility on Capital Hill after the USA Act fiasco
just because a something is a law, it doesn't mean that it's right. not to oversimplify or try to reach too much, but remeber that whole civil rights thing a little while back? A lot of things were illegal then that are legal now, and that's because people openly defied those unjust laws.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
I would hate for this to happen, I mean college(and university) radio is about the only decent channels on the radio. Although I do like some top 40 radio but I usally find it to chatty and repatitive*cough*nickelback*cough*.
Plus most college radio stations are already working on what preety much amounts to a shoe string budget. Combine this with the low power transmiters most of them have(which means sometimes webcasting is the only way to get it if you don't live on campus) this could be a deathblow.
Theres one problem with reflecting your reality, sometimes your reality starts to reflect you.
Go to the main legislative search page and put "HR2724" in the search box.
The FBI is made up of humans, like you and me, trying to make it in the world they have chosen.
The FBI isn't against left-learning and liberal thinking.
The FBI certainly contins some alternatively oriented employees.
The FBI is made up of international (born maybe), highly trained/skilled people.
Conspiracy is fine, but lets not get away from ourselves. There is no them.
Which is why theyr're so much more then regular CD roms. The radio station I work for uses audio CD's for archiving shows and commercials... The commercials have NO copyrighted music on them (we pay big bucks for our own custom created musical content for commercials) and any music that gets recorded is already covered by the station's blanket copyright (5% of GROSS revenues)yet we get taxed TWICE.... The music industry IS a CARTEL...who has managed to bribe congress into doing whatever they WANT them to do!
I dug around in Google's new USENET cache and found the first post of Godwin's Law.
you should read your diffs before posting them.
EXEMPTION.--Section 110(7) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking "(7)" and inserting "(7)(A)"
(2) by striking "by a vending establishment" and inserting "or of a sound recording by digital audio transmission, by or in a physical vending establishment"...
How is a congressman supposed to review this? Do you expect them to look up the context around every change? Legislators have many patches (excuse me, bills) to review, so you should help them out by using a --context or --unified switch in your diff command.
If your bill is unreadable, the reviewer is less likely to catch bugs, accidental loopholes, or unintentional stray changes from another bill you were working on in the same tree. Of course, if the bill contains "accidental" loopholes and "unintentional" stray changes (note scare quotes), I suppose it makes sense to try obfuscate your bill, but don't whine when the reviewer says "please attach a unified diff".
The shareholder is always right.
if you like internet radio, take a look at this. Damn sweet:
http://www.beosradio.com/tunetracker/
The version 2 is in devellopment and should be released soon.
In particular, I'm thinking of a system where anyone can broadcast audio (or even video) streams semi-anonymously. Listening nodes automatically forward the stream packets to each other, meaning that only the nodes directly adjacent to the source know who/where it is, and only those nodes use any of its bandwidth.
Such a system could be as scalable as "real" radio, since the bandwidth available increases with the number of people listening, and it could be lawyer-resistant enough that the RIAA couldn't stop it (similar to how they haven't been able to stop mp3 file trading).
Time to start coding I guess
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
But if we could browse articles at rejection levels, or we could browse articles through article moderation, like I suggested, these wouldn't even be issues
In that case, you would love a Scoop site such as Adequacy or Kuro5hin (which WILL be back up by Monday).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Slashdorks can agree with any politician as on as they support the theft of intellectual property
The U.S. Constitution recognizes it not as a birthright but as a tool "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8) "Copyright" is a misnomer; it really should be "copyprivilege". The law doesn't recognize intellectual "property" as property at all, especially considering how it treats transfer of exclusive rights. Copying another's work isn't termed "theft" but merely "infringement" on a government-granted privilege. Besides, with enough storage space, I could generate and store every melody in the book or at least a melody confusingly similar to every melody in the book (thus killing practical trademark law).
Will I retire or break 10K?
How is a congressman supposed to review this? Do you expect them to look up the context around every change? Legislators have many patches (excuse me, bills) to review, so you should help them out by using a --context or --unified switch in your diff command.
Ever heard of a diff visualization tool? Those tools take a tree and a patch and line up the before and after versions side-by-side, highlighting the differences. How do you know your congresscritter isn't using one?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Huge... only in that someone representing us is actually representing us!
