Slashdot Mirror
Audio Broadcast Flag Introduced in Congress
Declan McCullagh writes "We found out in mid-2004 that the RIAA was lobbying the FCC for an audio version of the broadcast flag. But because a federal appeals court slapped down the FCC's video version last year, the RIAA needs to seek formal authorization from Congress. That process finally began today when the audio flag bill was introduced. It would hand the FCC the power to set standards and regulate digital and satellite radio receivers, and RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business." The text of the bill is available online."
This is the kind of crap that is total BS and the sound you get from Satalite radio is lower then FM radio.
Next up coin slots on everything and you pay to play
Bullshit
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If the RIAA wants something and says it's good for music fans, you can be sure it will be something to further enforce their monopoly and abuses as well as extract more money out of your pockets while further limiting our ability to listen to music when and how we want to.
Simple rule of thumb, if the RIAA is for something, I am automatically against it.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The broadcast flag is bad for consumers and business. It's bad for consumers because they are going to have to replace otherwise working radio equipment, right?
And it's bad for businesses, because when DRM goes wrong [and it almost always is wrong] then the maker gets slapped for it. Sony BMG is learning that the hard way. Music playing businesses, such as waiting offices, or ones that use music on their hold system might find themselves paying more too. The RIAA is not going to stop at screwing consumers, it will make sure businesses give them more money too.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business."
Well one out of three ain't bad, right?
"a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business."
This is by far the most infuriating thing I've read all day. They just think it's their right to control everything related to music. The RIAA thinks that they should be able to control what is listened to by fans of music, period. As a musician, I swear I will not ever sign a contract with anyone related to these bean-countering destroyers of culture, and if that means I can never make money, so be it. I just hope the Internet makes these people obsolete and impoverished sooner than later.
Well, at least they're not gonna make old receivers illegal or inoperable. I guess that must be the part that "strikes a balance" which is "fair to consumers". If you think there'll ever be anything good on satelite radio, buy your hardware now... :)
(2) shall not make obsolete any devices already manufactured and distributed in the marketplace before the implementation of such regulations; and
(3) shall not be inconsistent with the customary use of broadcast content by consumers to the
extent such use is consistent with the purposes of this act and other applicable law.
...would hand the FCC the power to set standards and regulate digital and satellite radio receivers...
Coming soon, Howard Stern on HAM radio.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
In other news, Donald Rumsfeld declares that Abu Graïb is good for iraki prisoneers and Joseph Stalin declares that gulags are good for political opponents. More exciting news on the redefinition and ironic use of "good" at 11.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
As to how this is good for the consumer. I can clearly see how it is good for business. Good for music is iffy at best. All I can see (as I'm sure others will not) is consumers will have to buy new equipment and broadcasters will have to expend money to comply.
Its about time to put Fair Use into law I think, now if only I could find legislators I trust to do that well...
There's nothing on radio worth listening to that I can't get elsewhere. As soon as a decent portable Sirius "walkman" comes out, it's game over.
Does anybody with all their teeth still listen to AM radio? It's all Limbaugh, Savage and other buffoons.
Just noticed last night while mpeg encoding - mp3 has a copyright flag. So do CD's and DAT's. Nobody's jumping and shouting about those. The important part is having control over the software to ignore them.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
good for the fans
How is content restriction ever good for the fans?
Are they thinking it'll make content owners happier and therefore produce more stuff, then making fans happier? I don't get it.
Developers: We can use your help.
Re: they're not gonna make old receivers illegal or inoperable
And you think they won't reallocate the FM and AM bands to something else like they plan to do with analog TV?
I've actually already noticed this with media center edition. The computer I got shipped with a tuner card, media center edition and the ability to listen to FM. Obviously the FM is buffered, but for some odd reason you can't record off of it, MCE doesn't provide that capability. Now I'm sure there's other software that could do this that I could get, but I'm just saying: sign of things to come.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
I'm not going to read the bill text because if the RIAA thinks it's a good balance it simply means that everything tips towards them. Is there a possibility that this can be extended into the audio portion of a video broadcast thereby backdooring in the video broadcast flag??? You can see the video with no sound rendering the video useless!!!!!
RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business."
Curiously absent is "good for the artists and musicians we represent".
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
All your Bass are belong to us.
By the way, Sony is hardly learning "The Hard Way." The vast majority of users don't even know about the rootkit fiasco, and are buying Sony CDs left and right with no intention of stopping.
The root kit was a blip on Sony's screen, and as far as they;re concerned it's over. Sony doesn't care what a bunch of geeks like us think, just the masses who buy Pop Music CDs.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Does anybody with all their teeth still listen to AM radio? It's all Limbaugh, Savage and other buffoons.
...and sports.
