Slashdot Mirror
Senate Bill May Ban Streaming MP3s
Silverhammer writes "According to the EFF, a new Senate bill (S. 2644) sponsored by Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Graham (R-SC) would effectively ban streaming MP3 for licensed music by requireing 'casters to use the most restrictive streaming format available (e.g., Windows Media or Real) rather than simply the most restrictive features of a chosen streaming format (e.g., Shoutcast or streaming MP3)." From the article: "The PERFORM Act would ... requir[e] webcasters to use DRM that restricts the recording of webcasts. That means no more MP3 streams if you rely on the statutory license. Under the bill, the statutory license would only be available to a webcaster if: [114(d)(2)(C)(vi)] the transmitting entity takes no affirmative steps to authorize, enable, cause or induce the making of a copy or phonorecord by or for the transmission recipient and uses technology that is reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making of copies or phonorecords embodying the transmission in whole or in part, except for reasonable recording as defined in this subsection."
Good, just use Ogg instead.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I am sure that this bill originated among the "special interests" that make proprietary streaming music formats. It will take the "special interests" of those who want to hold onto the freedom to stream media in whatever format is best, to convince them otherwise.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
e.g., Windows Media or Real
;-)
This won't happen - the Mac community will never allow it... iPods 95% of the market, etc etc...
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I think "Selectively Enforcable" would be a more appropriate term.
Congress is examining a new law aimed at prohibiting the pillow to the cool side, citing concerns from air-conditionner makers for reduced sales.
But the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are just a front and are used for other things like the war on privacy.
I gave the bat commader a high five.
Think harder. It'll be another law in the book that can be used to harass people when "deemed necessary." Keep in mind that prosecutors loves to say things like "suspect is believed to be in violation of (insert a number) of federal/state statues."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
It's most certainly enforceable against entities operating within the law in the first place. Broadcasters like DI.fm who are licensed would have to drop MP3 and unencrypted WMA streams for DRM/encrypted WMA streams, which would no doubt drive up their operating costs immensely due to the computational power of encrypting streams(encrypting each user's stream with a different key, anyone?). This isn't just an attempt to limit freedoms, but it could very well put legal broadcasters out of business.
How is it like that at all? There isn't even a vague passing resemblence.
Or they will set up streaming servers outside of the US, not buy a license and do whatever the hell they want? The DJ's have their licenses anyways
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
I'm willing to record in realtime off the soundcard for something I really want that is only available via secure streaming. Right now there is one thing in that category (joe frank) but I can do it for more.
Reminds me of the old days, recording dr. demento on my mono tape deck from a nearby transistor am radio.
Damn congress, stop trying to legislate me back to the 70s!
Man, you really need that seminar!
... analog hole *ahem* ...
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
No, because if you are Democrat, you aren't going to vote for a Republican in order to vote against the blacklisted politician. And if you are a Republican, you are not going to vote for a Democrat. Either way you will make some excuse why it is OK to vote for the pro-DRM candidate ("Well, I gotta vote for Fienstien or otherwise the Republicans will win, and we can't let that!").
Closing the analog hole. The PROTECT act will Protect Recording Organisations against Terrorism and Every Computer Technology! Using the Analog Hole - 20 years inside. Using the unwilling hole (rape) - 8 years.
Broken society.
A spirit of bipartisanship bridges the right and left in harmonious accord!
I always get a kick when people complain about gridlock in Congress. Things like this remind me why gridlock is a good thing. The more they argue with each other, the fewer of our freedoms they can trample.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I wonder if theyre going to throw the TV station and MTV executives in jail, and the people who record the digitally streamed videos on their TiVos for violating this law because they include major label music without DRM?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
...our politicians really have nothing better to do than to waste time on a bill that can't be enforced? There is no president to keep in line, no repeat-child-molester free due to a technicality loophole in the law? They couldn't stop piracy, and they're not going to stop this. So they may as well quit wasting tax dollars via their salaries, and instead do something worthwhile.
It's a girl!
I'm not going to spout "Call your Congressional representative" because that dosen't any good. The solution is to register to vote and vote OUT anyone in D.C. that' over 40 years old (or don't own an iPod).
Any Slashdot readers willing to run for public office on the newly made-up 'Open Source Party' ticket? You know the one: Demands the return of personal freedoms, supports the repeal of the DMCA and requires public office to use open standards for public documents?
Oh, sorry. I was in Fantasyland for a second there. I live in the U.S.A.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
When people say "special interests", they usually mean a relatively small set of people with a disproportionate amount of power for one reason or another. Sometimes it's because they have a whole lot of money to be used in campaign donations. Sometimes it's a group that one party or another feels beholden to (the religious right, Latinos, nationalists, labor) for ideological reasons, even where that group isn't necessarily a majority (or even the majority of the majority), where solidarity outweighs the group's overall interest.
