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?
Flags are easily ignored, and if the stream is sent out in-tact it's a non issue anyway. When will they learn?
Foolish sums up all of their attempts at putting the genie back in the bottle. RIAA, wake up, the younger generation doesn't think twice about obtaining copies of the music they want, despite what legislation you buy. You can't turn back the clock legally and expect that to cause cultural backpedalling.
Why don't they just set the 'evil' bit?!
How lossy is hooking up the line out of your digital radio to your computer's sound input? Obviously you wouldn't want to do that over and over again, but I bet after one iteration of digital to analog to digital you'd still have very good sound quality. So this won't even work terribly well to "prevent piracy".
Fair use, meet the circular file. Circular file, meet fair use.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
And the broadcast flag is automatically cleared when the packet leaves american computers? We should tell Cisco to put this new feature in their routers.
I thought that the NX command was being put in to make sure that code could only be executed in certain memory spaces, not to make sure that only certain code could be executed.
And it requires specific processors and chipsets that support the command.
My understanding was that it's more for protection of the stability of the OS, not protection of copyrights of software...
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
They did this about 15 years ago with what was the last promising tape-based format, and ended up killing the medium for pretty much everyone but pro audio studios. Wonder how much potential revenue they missed out on w/ that fiasco?
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.
Sorry, but it's No eXecute, not No Read. NX can only prevent execution of code not intended to be executed (stack or data space), not prevent the reading of memory space of a program. NX should be appreciated solely on the grounds that it steals a great deal of Palladium's thunder, postponing that nightmare a little further.
I don't even listen to radio anyway. Of course, I'll still be arguing against the broadcast flags anytime it comes up, but I haven't listened to the radio in, hell, I can't remember how long.
Besides, I doubt digital terrestrial radio will take off, same way that digital terrestrial television has not taken off - the few people watching terrestrial DTV are those with HD sets.
If an industry doesn't see fit to give me my legal rights, then I won't use their product, and I will do my damndest to make sure other people don't use their product either.
I resent being told that I can't do something because I *might* use it for illegal purposes. Even if what I'm actually *planning* to do is fully legal.
And, just like virtually every other protection system out there, it WILL be broken. The only one I know of that HASN'T been broken publically is digital cable - and I feel it's been broken, but just not revealed to the public yet.
FC Closer
They just need to give up...
I agree with you that they need to lighten up a bit, but based on history they will not. Remember the whole 'crisis' over video recorders way back in the day? A more contemporary example is the TiVO controversy, with many broadcast networks saying that TiVO will end their business model and cable will be the only option for TV, which is simply untrue. New technology often spurs fear because people fear what certain things _might_ be used for. Just like a gun, it _might_ be used for illegal purposes, but it might not as well. But what _might_ happen is not a good excuse for stifling technological development
Here.
Looks like this may be a lot harder for the RIAA than mp3 issues to me.
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.
Maybe some can't tell the difference with their lousy computer speakers, but to a real audiophile, music sounds much better with a broadcast flag.
It's like salt for music. You don't have to have it, it's just better with it.
Best Windows Freeware
any digital protection system can be broken, no matter HOW complicated.
the one way that breaks ALL digital protection systems, and still leaves the content with decent audio, is to go through an analog phase. record from the output of your sound card into another computer via the analog lines, you only lose one analog generation (negligable given how lossy mp3 encoding was on the original content), and get a perfectly rippable copy on the other side with no history of any DRM preserved whatsoever.
so you DRM bastards: KNOCK IT OFF!
All DRM does is make the stupid feel empowered, the common person feel condescended to, and the pirates feel bored as to how easy it was to crack it...
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
The emails, stored in a digital format known as PDF (which the RIAA maintains is yet another tool used exclusively by online hackers and pirates for the sole purpose of stealing IP), while not normally covered by copyright, were in this case earmarked by RIAA president Cary Sherman for use in his new book: Digital Stranglehold - a Step-by-Step Guide to Forcefully Prevent Any Exchange of Audio Information Whatsoever in the New Millenium - or - How to Ram the Buttplug of DRM Further up the American Consumer's Ass.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
The entertainment industry doesn't see things in context. I know many people who didn't watch TV until they bought a TIVO, and now they watch at least an hour per day. Who cares if they skip commercials every once in a while. Same thing with Napster and file sharing raising record sales for the 2 years following its release. If they pulled their heads out of their ass, and not make snap-judgements, they might start making good choices.
Shock Jocks are controlled by the FCC.
...let's hope to God they roll an 11 or 12.