Imagine it's about midnight when you hear such a clatter, but when you arose to see what was the matter. The FCC comes right through the fucking shutters and have you on the foor before you can say "what the fuck". Then you can kiss your electronics goodbye as they take everything from the PC to the fucking alarm clock and pcoket calculator.
Then it's time for good cop bad cop...
GCBC as they like to call it, well it's not pretty. First they have one of the female agents give you a hummer, then the others beat your head about as she does it chanting "break break break" trying to make you cry and thus be imasculated in front of said female agent. But no man you gotta stick it to them, but next comes the treatment and well that usually does people in.
Nobody knows what the treatment consists of because well no one that has come back was able to talk about it. The others just didn't come back.
They say the FCC doesn't play games, well let me tell you they play some fucked up ones if I ever seen them.
It would hand the FCC the power to set standards and regulate digital and satellite radio receivers, and RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business.
No, lad. You want to transmit an audio signal, you accept that I'm gonna do whatever I damn well like when I recieve it. Is it just me, or does anyone else think the RIAA is becoming a bit "precious"?
Yeah, good for the fans because it makes it so they can't do something that they've been able to do since the advent of personal recording equipment - record songs off the radio.
Yep, it's good for everyone all around isn't it?
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Big deal. The bill has a total of one sponsor and hasn't even been referred to committee yet. Folks, any legislator can introduce a bill on anything. Most of them die in committee and never see the light of day. Get back to me if it makes it out of committee.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Necessary? I don't think it's necessary. It'll help, but at what cost to the consumer? And not the Slashdot freeloaders, the honest people who don't pirate anything. Actually, that would include most of Slashdot, none of us ever pirate, we just try before we buy. That's right, isn't it? I'm new here, I don't know the official way we dress up our excuses yet.
"With exciting new digital audio devices on the market today and more on the horizon, Congress needs to streamline the deployment of digital services and protect the intellectual property rights of creators," said Ferguson, who is a member of the House of Representatives' Internet subcommittee. Rep. Mary Bono, a California Republican, is one of the four other co-sponsors.
Well, she's absolutely right here on one count. Congress does need to protect the intellectual property rights of creators, because they are currently under massive assault in a legal system that is a decade behind the technology that it regulates. However, as a Republican, Ms. Bono ought to understand that regulating business is rarely the answer to these problems. Or, in this case, regulating consumers. Even worse. What happened to small government staying out of our lives, Ms. Bono? I'm among those that put the Republicans in power during the Clinton administration and you and your ilk have gradually betrayed our trust. Further, it is also the job of Congress to ensure that our rights as consumers are protected, and for all his enthusiasm, I don't think Darth Nader is up to the job. For one, he's not in the legislature. You are, Ms. Bono.
That's because a federal appeals court last year unceremoniously rejected a similar set of regulations from the FCC, saying the agency did not have authority to mandate a broadcast flag for digital video.
Further proof that over a long enough trajectory the legal system almost always gets it right.
At a breakfast roundtable with reporters on Thursday, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said some sort of legislation is necessary to prevent Americans from saving high-quality music from digital broadcasts, assembling a "personal music library" of their own, and redistributing "recorded songs over the Internet or on removable media."
We already have legislation that forbids this. They don't want legislation, they want mandated hardware controls to enforce it. I have no objections to streamlining the law to get it caught up with technology and limit the impact of piracy on the RIAA's bottom line. I do have a serious problem with legal mandates that enforce technological limits on legal behavior.
Devices like the Sirius S50, the RIAA worries, can record satellite radio broadcasts but aren't required to include digital rights management limitations.
Nor should they be. Sirius bought broadcast rights from ASCAP or whoever broadcast rights group does digital radio, just like everybody else does. The industry has its money from Sirius et al. The only barrier to mass copyright infringement is unreadable devices. As Roger Ebert pointed out long ago, anybody who is a hair above marginally technically competant can create high-quality reproductions of almost any playable media using cheap technology, and store the output in any formot. Onto p2p it goes. The broadcast flag is a big expensive pain in the ass that will not address the problem to their satisfaction, and they'll be back demanding MORE legislation in 5 years when their E/P ratio is too high. The broadcast flag is the first step on a long road of incremenetal freedom reduction that winds gradually out of sight into uncharted territory. Actually, it's not so uncharted. We know wha
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
There's nothing to get. When the RIAA introduces something as 'good for the fans', what the mean is that the fans aren't going to like it, so naturally they introduce it as exactly what it's not. It's a classic DRM tactic, just look at Sony. According to Sony, 'content-management' features actually empower the customer to manage their own content, as if they were never able to do that before.
I use the AM to listen to "Coast to Coast" . Gotta get my conspiracy fix somehow, and I don't feel like paying for the podcasts.
US congress needs to introduce an other bill that limits windows as the only OS that can run on the computers (or may be anything that has microprocessor or may be anything MS thinks their OS can run on). This bill should be introduced in the best interest of the people. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OUR CONGRESS representative working for the people.