Geographically, power in the US Congress is not evenly divided. Bills begin in committees; committee members (and especially chairs) have considerable ability to quash or modify bills. Amendments to bills are difficult to remove. Especially in some committees, a single Congressman can effectively hold an entire house of Congress to the special interests of his or her constituents.
A substantial rewrite of the rules of Congress might help, but they're not happening any time soon (because the present rules always benefit the party in power). So some "special interests" will continue to have more power than their voting numbers suggest, and so the term "special interest" will continue to have a pejorative connotation.
There is in fact a difference between a "special interest" and the "public interest." A "special interest" works to get what good for their minority slice of society, whereas the "public interest" seeks to benefit the majority's interests.
This is not inherently a value judgement, though it often is as special interests often work at the expense of the majority's rights. The civil rights movement is a good counter-example of a special interest working for rights that do not negatively impact the majority's rights.
Consumer rights is not a special interest. It is clearly the public interest since we are all consumers.
I will say, that I've never been more disgusted with Dianne Feinstein right now. She's clearly putting the interests of her campaign funders above the interest of the public. I think she brings shame to the Democrats in an election year where the theme of the power of lobbying interests is a central strength for the party. Then again, Hollywood and the recording industry have been a big bribers of the Democrats long before they because bipartisan bribers.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm sure glad they solved all the fricking important problems before they decided on going after streaming mp3s, because, really, when I think of all the things going wrong in the world today, streaming fricking mp3s are the absolute bottom of the list.
What I wouldn't give for someone in Congress to represent the people, instead of just screwing us constantly. I'm waiting for them to just ban listening to music altogether.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Basically, it says you have to use this fantasy technology if it is "reasonably available, technologically feasible" and I say that any competent technician will tell you it's neither. This is like passing a law requiring that it may not rain on wednesdays: it's meaningless.
The problem isn't the senators. It's the industries that *own* them.
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
Obviously, anyone who thinks more than 1 minute about this realizes that the government can't dictate which products should be used in a market.
Legislating which containers for content are lawful and which aren't is a bit silly. Seems akin to "If your DVD box doesn't have a lock on it, the you are in violation. DVD boxes without locks are illegal."
Perhaps are some point, our corporate society will realize that the digital domain is just too full of holes and backdoors to keep contained. They will keep trying, but technology is now evolving faster than they can keep up.
Please keep the names of these folks in mind when voting, folks. Money moves bills, but votes move them out (no promises about replacements).
Thats the point of this law. You've covered all your bases, but you haven't covered the bases of everyone who's listening/watching. If they record your stream and show it to their friends, then they're in need of the same licenses as you.
The PERFORM act makes this your fault, and your problem to fix (by using DRM).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Don't you mean the war on drug users and suspicious arabs?
Because let's face it, when all the money in the world fails to make a difference, you're approaching the problem the wrong way.
Thought: are Americans more or less likely to die at the hands of terrorists after our invasion of Iraq? With over 2,000 dead, and thousands more left injured, the current situation is basically a complete disaster. And angering millions in the Arab world makes us a bigger target. Face it, you can't scare people who are willing to die, period.
Thought: should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not? Because certainly a compelling case could be made to prohibit alcohol because of drunken driving, violence, accidents, and abuse potential. More so than marijuana, even. But alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a failure because it didn't curb demand, yet created crime to fuel an underground market, just like with the war on drugs today. But for prohibition to be repealed, people had to talk openly about the problem. Hard to do that with drugs, because the government misrepresents the facts to demonize drugs.
Obligatory: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, 15 minute video: http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm
America needs a change of direction, and honesty in politics.
Everyone here's going OMG I can't stream mp3s on teh intarweb anymore, but the real reason for this legislation is to stifle satellite radio technology - specifically, the devices they are producing that allow a person to record the songs they hear on XM or Sirius (you know, same as terrestrial radio, where our right to record is actually ensconced in statute). But the RIAA, rather than comparing satellite and terrestrial radio, is comparing satellite radio to Internet streaming (and, by extension, Internet-based piracy).
/. article to the text of the bill as printed in the Congressional Record, and go to the next page. The RIAA's stance is plainly outlined there.
Of course, they're making moves against HD radio as well, as Senator Ferguson (R-NJ) has introduced legislation that would revoke the same rights granted to citizens as they apply to HD radio.
Just click on the link in the
It's also an example of why the US needs more than just a Left and a Right. There is room for more than two parties - politics is not one-dimensional! But as long as the voting system inherently (through Duverger's Law) narrows the perception to "two major parties" we'll never have a truly healthy system that requires dialog, debate, and concensus-building.
