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.
This is nonenforcable.
I predict it to be about as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. I'm surprised we haven't yet had a war on piracy.
Question everything
A spirit of bipartisanship bridges the right and left in harmonious accord!
*puke*
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.
This is yet another reason for artists not to sign with the RIAA and its cronies. This will drive a more consumer oriented driven alternative to this crap. It's just a matter of time... som long as they keep doing stuff like this.
http://religiousfreaks.com/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.
again...this is like the ban on foie gras (fatty goose liver) in Chicago.
don't they have better and more important issues to work out instead of "PERFORM"-ing for their lobbying bedroom buddies?
heck...Canadian Artists are against DRM. link: http://www.musiccreators.ca/
in fact, govt should stay out of it....and it should be between the webcasters and the artists to hammer out a deal.
Congress is examining a new law aimed at prohibiting the pillow to the cool side, citing concerns from air-conditionner makers for reduced sales.
i probably wouldn't be voting for her anyway bacuse she's the incombent, but feinstein just forfitted any posibility of earning my vote.
DOWN WITH CARRIER POLITICIANS!
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Why are they spending tax dollars on this kind of crap legislation! Two ASS sentors who haven't a clue. If someone is playing something it can be recorded even with the most secure format ever invented! How? Easy, i can record what I fucking hear you twits.
;)
jesus i fucking hate california and the dumbasses who are in it, i need to move outa here back to the east coast, oh wait more dumbasses there too, midwest, fuck more dumbasses there too. Canada?! double dumbasses there! eh
In the words of Louis Black: "This is Congress doing the people's work. The people's stupid, stupid work.
Glad to see that when practicing ignorance our government can be nonpartisan
A republican and a democrat together for the greater good of the RIAA and their parent organization the Mafia. Vote Libertarian!
Mplayer can dump Windows Media streams (and others!) just fine.
I think we need some sort of blacklist where we keep track of these politicians, and come election time, vote these n00bs out of office. What do you think?
I don't think this bill will go very far, as it'd actually create a monopoly of the standard with the highest level of restrictions and virtually eliminate competition.
And even though there'd be great economic interest in creating a standard with a higher level of restriction than the one in use, it'd be a difficult market since you risk loosing all potential customers when a better competing standard is actually introduced.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
So that means my business model of making vinyl albums recorded off webcasts isn't gonna fly?
This is to keep people from using a stream to supply mp3 for download? We need a whole new law to protect the 2 albums that aren't available on BT somewhere?
If someone is receiving this stream legitimately and they change to another format, they can't sanitize it and share it anyway if thats what they were gonna do? Those other formats aren't that secure are they?
... analog hole *ahem* ...
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
...as an individual you have no rights what so ever. Our government has been taken over by the Corporate Lobby. He who has the deepest pockets gets the laws passed that they want passed. The average individual gets screwed, because he has no voice, and no way to influence ($$$$$$$) his elected officals. We the people get to vote to put him there, but after that the Corporations get to decide what that elected person actually decides on our behalf.
The dishonorable Sentator John "I am a Jackass" Kerry proved all this to me once. Thank God that Son of Satan didn't become President.
I wrote him a carefully worded letter expressing my opinions as someone whom he represents (BULLSHIT, he represents Disney, et al). I got a very nicely worded form letter in return which basically told me I could go to hell, and that the rights of the Corporations were far more important than mine to free speech and fair use.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
I'm an AOL sponsored NSV (nullsoft streaming video) station. The reason I ask "Where do I fit into this" is my station rides the grey line of copyright and licensed music... I broadcast people singing from a karaoke bar.
Our audio is broadcasted using ACCP, because the sound quality is fantastic. Let's say for a minute though, we decided to broadcast back into vp3 video and mp3 audio (so linux/macs could watch)
Is this really copyright infringement? Or are we semi protected by parody exemptions? Nearly %100 of karaoke music is reproduced backing tracks, made by the karaoke companies in their studios. Add in that 1/2 these folks couldn't carry a tune to save their lives, it's actually pretty funny and amusing to watch.
I'm only slightly worried, Feinstien sounds like she doesn't know WTF she's talking about. Add to that i've got AOL behind me, and she can kiss my ass. Seriously though, i'm riding a grey line of copyright here, anyone have any insights or thoughts?
--toq
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.
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
It's Lewis, jackass!