What I want to see introduced is a 'Commercial' flag. This was my PVR could
more effectively autoskip commericials!
such licenses shall include prohibitions against unauthorized copying and redistribution of transmitted content ...
That phrase unauthorized copying pops-up several times in the text of the bill. There is however no definition of what constitutes "unauthorized copy". Absent that definition, it would seem difficult to evaluate what we're getting here.
Lawmakers are being asked to legislate the new industry to protect the status quo of the old industry players, the rights of consumers, the cultural heritage of their respective countries and, in doing so, lay down fuzzy, arbitrary lines to aportion the new pie between the respective players with an eye to tax revenue. The legislators most certainly are stakeholders in this brave new world as the more rigorously they define the rights of participants the more surely they can define tax revenue. It's in terms of potential tax revenue that the rights of consumers are likely to be pushed aside. Profits for big business translates into tax revenue for big government.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
the best democracy that money can buy...
Remember, the alternative was not between a bill being introduced, or not introduced- it was between whether or not there would be a democratic debate on this at all. There is no use getting mad at the recording industry for wanting this. It is in its nature. You might as well get angry at the sun for setting at the end of each day. Congress is another matter entirely. But this is the way it is supposed to work. The RIAA represents American citizens that have a right to have their voices heard, the same as the rest of us do. The point is to not waste time ranting about the RIAA, which isn't productive (although boycotting their goods is productive), but rather to (politely) rant to your representatives in Congress how mad you will be at them if a law like this is passed. They care a lot more than the RIAA does if you, and people like you, are angry at them. The fact of the matter is that the RIAA is only entitled to as much of a "balance" as it has the congressional votes to support.
You have an attention span of more than 5 sec. You clearly are not the target fanbase he is talking about . If on the other hand, were you to have a attention span of less than 5 sec, then you would have realized that this indeed is beneficial to the fans, because.. Oh look there's a shinny penny.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
If it gives the FCC the power to regulate Satallite radio, would this also allow them to impose decency standards to satallite radio? Can we say goodbye Howard Stern.. and to half the buisness model of Sirius...
>Why is a broadcast flag bad? You don't OWN the material that's being beamed into your house, any more than you own a movie that you happened to go see in a theater.
Airwaves are a public resource. The public resource has been licensed by the FCC in different manners and monies gained in different amounts for different activities. Spectrum that is for a single private individual's use only is VERY expensive and is generally not receivable without special equipment. Spectrum that is for everyone and anyone is VERY cheap and is generally receivable with any equipment. [yes, this varies also by power and bandwidth]. But now people who have licensed spectrum for the use of anyone at all want to use their cheaply purchased public resource for their own special private commercial usage.
Think of it this way: In your local downtown there's probably a free water fountain. Now imagine if the local water bottling station managed to pass a law that said they could hook into that water fountain and use it to bottle their water. You, the public, get to pay for the water that they plan to sell back to you! And... now you don't even have the old water fountain to show for it! You've been ripped off.
You don't get it both ways. If you want to sell TV service then you get a special private spectrum (a section between 2 - 3 Ghz) and you pay a lot of money for that privilege (some local MMDS companies already do this). If you want to broadcast on the frequency commonly known as "channel 6" (ie: 82 - 88 Mhz), however, then you get a low price from the FCC, but you absolutely MUST allow anyone to do as they please with what they pick up (barring basic copyright laws that prevent you from copying your timeshift recordings for friends or rebroadcasting for public use).
Adding a broadcast flag would be no different from a HAM radio operator broadcasting encrypted TV and charging for it. Absolutely illegal right now, and even if it weren't, incredibly unethical.
But you don't have the right to tape them.
Who's a dolt? Fair use doctrine does indeed allow time shifting (recording for later playback). It was validated by SCOTUS in the early 80's Betamax case, and hasn't been overturned by any subsequent decisions. If you don't believe me, here's the EFF's take on it.
So I guess that makes you a dolt too, spouting off about that which you know so little. It's people like you who are willing to just take whatever bread crumbs they toss us that are allowing them to get away with crap like this in the first place. Get educated about your rights, or shut up.
Hey, how'd you know I was lookin' at you if you weren't lookin' at me?
Um you better go reread copyright law again. You have a legal right to copy all music you want from the radio or TV.
As long as it's for yourself and you don't distribute that material.
the broadcast flag prevents such things. hell they want to make tivo illegal unless it's sanctioned.
