Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA's Push for an Audio Broadcast Flag
aaronsorkin writes "The Recording Industry Association of America has discovered that digital radio broadcasts can be copied and redistributed over the Internet, and so it is pushing the FCC to adopt an audio broadcast flag, which would likely prevent users from sending copyrighted radio programs over the Internet. But it could also hamstring other legitimate uses by preventing a digital radio program from leaving the device on which it was recorded. The FCC has initiated a notice of inquiry (pdf), typically a step leading to formal rule-making. The public may submit comments to the FCC between June 16 and July 16. A lobbyist friend sent me copies of the private correspondence on the subject between RIAA president Cary Sherman and Consumer Electronics Association president Gary Shapiro, and Cryptome just posted them here (pdf) and here (pdf). Yes, they're legit. Mindjack just posted an article I wrote on the subject titled, 'Will Digital Radio Be Napsterized?'"
the RIAA control radio programs?
where the villains' scheme depended on the "fact" that no matter what type of regulatory and taxation hell the industries were put under, they'd still produce, and this provide power to the very people who were strangling them.
How long until people just give up and listen to local music? Leave the RIAA to the sheep, and the sheep to the RIAA, and the sheep will get what they deserve. Remember, the only reason that ??AA organizations have any influence is that people buy their stuff. You have two options: buy their stuff, but don't complain, or don't buy their stuff, and try and support alternative markets - local bands, live concerts, low power FM, etc.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
This may be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with this. Radio is there for you to listen to and enjoy. The music is being broadcast to you at no charge (excepting commercial-free services like XM and Sirius) and the broadcaster sets the licensing terms. Naturally, the broadcaster needs to comply with the licensing terms of the copyright owner, represented typically by the RIAA.
So what rights are being infringed here? Unless you're paying a radio station to broadcast your own music to you, you are not in posession of a license to the music. So fair use in terms of copying to your computer, etc. doesn't apply as you haven't purchased anything. One could make the argument from a research standpoint and being able to record samples for the purposes of critique, etc. This would easily be fulfilled by plugging a jack into the headphone slot and recording the non-digital output to tape or via line-in on a computer and you'd still get better quality than any non-digital radio station that exists today.
Honestly, I don't see an issue here.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
...we say that he goes down for the 3rd time to mean that he used up his chances for life and he's finally going under for good.
This is really the RIAA and its members going down for the 3rd time.
What I'm really waiting for is for the sh*t to hit the fan when Joe Six Pack buys his $3K HDTV, and pays Comcast $150 a month for HDTV content and then another $2K for his Digital VCR (or DVD or whatever), and he presses the RECORD button to tape the latest Victoria Secret underwear show, and a message pops up that says "Due to copyright restrictions, you may not record".
All of the sudden people will understand what people like the EFF have been complaining about for years.
Right now, congress and the FCC is passing these goofy laws and regulations because there's no downside; broadcast flag? Sure. DRM? Sure. Whatever will keep Hollywood happy.
But when people begin to complain about losing their ability to do what they do today, people are going to be very unhappy, and that's the stuff that brings people out to vote. Remember, Florida? It only take a few people to tip an entire election.
DRM on consumer audio in the past has been the death of a new format. I don't think things have changed that much. Unhappy consumers won't buy stuff.
And if consumers aren't buying TV's, Radio's and Computers because of Hollywood/RIAA lobbying, things will change quickly.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I don't think I've listened to any radio but NPR (for news) for about a year now. Otherwise, I ask some of my friends what they like and give it a listen, then buy it from one of the online stores (like the iTunes store).
Otherwise, radio for me died when I turned it on, heard the same songs I had heard 12 months before played every 2 hours, turned it off for 2 months, turned it on (same songs from 2 months ago every few hours), turned it off for 4 months, and repeat.
I figure another 8 months and I'll see if anything new is playing. Till then, forget it.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Consider someone listening to a radio show and writing an article about it. That would be fair use, no? Then if that someone happens to be a radio journalist, is it not also fair use for said radio journalist to include a snippet of the original broadcast?
This happens all the time. Ever heard that famous Hindenburg broadcast? How about snippets from famous radio shows?
It's no good to say you should make your own analogue recording. That's an artificial limit to fair use. What if said journalist is a poor starving student who does everything on a home computer? Are you saying students have to buy D/A and A/D converters to become journalists?