Although on peripherally relevant to the story (it is to do with the DMCA) I'm a little surprised that this has not had a story of it's own on slashdot yet.
It's on The Register
"Anonymous Coward" wrote: "Telling people it's okay to break the DMCA fosters the same exact disrespect, and its consequence on society cannot be understated."
/. readers) -do- have a great deal of disrespect for the DMCA, the legislators who voted on it without understanding the implications of the law, and the recording industry lawyers/lobbyists who promulgated the whole thing to begin with.
Actually, what cannot be overstated is that a great many (informed) members of society (not all of whom are
More and more people are starting to figure out that we are moving in the direction of a "pay per play" regime and they simply do not like that. People are simply sick and tired of being squeezed for all they are worth and then some.
So all I can say is count on more and more violations of the DCMA being committed in the future. I guess they will have to start releasing some of the drug users in jail to make room for all the coyright violators.
Um, the Constitution? Congress has a law-making authority constrained by the Constitution. That bit of law cannot be overridden by a vote of Congress. (It can be amended by such, but that's not the same thing: the amendment process is spelled out in the document and, when followed, leads to new law under the Constitution.)
My other quip would have been, the laws of mathematics. Remember the state legislature that considered mandating a value of 3 for pi?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
From the bill summary:
(2) for the owner of a phonorecord lawfully acquired by digital phonorecord delivery, or a copy lawfully acquired by digital transmission of a literary work embodied in that phonorecord, to make another phonorecord or copy of such works, if such new phonorecord or copy is for archival purposes only and that all archival phonorecords or copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the phonorecord or copy should cease to be rightful.
Does anyone else find it disturbing that we have to pass more laws to protect established rights like fair use? Shouldn't fair use be able to defend itself? As a programmer, I believe in writing the minimal efficient code to achieve the objective. Why don't lawyers feel the same way?
IMHO: because more laws means you need to pay more lawyers to understand your rights and duties. They're preserving and expanding the clan.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal government authorized under the Federal Constitution. It creates legislation and can, either in cooperation with, or independently from, the President, pass it into law. The Constitution enumerates a number of powers to be granted to the Congress. One power is the ability to create copyright laws.
I don't think we need to teach civics anymore.
The Constitution is just fancy toilet paper now. Just say "necessary and proper clause" or "regulate interstate commerce" and Congress has a de facto blank check to pass any law it damn well pleases, regardless of the Constitution's limited government doctrine.
If civics is necessary, an honest civics class in modern america would be one sentence: "The government is your master and can do what it likes. As a consolation for being a kept citizen, you get to pick who holds the whip every two or four years."
Students will then have the rest of the day to watch "Friends" or "WWF".
Watch the movie "THX 1138" (George Lucas's first film, btw, before he became a whore, also staring Robert Duvall)
The government in the movie says: Buy more, and be happy Or just listen to Bush recently: I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy.
Software Wars
"College Radio" ?? How many RIAA major label acts ARE there on "college radio" anyway?
An artist on a truly indie label or an artist with self-released material receives no compensation for radio play anyway (and much of college radio consists of this type of material).
The most ironic aspect of all is that we EASILY have the technology to track and pay the actual performers for either broadcast or webcast WITHOUT pooling the money the way the present system operates. We can arguably track even the number of LISTENERS of webcasts.
Perhaps this scenario will further a movement to create truly independent mechanisms for distributing and compensating artists/labels for material... that an alternative system will develop (that isn't ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, etc...). I doubt major label artists would feel much pain by NOT being included in college radio.
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
This isn't just about fees, it's about performer fees, as opposed to songwriter fees that are already paid.
Under long-standing U.S. copyright law, broadcasters pay a coalition of songwriters' groups to air music over the Internet and the airwaves. But until the DMCA, performers and record companies did not have the rights to royalties when stations played their music. As part of the 1998 law, Congress allowed performers and record companies to start collecting fees on songs sent over the web, said Joel Willer, a mass communications professor at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. There are still no performer fees for regular airwave broadcasts.
If airwave broadcasters don't have to pay, why should webcasters? How many people do you know are converting their audio stream to mp3s?
The RIAA wants as much as they can grab with both hands, and if we could pass some decent campaign finance reform, maybe some of the corporate suck-ups in Washington would have the balls to stand up to them.
That's like arguing that although Congress has the power to declare war, they don't have the power to stop, and declare peace.