I will listen to music or watch TV the way I want to not how I am told to by others.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Good point, Gattman. I forgot about Coast to Coast. I listen to it in my sleep every night. Between my iPod and Sirius, I sometimes forget the source of what's coming through my earbuds. One thing about Coast to Coast: When you play it in your sleep it gives you some kick-ass dreams. A few nights ago they did a show (or it was a repeat) about the recordings of ghosts by a husband and wife that do recording in graveyards and things, and I had one of the most vivid nightmares of my life. I've had dreams of being chased by Mayans and extraterrestrial abduction. I do miss Art Bell's terrific voice, though. George is OK, but he's no Art Bell. I can still remember some of his shows with that Malachy Martin priest/excorcist dude and having to look under the bed "just to make sure". I don't think I slept much those nights.
There is an over-the-air, unprotected digital radio broadcast system in the UK operating for years now. And you know what? The sky didn't fall.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
It's people like you who are willing to just take whatever bread crumbs they toss us that are allowing them to get away with crap like this in the first place.
Uh, dude, you can't spot an industry shill when you see one?
Peter is watching Monday Night Football. He puts in a VHS tape and hits record. Suddenly, the front door crashes in. FBI agents rush in with guns drawn.
Agent: "Do you have the express written consent of ABC and the NFL?"
Peter (holds up a letter): "Just ABC..."
The agents cock their guns, and open fire at VCR.
So, this apparently could hold true for radio? RIAA agents with guns...yipee.
Prove it.
You my dear poster are definitley a TROLL. RIAA employee?
The problem with the brodcast flag and other DRM (Digital Restictions Management) is that they WILL eventually be used to manipulate the media to ensure that the message is only what the powers that be want it to be whether it is in the music or the image.
It was "never the purpose?" WHOSE PURPOSE? SAYS WHO?
When you pay money for something, you do so as part of an AGREEMENT. Who are you to try to say, after the fact, what the nature of my agreement is?
If I lawfully access any content, and lawfully return it undamaged save normal wear and tear, what is it to you, or to anyone?
When my grandfather set up an 8MM camera to film classical music being shown on TV, was he doing anything wrong? No. When my dad did the same to film off the TV, was he doing anything wrong? No. When friends and I shared party mix cassette tapes in college, were we doing anything wrong? No.
BTW, didja ever hear of the Betamax case, in which the US Supreme Court (before this country was fully OWNED by business, and we occasionally had the rights of the American people respected) decided that the constitutional fair use rights which we all have, and which the government has not and cannot constitutionally take away from us, allowed the type of recording off the TV that you are now questioning?
Are you SO FUCKING STUPID that you go around pseuo-authoritatively commenting on things you don't know even the slightest basics about?
I swear, we need a revolution in this country. And corporate apologists like you are the first guys I am going to kill when I pick up the gun.
Now that you mention it, I did have weird dreams when listening to that show. I haven't listened in a few months because of work and other obligations.
wtf, nerf RIAA plz
I have no cable or satellite program anymore. COX was such a money sink and all I got was commercials, fake news, religious bullshit, screwed history and science channels, sometimes an old movie, no sex, and PBS (public TV in the US). Well, I still can get PBS for free via antenna, but I do not need it. I use the saved money to buy used DVDs. This is a lot cheaper. If one day the DRM nightmare kicks in, then I say good bye to movie discs, too. Radio is only interesting for me when I drive long distances, let's say more than 100 km. If the RIAA screws up radio, then I replace it with an MP3 player, as long as that works. I can also drive my car without radio, thanks. In fact when traffic gets bad I turn it off. There are so many things I can do instead of watching TV or listening to music, I really do not depend on products from the MPAA or RIAA. Customers only need to adapt. If the industry adapts, good for them. If not, life is still good without them.
I wish I had mod points today.
He said "and other buffoons."
How many people are "pirating" radio broadcasts? As opposed to CDs and pre-ripped songs? Honestly? How is this anything more than a pre-emptive power grab?
That's not right. Radio and TV stations have licensed the spectrum for their exclusive use over a certain area. That's why pirate broadcasters who piggyback on commercially-licensed frequencies are breaking the law.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
What they mean to say is that its good for their pockets.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
The good thing with early information is that you can do something about it.
What use is it to find out the train has derailed, that the cancer is now inoperable or that Bush has won the election? Knowing about impending badness lets us take action to correct it before it's compulsory.
What's the saying? An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure?
The RIAA can't introduce bills, only our elected representatives can do that. The RIAA can give the congressmen money, and write legislation for them. But, it's the representative that must own up to this.
So, don't waste time moaning about the RIAA. This is their business, you should expect nothing less from them. They want to extract the most money possible from as many people as possible.
The people that need to be held responsible are:
Main Sponsor: Mike Ferguson (R) New Jersey
Co-Sponsor: Mary Bono (R) California
Those are the only two listed in the article, the other co-sponsors are not listed. But, in previous actions, it has been endorsed by:
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Greg Walden (R-OR)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
The TV version of the broadcast flag was quickly withdrawn after it was clear that American citizens were overwhelmingly against it. It's a bit surprising that these rep's are sticking their necks out on this issue.