The FCC is controlled by the Supreme Court, which is controlled Bavarian Illuminati.
RIAA is controlled by Cthulhu.
RIAA with the assistance of Cthulhu will attempt to control the FCC... and they're bidding tons of megabucks.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.
-The Libra
"Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
...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
All audio/video devices will have to be able to broadcast the memory flag. Only individuals who have had the necessary surgery (elective, not typically covered by insurance) will be able to actually view such content. Depending on the decision of the content provider, the content might almost immediately disappear from a person's memory, be a faint memory driving the repurchase of an opportunity to see/hear it again, or could be lodged so firmly in their brain of the end-user that they will have to pay extra to get rid of it.
Zinf has long allowed for the saving of digital broadcasts, from shoutcast at least. But I havn't tested it on other formats, like .m3u streams and what-not (and can't 'cause I'm at work)
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.
Once again RIAA shows us that is simply can't adapt themselves to the new reality of information sharing.
Internet isn't just a new media, or a new commercial channel. It's also a new and improved way to communicate. For those who want me to be even more clear, it's a new way to share and exchange information.
The fact is that internet users will, for itself, share information among each other. That's what a communication tool meant to do. And there's nothing RIAA can do that'll will avoid 95% of the world population (US residents are 5% only) sharing information, musing included.
RIAA must do just like any other group or company around the world when a new technology tries to ruin its buissines, adapt.
Not adapting itself to the new technological reality, RIAA is opening huge chances of new visionaries company or groups to be successful, being the first in the market and getting ahead even before RIAA can think in any action to avoid it.
The revolution is in its way. All we can do (including RIAA) is adapt ourselves to it. It's useless to try to stop a train without destroying it.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
BBC - the British Public Service broadcaster is doing it's damnedest to make itself the voice available to anyone anywhere:a dio/3177479.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_r
Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
Consumers: What happen?
Slash-Dot: Somebody set up us the Broadcast Flag.
Slash-Dot: We get SUED.
Consumers: What!
Slash-Dot: Main screen turn on.
Consumers: It's You!!
RIAA: How are you gentlemen!!
RIAA: All your radio are belong to us.
RIAA: Your fair use rights are on the way to destruction.
Consumers: What you say!!
RIAA: Your rights have no chance to survive make your time.
RIAA: HA HA HA HA!
RIAA: Sue you all
Consumers: You know what you doing.
RIAA: Landsharks, engage
Consumers: For great justice.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Peace
12 year old girl caught singing Britney in the shower. RIAA sue for 17 billion dollars over copyright issues.
Next on in the future news!
--- [Insert intresting Sig here]
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.
The FCC restricts what modulation can be broadcast on what frequency. Digital TV broadcasts are modulated with 8VSB (Vestigial Side Band) where digital radio uses IBOC with COFDM. Using IBOC they can transmit Analog and Digital at the same time on the same frequency.
d casting.html
I found a website that talks about it. http://www.fact-index.com/d/di/digital_audio_broa
I remember when I went to college in the late 1980's, the RIAA had a campaign against Digital Audio Tape (DAT) but also, they had an ad campaign to get people to support a tax on blank audio casettes.
The college administration put up the RIAA flyers on the proposed tape tax and to lobby against DAT. At the time, CD's were becoming mainstream and the idea of burning CD's were a concept, not reality.
At the time, I bought CD's and one of the first things I did was make audio tape recordings from the CD's on casette metal tape (Type IV). The RIAA not only wanted you to buy the CD but if wanted it on casette, they wanted you to buy the pre-recorded tapes which were made on the cheapest tape possible (Type I - ferric oxide) which happened to dirty up tape heads pretty quickly. The metal tape sounded better and it did not dirty up your tape heads. I did not bother with Chromium (Type II) tapes. I now make duplicates of the CD's I buy to take with me on road trips. The originals stay at home. I recently made a copy of the Traveling Wilbury's CD from a guy I work with since it is out of print. The RIAA may not be happy with that but there is no opportunity to buy the CD.
The RIAA is ridiculous. You may not lose much audio quality if you have to go from digital to audio and back to digital if they implement this. It is bad enough the FCC caved in to the MPAA on the b-cast flag for digital TV. The MPAA also raised hell about VCR's when they came out.
Don't forget that one of the AOL/Time-Warner executives called people thieves who fast forwarded through the commercial ads. The name if I remember was Jamie Kellner.
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!"