You can't start limiting fair use, or it becomes unfair use.
Infuriate left and right
This is just another failed attempt to excercise control over digital services. It's to be expected - they are convinced it will make them more money in the end, and as such they feel compelled to stop it.
This technology, like Macrovision (that's not technically digital, but it fits), DVD's CSS, Adobe PDF, Zip File Passwords, iTunes, SDMI, Microsoft Reader, DirecTV, those silly self-destructing DVDs, faulty CD Toc's, autorun-based protection, SecuRom, Game Consoles, LaserLok, and any other number of protection technologies, it will be defeated, broken, or bypassed).
Hundreds of man-hours, hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing, and the only real protection still lying around is simple cryptography (and only when the keys aren't given to users at all, instead of this "hide it in the box, but don't tell anyone" crap).
The only real reason to be concerned is the "stifiling innovation" issue. What devices, technologies, or uses will I lose because of this? To some extent, it benefits open-source, as open-source software can address markets made smaller by the fact that the only way to use the services the way you want is to break the law.
However, how many cool gizmos, gadgets, and whatnots haven't been made, thanks to the DMCA etc.?
Just a little something to think about.
Flags are easily ignored, and if the stream is sent out in-tact it's a non issue anyway. When will they learn?
Yes, it will probably be easy to circumvent, as is true with many other copy protection schemes.
But what this AC fails to realize here is that by instituting a legitimate 'copy-protection feature' (albeit very flimsy) it serves only as a legal lightning rod for copyright violation lawsuits. Furthermore, it bolsters the media's image of attempting to protect what it has, lest someone contests the issue that it more or less 'looks' like they don't care who violates copyright for radio broadcasts. Also the latter may not be much more of a deterrent, but I'm sure the members of the RIAA have shareholders (not just customers) to think about too.
Think of it this way: how much easier would it be to circumvent being fined, or contest and reduce those fines, for speeding if the limit wasn't even posted? The RIAA is now just trying to put the signs up.
IMO, if this goes through, the FCC/RIAA will be able to say that people have 'willfully broken/violated a protection measure' rather than just saying 'they ignored copyright law'. (DMCA anyone?)
So how are they going to stop us from using older programs to broadcast the media? I don't feel a need to upgrade my shoutcast server just so I can have a radio broadcast flag that rats me out when I'm broadcasting copyrighted music. They would either have to change the way the internet works, or force a new media type on us other than mp3.
This may be invasive and annoying but it will not stop the recording. In order for the flag to work all the software will have to be "flag" compliant. So simply the adoption of this will provide either a resurgence of older tools that don't support this "feature" or new softwear that will not support this (or allow it to be turned off) even if mandated by law. Even that NX thing and the flag combined will not stop the recording as it:
..... "I said frog, now jump dammit, jump!" ........"Um boss, it's not working." ...... "awww be a good boy, please jump when i say frog".......
A.) will only be present on new systems so old hardware will still work(how much computer do you need to stream rip any way).
B.) because as long as you can hear it you can record it. so perhaps the sound will have to be recorded right off the analog output by the very same computer that is playing it, after extracting the ID3 of course.
C.) if by some magic they make it work and be fool proof people will simply go back to cd ripping and file sharing. By that time the new encrypted networks will be better and harder to sue users of.
This will only add another teer of complexity and another charge that they can sue the file makers for.
"FROG!"
"The entire piracy movement is an attempt to get things for free"
.99 a song."
Yes, that's the piracy side of it. There's still a very large legitimate user side to it as well. Your attempt to group those together demonstrates that you really don't understand what you have obviously spent so much time writing about. Here's an example:
"That has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you believe $11.99 is "ridiculously priced." Even iTunes is currently
An album is $12 whether you like every single song on it or not. I happen to know for a fact you have at least one CD that has precicesly one song on it you like. $12 for that one song isn't ridiculously overpriced? Face facts, the driving force between making the $.99 song available is because people 'pirated', as you call it.
Pardon me for thinking you are full of shit. Seriously, if it's all about 'getting something for nothing' like you have stated, then $400 iPods wouldn't be flying off store shelves. iTunes wouldn't have sold millions of songs. Heck, you'd probably be paying up to $20 per album. Go explore the other side a little while before blindly calling honest people pirates.