We need to let them know this is a bad idea, and let their constituents know that their representatives are pushing this stuff despite their disapproval.
and use those dollars elsewhere.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Audio flag - a balance that's bad for the music, bad for free speech, and bad for American business.
RIAA members have to be hunted down and sent to Cuba as enemy combatants.
Their constant attacks against fair use, free speech, and United States Citizens can no longer be tolerated.
RIAA is a bigger threat to America than Al-Qaeda.
What ever happened to performers performing their art for Entertainment, not to try to make a buck?
When did they turn into blood sucking undead, in constant quest to destroy more human brains?
But they do want to obsolete all existing radios through an eventual all digital transition. It will be a long time coming, but the idea is that radio will be all digital at some point in the future.
"Ibiquity --owning radio on the industries own dime."
They are the ones at the root of this digital effort. The system is called IBOC. Look it up as HD Radio and read the Ibiquity PR.
Blogging because I can...
Correction: Only TV channels 52-69 are being reallocated. 2-36 and 38-51 will remain in service (channel 37 is reserved for radio astronomy).
Hand over your geek badge, linux user mini-sig, OSTG power pin, and I 3 /. bumper sticker RIGHT NOW. You just commited /. suicide. You are the weakest link, goodbye. (Not trolling, etc., I don't want mod points, just pointing out the blatently obvious.
NO~, I read Slashdot because I think it's stupid.....
Looking at the FEC(Federal Election Commission) records the sponsor of this Bill, Mike Ferguson you will find the following additions to his Campaign Fund.
TIME WARNER POLITICAL ACTION CMTE 2/26/2004 $1000
TIME WARNER POLITICAL ACTION CMTE 6/24/2004 $2000
TIME WARNER POLITICAL ACTION CMTE 9/23/2004 $1000
Though a little peculiar Mike Ferguson gave $1000 back to Time Warner on 03/16/2005.
Bull.
Forgot about the artists.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Mitch Bainwol wouldn't know what strikes a balance for fans and artists simply for the fact that he is with the RIAA.Thats like a car salesman picking out a car for you.Like Grandparents picking out clothes for you.
Just doesn't have your interests in mind.
Well.Mitch Bainwol when you vainly Google your name and come to this article you can see that I've denounced you as a complete f*&king moron and wonder that you dare speak in public for being taken as such.We all know the RIAA are about paying the RIAA and have NO-ONE else even on the radar.You as an organization exist as a parasite to two hosts who are beginning to realize they are carrying you needlessly.You have served your purpose and have reached obsolesence.The industry is dead.Music will live on unexploited by your ilk.You are useless.Fall on your sword.It is a good way to die.Honorable.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Top 40 hits.. somebody thinks it's good music.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
. /lib/daysofweek
/usr/local/office/desk
./beer.sh
case "$1" in
sun-mon-tue-wed)
log_begin_msg "Starting work..."
# set up environment
chroot =
;;
weekend)
log_begin_msg "Getting out of the house..."
if [ -f $local_band_playing ] && [ -n $wallet ]; then
cd $venue
if [ -f $band_good ] && [ -n $wallet ]; then
cd $merchtable
talk tty0 $band
./buy 'cd'
else
more beer.hic
fi
fi
esac
----
seriously. sloppy halfassed bash-ing aside, lose the losers. go out and listen to the 10 billion people who work for a living cause they aren't riding this corrupt, crap-promoting industry, and yet who still manage to get out there and play - for the need for it, the love of it, or the hell of it.
last 10 cds i bought were handed to me by the band who made 'em, in exchange for me putting the cash physically into their hands. If it's against your religion to leave the house, find 'em online.
Screw the RIAA; not as a slogan, but as a verb. Help speed the irrelevance you feel them consigned to; not by engaging in the BS smokescreen 'piracy' charged-debate, but by supporting the alternatives!
That which does not kill us makes us... st
Let's say this idiot bill passes and the FCC promptly requires all DVRs and HDTV cards to listen to a broadcast flag. I wonder how much difference it will make?
Example: I'm an HDTV or DVR manufacturer. I'm required to add a broadcast flag to my hardware. So I do, but I do it through a jumper that, if removed, disables the flag. So I've followed the law, but I've also created a product that's much more desirable than my competitors. Or maybe my DVR has a simple keypad code combination (like Tivo's commercial skip) that disables the flag. Again, I followed the law, but everyone is going to want my DVR over the competition.
Can they actually outlaw incompetence? What would Microsoft do? Can they require that I do a good job of protecting the broadcast flag?