"Granddad, do you still remember when you could listen to music when you wanted too without having to pay every time.. what was that like?"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
All they're doing is making their problem worse. I never thought of copying music off digital radio (I used to tape analog radio but got very tired of having the DJ talk over the beggining and end of the songs) and I'm willing to bet a whole lot of other people havn't either. But now they're highlighting it as a problem lots more people will be doing it. If they get the go-ahead to enforce this new system, it'll just mean all those new "pirates" will have to use the latest 'cracking' utilities to get around the restrictions (or use other methods mentioned in other posts).
Seriously, I don't see the point in this. I don't support illegal copying (except for personal use, or making your friend a copy of a CD you own) but this is just plain silly. They're just prolonging the fashionable thing to do at the moment (download music off the internet).
Silly rabbit
I cant believe the tag *cant* be removed. Then your music is 'free' again.
Sure the common guy wont be able to do this, but it seems the common guy is just screwed these days anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Recording Industry Association of America has discovered that digital radio broadcasts can be copied and redistributed over the Internet
I'm trying to imagine that moment when they "discovered" this . . . Did they honestly just not know? "Gee, we're sending them a stream of data that gets played automatically. Those stupid end users will never think to *save* that data!"
Shall we limit freedom of speech to only book runs of at least 1 million copies?
No one is saying taxpayers have to fund poor starving students, even if that is not what you are implying. But when roadblocks to fair use only apply to those who don't spend extra money, it becomes unfair use.
The whole idea of fair use available only to those with enough money is disgusting.
Infuriate left and right
Remember they want even D/A chips to have DRM features, so if the data isn't authorized, you wont get any sound out at all...
Sure its not practical, but they can move towards the goal.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Okay, one side (the content providers) wants to impose some DRM scheme on whatever. The other side, the geeks, will attempt to break them. Now, other than OTP, no encryption scheme is unbreakable. The only value encryption has is to make it more expensive to unlock the data than it's worth. However, when the opposition has a religious fervor and practically unlimited resources, inevitably it will be broken. (SDMI? iTunes? DeCSS?) Exhibit "A" is DeCSS. Export of strong cryptography is prohibited by law. So whatever they come up with will be fairly trivial for the geeks to break. As for it being a lightning rod for copyright lawsuits, well, P2P continues relatively unabated against the RIAA's jihad of suing 12-year-olds and grandmothers.
Unless I'm mistaken, this means that the flag will not apply to Shoutcast radio stations or others that are internet-only. This sounds like it applies to XM, Sirius, and other forms of digital radio, but NOT what's streamed to your computer.
Then again, I could be misinterpreting that part of the article...
Goo goo g'joob.
Lets all meet and burn (pinky to mouth) 1.44*8 million bits. Bring 1 DS/DD floppy disk to the corner of RIAA ave, and MPAA street and well burn them there. Maybe the toxic fumes will take out some execs :)
I shouldn't say something like that without backing it up.
... wait for it ... "plugging the analog hole".
Here: Content Protection Status Report
Implementation of a "broadcast flag" is listed as Goal One. Goal two is
Of course there are easy technical ways to bypass any such schemes if you can get your hands on uncrippled A/D hardware. Your student or journalist is welcome to take advantage of them if they are willing to risk going to prison.
DNA just wants to be free...
"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.
You're half right. Tech like water marking can survive a D-A and A-D transitions. And make no mistake, that's the long term goal here. These sorts of "flags" are just the beginning, because they introduce the concept of forcing equipment manufacturers to include enforcement of DRM technologies. It doesn't matter that the current technology is ineffective, what matters is that new hardware *must* support it, by law.
Once that framework is built into place, newer tech that can survive these conversions gets introduced, and it's easier to push it into the marketplace, because the law says that this sort of thing must be included in consumer hardware. Eventually, you don't have any hardware that will actually record that analog source. It'll all detect the watermark, and refuse to record. Oh, there will be workarounds, but this sort of knowledge is already forbidden for you to pass around, by the DMCA. That's right, it's illegal for you to tell somebody how to bypass a protection mechanism, be it by code or by word of mouth or by t-shirt. The DMCA makes no distinction between these methods.
And that's their vision of the future. Total control of all media. It's just that simple, really. You want to make a copy for your car? You can't. You want to watch the program later than they air it? Sorry, the broadcaster of the show has decided that you might skip the ads if you did that, so your recorder won't record it. And if you post anywhere telling other people how to fix these "problems" with the equipment they bought, armed guards show up at your residence and take you away and put you in a padded cell and stare at you thru a small window for the rest of your life, because you're an informational terrorist.
Pretty bleak, but unfortunately I don't think it's all that much of a stretch of the imagination anymore.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
...about "intellectual" "property" issues...