Constitutionally Correct
See? The Republican and the Democrats can work together. When it come to restricting our freedoms and increasing their own power, they will work as one. Oh, and it also shows that their similarities run much deeper than any differences they might have. In other words, they are the same. So let's not hear any of that garbage about how the Democrats respect your rights any better than the Republicans, ok?
What?
foie gras was not about banning food, it was about banning animal cruelty. foie gras is producted by force feeding birds by holding their mouth open. their livers get to something like 10x their normal size. pretty disgusting stuff. maybe you think it's not important, but i'm all for banning cruelty of such proportions. ... but i digress.
Not so, the music and/or video needs to be decrytped at some point. It is almost impossible to keep it from being explotied under such a situation. Its only a matter of time (and a few clever people), mark my words ;)
And according to the language of the bill would be perfectly legal as long as you record manually for personal, private usage.
This one isn't really super restrictive on the end user, since as many people have pointed out you can just record what's coming through the soundcard. It is, however, VERY restrictive for satellite and internet based "radio" stations. If you are a physical radio station operator you already pay a license fee to the music industry to broadcast their music, but according to this bill you would also have to pay a fee to broadcast that same music in digital format.
Like many of the posters here I am opposed to this one in principle, but can think of numerous LEGAL ways I could still make copies for my own personal use.
I predict it to be about as successful as the war on drugs
The war of drugs may be a failure, but how many thousands of people are being imprisoned every year for nothing more than marijuana possession? Just because the war fails doesn't mean that tons of people who've never hurt anyone won't have their lives destroyed by it.
As far as I know global temperature has been climbing since pirate populations have been declining. In fact I know that global temperatures are rising. It must be the pirates.
:x
"This is nonenforcable"
It's not about enforcing it. It's about making everyone a criminal. When everyone is a criminal, it becomes considerably easier to get around pesky issues like getting enough evidence for a search warrent, or arresting and detaining people for something else you don't like using the new 'crime' as an excuse.
Since we only ever get two candidate choices, most lobbies just buy both. When I can vote for "None of the Above" and get a new election with new candidates, then we might actually get leaders worth following.
We are all just people.
The US Department of Justice. And they better damn well enforce it in ever instance, otherwise the law could be seen as violating the Constitution's Equal Protection guarantee.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"The problem isn't the senators. It's the industries that *own* them"
Cut the oppressed masses bullshit. I bet you aren't even trying. You want an insight? You are a defeatist baby.
Do you know what? There isn't a bill like this that has ever been passed that couldn't have been defeated by each member of congress getting maybe a hundred hand written letters. Not form letters or emails, fricken hand written notes a page and a half a page long. Thats it. Maybe less. People don't know, don't show it or don't care. That's why bills like this get passed.
Just remember, to your local member of the house or senate, 1 handwritten letter equals at least 3,000 votes. People are so apathetic that it's probably about right too. It's even more effective for technical stuff like this because it's off the radar screen. No polls, no nothing. Just public reaction. Most congresspeople would have their minds changed if they were forced to face up to the fact that something as esoteric as this was pissing off so many voters. Even if they aren't just clueless, and are actually in the pockets of their contributors, it has to slide in under the radar if it's something unpopular. YOU JUST DON'T SIT THERE AND LET IT HAPPEN. It doesn't take much to let them know everyone knows what's up. Sadly, not even this happens.
Remember kids, congresspeople want keep their jobs, and all that matters is votes- otherwise why worry about campaign contributions? They get too much static after dealing with taxes, Iraq, entitlement programs, Jack Abramhoff and everything else to loose thousands of votes over a silly DRM bill that only 127 people in the media industry actually want.
Think about it- why are campaign contributions so important? 30 second TV ads. But here's the secret: they aren't really that effective. Not because people are savvy and ultra-informed of course, but because the population that is actually on the fence enough isn't very big. Still, this can often swing a close election. But then again, in that situation a couple thousand mad music lovers can too.
So, in short, anyone who complains about everything being fixed is part of the problem. The same atmosphere of apathy that amplifies the influence of corporate america also amplifies the influence of those who care enough to actually make their voices heard.
So stop your pathetic whining, get out an envelope, a stamp and a piece of paper and write a fricken letter. Try to sound informed, i.e. actually find out the name and number of the bill and have some idea about what's in it. Finally, make it known that you vote and you aren't going to let innovation and creativity be stifled and killed by the rotting dinasour carcass that is the media industry.
It still doesn't solve the analog loophole. I can still use audacity to record my wave output and have a decent sounding recording when I'm done.
"In fact I don't know of any Americans that have died due to terrorists outside of Iraq and Afghanistan."
Were there no Americans caught in the Turkey, Bali, Madrid or Egypt bombings (and that's just off the top of my head)? Because there were plenty of people from your very few allies caught in them.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"