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night; set him on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
You can't beat the man, give up. They have you by the balls. Which balls, the balls = 99% of consumers who don't give a shit that big businesses can do whatever they please and think its "un-American" to question capitalism, even when the markets are obviously and publicly manipulated. I mean whats the alternative, letting people steal Orin Hatch's wildly popular music? Unthinkable.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
I hope you'll not only share a link to where your music can be found but you'll keep your sensibilities about music and the RIAA when talking to radio stations. I work at a community radio station (WEFT 90.1 FM) which plays a great deal of music licensed by the RIAA. Hardly what I'd call alternative, but mine isn't the only opinion in the place.
Recently we had a light discussion about what it would take to do webstreaming. For those of you who don't know, the RIAA licenses tracks of their clients and the terms of the license are rather vague and somewhat hard to shift to if one is used to being able to broadcast almost anything.
WORT recently announced a new and improved webcast. Their announcement is interesting because it starts by lying claiming that they'll webcast "all of its programming!" (see page 13 of the PDF newsletter). When you read further you see that WORT plans to comply with RIAA licensing restrictions by not webcasting some of its programming (presumably either shows or tracks that can't be webcast at that moment). Like I said, it's not easy to webcast if you insist on doing what you can to avoid losing a copyright infringement lawsuit while playing RIAA-licensed stuff. If you've grown used to the over-the-air rules, which don't restrict you in the way RIAA's webcasting restrictions do, you've got a tough row to hoe. The RIAA's online restrictions say things such as you can't play the same featured artist more than 4 times in a 3-hour period, nor can you play more than 3 tracks from the same CD/tape/record in a 3-hour period.
I was curious how much adjustment WEFT would have to make to take on webcasting RIAA tracks. So I looked at some of WEFT's playlists and compared them to RIAA webcasting restrictions. Suffice to say, WEFTies don't yet realize how many shows they'll have to change. I forsee much unpleasant discussion about this topic as we wrestle with exchanging increased listenership for playlist freedom and the hassles that go along with assembling an RIAA-compliant playlist.
/.ers will read this and think that this is a natural application for a database. And if you're thinking this way, you're right but there's more to it than that. WEFT has roughly 40,000 CDs in its library and lots of CDs coming in every week. Finding the financing for the hardware to host the database on alone is a daunting task, finding the volunteer commitment needed to make the database workable for everyone (not just the techies) is another tall order. I'm up for it, but I know a lot more about writing software than I do about writing grant requests, and I estimate we'll need many thousands of dollars to do this in a way that won't fall over when the power dies or a couple of hard drives go bad.
Still other /.ers might think differently and conclude that we should just stop playing RIAA tracks, or WEFT should severly cut down on the RIAA tracks we play. Again, I'm up for that—I host a public-affairs program called "Digital Citizen" every other Wednesday from 8-10PM where I play only stuff my listeners can share. I focus on copyright law, patent law, and Free Software (as in the Free Software movement) issues. The only RIAA licensed tracks I play are fair-use snippets, so these webcasting rules don't apply to me. Other public-affairs shows (like News from Neptune) don't play RIAA tracks at all. The majority of shows on WEFT are music shows and it remains to be seen how receptive they will be to giving up 90% or more of what's in WEFT's library.
So now you're slightly more familiar with the restrictions from the radio end of things, even on community radio which is ostensibly more accessible to the public and less likely to play the mainstream RIAA-licensed stuff you can hear everywhere else.
Digital Citizen
http://www.flwoutdoors.com/games
This is a prime example of why big business likes big government.
When the government is large and far reaching, it then has the power to legislate and regulate in favor of big business to help squash competition from small business.
Government here in the US should be minimal (at best) as set forth by the Constitution and the DoI. If the government doesn't have the power to regulate things in which it should not, then it doesn't have the ability to be biased to the largest campaign supporters.
Libertas in infinitum
A few points:
First off the RIAA is not the same as the music publishing industry. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licenses songs from the publisher for broadcast and live performances, NOT recordings. Mechanical reproductions are licensed from the publisher through the Harry Fox Agency to be cut or recorded.
Secondly, the Congress does not need to actively protect IP by enacting new laws. The ones we have work just fine. It is the court's job to protect the IP of the involved parties. In the US copyright law is a civil matter, a tort, between two parties not a criminal matter which is between the government and an individual.
And this is a prime example of why big business likes big government.
When the government is large and far reaching, it then has the power to legislate and regulate in favor of big business to help squash competition from small business.
Government here in the US should be minimal (at best) as set forth by the Constitution and the DoI. If the government doesn't have the power to regulate things in which it should not, then it doesn't have the ability to be biased to the largest campaign supporters.
Libertas in infinitum
I wrote my Senators yesterday in support of the bill to block the multi-tiered internet. Don't just rant on here, go to congress.org and write a quick email to them to let them know that you don't support this bill.
There is only one thing they understand... declining revenues!
So... vote with your feet! If they can't make money, they will abandon this stupid idea!!
DRM-compatible headphones, anyone? Lord knows we wouldn't want music getting out through that analog hole...