- it's never going to get better.
- it's never going to stop getting worse.
- the rate of getting worse is never going to stop increasing.
What a load. Immoral? Prove it using any established moral code. Is it in the Bible? How about the Q'uran? Or the Torah? The Baghavad-Gita? Egyptian mythology? Zoroastrianism? In the precolonial social mores and religious traditions of any of the five hundred various Indian nations native to the American continent? Does Ralph Waldo Emerson or Henry David Thoreau come out against it? Does the Buddha once speak of it? Is it mentioned anywhere in thousands of Zen Koans? Are there any tribal religions in Africa that cast aspersion on copying stories, songs, and artwork? Did the Inca and Maya curse the names of those who infringed copyright? Did Plato or Socrates or Pythagoras or Aristotle teach at length about this subject? Well? Huh?
Fact is, the very notion that songs, stories, ideas, images, and all the other ephemeralities restricted by "copyright" were for the bulk of human history passed along and shared only by active infringement by those who carried these works along for us later. Without copying we would have no folk songs, no scriptures, a great deal fewer plays, stories, paintings, buildings, inventions. Our cultural traditions would have lasted only as long as the material on which the first author ever fixed them-- in most cases less than 100 years.
Do you anti-copiers ever decry the vast body of commerce that exists in making copies of "public domain" works? Of course not. Ripping off the past is a hobby for the media cartel. Look at Disney with "The Little Mermaid", "Cinderella", "Snow White", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Fantasia", etc. Look at movie releases like "Troy" and "Romeo & Juliet". Look at how often Beethoven, Bach, Tchaikovsky, and countless others have their works "stolen" and reused in contexts they could never have dreamed of. The same for Michelangelo, DaVinci, Monet, Manet. Where is your outrage at this?
I do not have a signature
This is absurd.
The RIAA is asking for protections greater than they recieve for analog radio.
The problem is that none of the justifications they claim for extended protections apply here.
The earlier justification was that "digital copies allow infinite generations of lossless copies to be made."
If someone is recording from the analog radio, they make a digital copy of a lossy transmission. At that point, they can make an infinite number of copies.
If someone is recording from digital radio, they can make an infinite number of copies of a lossily (probably MP3) encoded stream. Exact same thing.
Furthermore, because of the nature of streaming data networks, it can be more efficient to use retransmission -- to send one stream of audio to a single host in Sweden that then rebroadcasts ten streams to other Swedish hosts. This is superior than directly sending to eleven Swedish hosts. This would prohibit network structures of such a variety.
I can't even figure out why the RIAA managed to impose per-stream fees on Internet radio. That's *absurd*. Normal radio has a smaller transmission cost (i.e. not linear in the number of listeners), and has potential audiences several orders of magnitude larger than Internet radio. Why Internet radio stations can't enjoy small, flat rate fees for playing music is beyond me.
I'm so frusterated with the RIAA. If there was a single vote that could remove all their lobbying, I'd vote for it in a second. But instead, it's a long, unending, slow grind against people that have the potential to make scads more money by swaying a couple of votes.
May we never see th
The way to get rich off the law is pass a law (bribe and blackmail the lawmakers) that makes illegal something that a large minority of people do. The majority of people will support the law because they don't engage in the particular activity.
Then use the fact that a large minority of people do it and continue to do it despite its illegality to raise the penalities for breaking this law very high. Again the majority of people will go along with this because they don't engage in this particular activity.
Use the high penalities to encourage a system of bounty hunters who get to share in the enormous fines that are brought against the many people (a large minority works best) who are found disobeying this law when they snitch their neighbors to the authorities for disobeying this law. Make sure the activity that is made illegal is common and accepted by a large minority of people. The best size of this minority is about 15 percent of the population; a larger percentage and you run the risk of a successful revolt and a smaller percentage doesn't bring in enough money to make the whole business worthwhile.
Then just sit back and let the money pile in from legal fees and fines.
In the USA, the stategy worked great on Black people (African-Americans) until the 1960's. It worked great on gays and other sexual minorities until the late 1970's. It still brings in hundreds of millions of dollars from the marijuana community every year to the police and the lawyers.
Now it about to be applied to the recorded music-lover community, starting with random students and working up from there to the general middle-class.
Just one more permanent American extortion money-making scheme. As soon as one passes, another takes its place. Americans talk a lot of trash about freedom, but when it comes to using the law to extort money from minorities, be they racial, sexual, life-style, and now digital media minorities, the dollar always comes first.