I don't think that even the strictest constructionist goes that far. Congress' power to repeal its own laws by passing another, superceeding and nullifying law, is not usually questioned.
Besides, you're wrong about the greater good, anyway; even if Congress couldn't extend copyright, works that didn't have their term extended, but which instead received their copyright after the extension will still get it. And according to you, everything afterwards will have it. Everything in the future being so inaccessable strikes me as a bit worse than a relatively small amount of stuff in the past being accessible.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Yes, yes, but within the context of Congress weakening copyright law, there's not a whole lot of Constitution to run headlong into.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
our free market system
The second you introduce intellectual property laws into the mix, you no longer have a completely free market in any useful sense of the word. IP laws create some of the most artificial and arbitrary situations one could think of in economics.
Course I don't believe in the old maxim that "free market will solve all problems" anyway -- but the point is that if one doesn't even have a free market to begin with, then all cries that we should just leave business alone are moot.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
I don't think that deciding that musicians' exclusive rights over copyrighted material don't apply to noncommercial P2P filesharing is a big moral issue. True, just because something is a law doesn't mean it has moral authority.
But copyrights in the US have never had moral authority. The entire purpose of them, as the Constitution demonstrates, is to promote the progress of the arts. What's 'right' doesn't enter into such a utilitarian scheme. Moreover, there's perfectly good arguments in all directions, morally, even that copyrights shouldn't exist at all. Copyrights are not an inherent human right, you know.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I worked for him on his campaigns in the late 80s/early 90s when I was in college. An excellent being as humans go, and really, really up on tech issues for a Beltway guy. Always has a firm grasp of the people side of issues as well as the numbers and ideologies.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
The proposed bill doesn't real help anyone, and it's not changing the way the fees are done, but the RIAA and DiMA still have a problem with it. The reason why is fairly simple - Cannon's proposal is more limited than than the current language. It signifgently changes what they are going to be able to claim as a "vending establishment."
Ten or twenty years from now, when some new method of music transfer becomes popular, the RIAA is going to have to get new legislation passed before they can get thier claws on it. Their opposition to this bill is effectively saying "Come on, just give us the control NOW, ok?"
As a hamateur radio person and SWL (short-wave listener), I have mixed feelings about webcasting. Sure, it's a great way to let those who don't have an appropriate HF receiver and long-wire antenna pick up the distant stations, but (as others have pointed out) there are bandwidth considerations to think about.
I've listened to more than a couple of canned webcasts from npr.org. Even with a high-bandwidth connection (DSL with 512K down), during the middle of the day on a summer weekend or near midnight in the middle of the week, I still got a lot of dropouts and pauses.
In the end, the result was little different from tuning into live BBC broadcasts on one of my HF receivers. Worse, in fact, because I found that I couldn't really do much else with my bandwidth while the stream was downloading (in all fairness, I get the same effect when I'm downloading big files).
I guess what I'm asking is: Would anyone really miss webcasting if it got reduced in scope, or even went away altogether? If the college stations mentioned still want to reach a larger audience, is there not some way for them to, perhaps, share the existing HF broadcast frequencies with our overseas neighbors?
Just a thought. Might not even be worth much, but I thought I'd ramble a bit...
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Check out "`SEC. 117. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND DIGITAL COPIES.'"
Specifically subsection d and e, it is making explicitly legal to use MP3 playback devices, and to make a backup copy of any music you purchase. This sounds like intelligent legislation. Did SETI find something?
Those devices only work with the audio (taxed) CD's These CD's have a defective pit somewhere on the disk that the player knows to look for. No bit...no record.
Since 1998 or so, I've been developing a website where people can buy downloads of Christian music. Up until now, I could only use independent, 'unsigned' bands and get their permission directly, and negotiate payments with them directly. Will this new law allow me to finally pay Word ten cents or so of royalties and charge users .25 per download of Michael W Smith and Amy Grant songs? That would be cool.
Basically, I am unclear as to whether this law includes statutory licensing for sales of downloads, or if it's only for 'performances' (webcasting). If there's no statutory license for duplication, then it won't really help much, as the record companies will NEVER voluntarily grant one.
Can anyone clear this up for me?
Now you are on thin ice. I see an opportunity to profit from robbing a bank. You stop me. Can I sue you for stealing from me?