"but MY satellite radio [sirius.com] is assuredly almost CD-quality sound."
It most assuredly is not. It's not even close. The only station with half-way decent quality is the Classical Music station (Symphony). The sound on Sirius ranges from okay to just awful. XM strikes me as a bit better, but certainly nothing to boast about.
I love my Sirius, but that's because of content, not fidelity.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Best REPUBLIC Money can buy. Citizens elect members to represent them, who in turn can be purchased for reasonably low rates! :)
Why is the Federal Government even involved in enforcing copyright? These are private-sector outfits that have every right to protect their rights in court at their own expense ... I simply object to the Feds (and my tax dollars!) being conscripted to serve as the enforcement arm of the RIAA. The FCC has overstepped its bounds pretty regularly these past few years: I think it's time to take a hard look at just how much power the FCC needs to do its job, and to more firmly define what that job actually is. For that matter, Congress needs to be brought to heel and start taking notice of what the voting public wants and stop "balancing" our rights out of existence.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
UnNews:RIAA_CEO_discusses_the_analog_hole
... and so little time...
Joking... Just joking...
But the constant corporate bull shit blended with a government that is only responsive to money really starts to piss me off.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The AHRA gave the music industry SCMS copy protection, royalty taxes on standalone consumer digital audio recorders, and royalty taxes on blank media. (I say "gave" because it was pretty clear that it was entitled to none of these things.) In return, computers & accessories were to be left unmolested, SCMS was supposed to be IT for consumer digital audio recorders, and vendors & the public were supposed to be protected against industry lawsuits.
Now, what actually happened in the last decade or so?
1. The music industry came up with new formats with extra DRM and copy protection (DVD-Audio, Super Audio CD, DataPlay), and retrofitted new copy protection onto existing "CDs". So much for the part where SCMS was the only copy protection that was going to be inflicted on the public.
2. The music industry sued Diamond over the sale of the Rio (a MP3 player) -- under the AHRA, the very law touted as preventing anti-technology lawsuits! They lost, because the judge read the law and its Congressional history, but had they won, there would have been no iPods. After the loss, they tried to inflict their will on everyone else anyway (thus SDMI and other forms of DRM associated with the online music stores).
3. A common theme of DVD-A, SACD, SDMI, and other new forms of DRM was to block or restrict computer usage. So much for not interfering with computers.
4. The SCMS "foot in the door" may have been used to help obtain DMCA anti-circumvention provisions and DMCA "mandatory Macrovision support in VCR" provisions -- some of the worst parts of the DMCA.
I think you can see the pattern. "What the public has given/loaned to us earlier is OURS!!!! ALL OURS!!!! But what the public has reserved for itself is 'negotiable'."
I for one will never buy any device with working DRM. I never bought a single DVD until the CSS regional price fixing problem was resolved, and I could copy the video to my Linux media server, and I stopped buying any DVDs after the movie industry went on its witch hunt. I certainly will never buy monopoly profit protected, restricted use, audio content. It does not fit with the reality of how I use content that I have bought.
Have they given up their "good for the artists" spiel? What's missing from this whole chapter is a group of high profile artists saying this is bullshit.
I mean an actual mutiny. If the artists you like listening to don't have the balls to fight this crap, how good could their music possibly be?
I don't mean to denigrate; my 2 favorite artists are RIAA members. But it all makes me wonder.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I believe most of Congress is bought and paid for, but I also believe if there's a good egg or two in there we should point it out.
Carrot more than the stick, y'know. btw, we need some serious sticks, too.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
>That's not right. Radio and TV stations have licensed the spectrum for their exclusive use over a certain area
That's a bit disingenious. Yes, the FCC will ask the station to make an EIRP map (or whatever they want to call it) but that doesn't in any way stop someone with the right equipment DXing the signal.
The fact remains that on the public bands if a signal hits your radio antenna, it is yours to enjoy.
>That's why pirate broadcasters who piggyback on commercially-licensed frequencies are breaking the law.
Well, they're more breaking the law for broadcasting unlicensed. The interference against another station is just another law they can use against them. And no pirate broadcaster with a clue is going to get into a fight with a 10,000 watt transmitter. They'll find a section of the band that isn't used.
There is however no definition of what constitutes "unauthorized copy".
I thought Title 7, United States Code, chapter 1, did a decent job of explaining what constitutes at least an infringing copy. As for fair use, I don't think it's possible to plug the analog hole for audio.
Did you mean "Title 17"?
Well... In China, I can get MP3 players that record off the radio at lossless (ok, only in WAV format at 32k stereo), and they are all over the place. If Chinese people at the factories decide to sneak unrestricted radio recording (or a foreign company "encourages" their manufacturing facilities to do so) into the MP3 players made for America and post the info on a Chinese website in English(to avoid the DMCA), then that might do one of 2 things- A. make the RIAA lobby to cut China's "most facored nation" status because they infringe copyright, and maybe to drop trade with the country b. make American companies move manufacturing facilities to America c. make China confront the US on this issue and possibly make the first time that the US has to bow to China. Maybe this doesn't make sense, but I'm posting from China late at night.
OSx86 FTW
The current equipment will NOT be made obsolete.
Of course it will. The current equipment will be incapable of receiving the NEW format radio broadcasts that will carry this flag.
However, I really do question the opponents to this law. You may pay for the right to watch your cable on demand and listen to your music. But you don't have the right to tape them, at least not last time I checked.
Then you need to cralw out of your hole in the ground and check again.
The Betamax case, Sony vs Universal, explicitly ruled in 1985 that home taping was Fair Use and NOT an infringment of copyright. And if you go further back, the Supreme Court has been making a long series of related rulings and have made that fact increasingly clear over the last 164 years. Fair Use copying is a set of rights retained by the public and are not and CANNOT be prohibited by copyright.
I'm fairly certain movies aren't shown on TV and Cable to allow people a chance to record them and keep them.
It has nothing to do with TV shows "allowing" people to record them. Under US law the copyright holder has no right to prohibit it. Copyright holders have no right to prohibit Fair Use.
That may be unintended side affect of the current law.
The original copyright laws written by congress did not permit any such copying at all. However over the last 164 years the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that congress does not have the power to pass a law prohibiting Fair Use. That any such law must implicitly flee in the presence of Fair Use, of that copyright law must be struck down as unconstitutional. Stuck down as null and void.
Just to cite two examples, as I said copyright law had no allowance for copying at all. Copyright law originally said that even copying small quotations was infringment. That effecively prohibited any effective ability to engage in review and critisism of a work. Review and critisism are protected speech under the First Amendment. Any law by congress abridging the right to engage in effective review and critcism is unconstitutional. Thus Fair Use was invented... Fair Use is the assumption that copyright does not actually prohibit what it claims to prohibit, and thus need not be struck down as unconstitutional. A second First Amendment example is that copyright law also said parody was infringment. Again parody is protected speech. A long line of such cases on a variety of grounds have established and defined and expanded the range of Fair Use.
Fair Use is established on affirmative constitutional rights grounds. Fair Use is not some "side effect" of current law.
You don't OWN the material that's being beamed into your house
When you buy a book, by US copyright law you are in fact the legal OWNER of that particular copy of that text. When you buy a CD or a DVD, by US copyright law you are in fact the legal OWNER of that particular copy of that music or movie.
And when a TV show is "beamed" into your house, it is not infringment for you to tape it with a VCR. And once you do tape it, you are in fact by US law the legal OWNER of that particular copy.
If you want to understand copyright law you need to grasp the distiction betwen holding the copyrights on something and being the owner of a particular copy. Particular copies are owned by that owner of the medium they are stored on. The copyright holder is granted temporary exclusive "ownership" of the rights of creating and distributing new copies and for public performance. Those are the only rights the copyright holder has, the only thing he "owns", and the only things he has available to license to anyone. And those rights are subject to a huge list of limitations and exceptions (for example the above personal VCR recording is an exception or limitation on the exclusive right to make copies). You do not receive any license when you buy a book. You do not need any license when you buy a book. You own that copy and you have the right t
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
as an independant musician i welcome the RIAA and the FCC to demonstrate what utter and complete tools they are. piracy will only continue and these kinds ov actions will give the entertainment industry such a bad name more consumers will start supporting thier local scenes.
Go to your local library - all the stacks and stacks of music on CD available,
and the best deal is : you only need a library card.
Please read the links I so carefully included in the grandparent post, not just the text of the post. There, in the final paragraph of the page labeled "The RIAA License Agreement", you'll see the RIAA restrictions I refer to.
As for why KOTZ doesn't abide by these restrictions, one needs more information to say specifically. Perhaps that station doesn't play tracks licensed by the RIAA (in which case the aforementioned license agreement doesn't apply). Perhaps the station has chosen to play RIAA-licensed tracks and set up some other means of complying with the aforementioned restrictions (in which case they can maintain an ongoing broadcast and not bother you or anyone else on the webcasting end with compliance details). Perhaps the station has chosen to play RIAA-licensed tracks and ignore the aforementioned restrictions (better known as courting a copyright infringement lawsuit). Perhaps something else is afoot; one can't say without more information about what, exactly, KOTZ plays online.
The aforementioned restrictions were not always in place. But these restrictions have been in place for a while now (they came after the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was signed into law) and if any American webcaster plays RIAA-licensed tracks, they must comply with these restrictions or arrange another deal with the RIAA (which, I understand, the RIAA is quite unwilling to do).
Digital Citizen