So how does this effect Myspace and Xanga? They're always streaming media, I don't know what format off hand, but still.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
While we all hate DRM, that shouldn't even be the issue. The issue: does the federal government even have the authority to regulate streaming mp3s? The answer should be pretty clear: No. The fact that it's not even questioned shows how fucked we are.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
...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!
Two ASS sentors who haven't a clue
They have a perfect clue of how much money they did pocket from the RIAA just before trying to get that stupid stuff in.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
50g per vote PST
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
If podcasters can no longer comment on music published by major labels, they'll move to commentary on indie musicians who release their rights for commentary purposes. RIAA members lose, indie musicians win, the public wins, some podcasters win, some lose. The key thing is that the major record companies lose a free publicity channel and we don't have to hear about their pablumized song releases.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
So if this passed, you're saying all of my podcasts go bye bye? Well, at least the ones playing copyrighted music... And how does a podcast differ from a radio broadcast, exactly? I can record a radio show with no problems, but if it comes in via a podcast it's a big bad no no. I mean, obviously, people recording music off the radio has just KILLED the music industry...
I'm not American, but surely this law is in someway illegal? Like maybe freedom of speech, and competition [of formats, hence companies]?
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
I'd like to see that letter, you should scan and post it.
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.
Senators Feinstein and Graham agreeing on anything is hard to even believe. They are two polar opposites in every aspect of politics, and this is what they agree on? The fact that both of them support this is a sign of how little technology is understood by Congress in general.
Are you sure?
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
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.
Entertainment wants to be free (of cost)
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
1. Develop a format even more restrictive than Realmedia and Windows Media, e.g. somekind of hardware-DRM scheme which forces people to hold their breath while listening to said format.
:)
2. Thanks to this law everyone has to use your format! Charge obscene amounts of money in royalties.
3. Profit!
Oops, forgot to ??? the second step, don't you dare steal my idea! And no, didn't RTFA.
Be sure to teach the little ones in kindergarten that it's wrong to share!
Moderation in All Things... Especially Moderation - gurutc
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").
PERFORM? PATRIOT? I'm sure that people think up the acronyms, and then try to find words that fit. What a bunch of arse.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Yeah, Mplayer can dump the media streams, but unfortunately, if it's DRMed (which is WHY they're mandating the damn format in the first place- so it can be locked down...), you get nada.
Thankfully for me, I've all but given up on the labels shite and the only streams I listen to are things like RenRadio, which don't get impacted by this garbage and won't have to change formats (and I know the broadcaster for RenRadio, we'd find a way to keep from needing to...). I'm sure there's some indie stuff out there as well. As it stands, I've gotten where I like Pop music less and less- and it's all RIAA and their member Lablels' doing. (Why listen to a band when the Label that represents them views me as being worse than a murderer or rapist- never mind that I never did anything to them...)
As it stands, anyone listening to any of the Labels stuff should probably stop now- they obviously don't really want to have you as a customer (only a consumer, which is a different beast- if you want to be one of those, just open up your wallet, they'll be by shortly to lighten it at every opportunity...) and listening to it or buying it only pays for this garbage. I've quit. So should you all.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
What is to prevent the OSS community from making a more restrictive DRM standard based on ogg vorbis with some DRM-ish layer? Does this mean that the only legal streaming format will then be ogg-DRM-vorbis?
The RIAA and the other middlemen must really be worried that they are going to be cut out of the equation when the artists realise that they don't need to give up 99% of the revenues and could just as easily hire an online company to distribute their works for them at a much lower cost. Legislating a certain format for the online distribution of music would turn the tables again and force the artists to deal with another middleman, in this case the company that owns the rights to that DRM format. The RIAA could simply buy those rights to that particular DRM and they would be guarenteed a revenue stream for quite a few years into the future.
My understanding of current law is that I may copy any boadcast for later replay and that further I may give copies of that broadcast to anyone I please unless I charge for them.
Why would the congressmen want to make it difficult to record something that I could just as easily record off the radio.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
This is just the government protecting the top 2% of the richest people in america again, folks. It's what they do best!
When you don't see congress taking a piss on the little guy, they're in recess.
Does anyone believe for a second that most of the political constituency wants tighter control of their music? No. This isn't about what the people want. If it were, there wouldn't BE DRM or copyright extensions. I doubt ANYONE wants to see the windows media popup saying that their content license has to be checked once you move it to a new machine or to have all of their videos removed from their ipod when you move your purchased downloads to a new hard drive because you haven't authorized your computer (no kidding, this happened to me and it took 45 minutes to reload all the video I HAD on my ipod back on).
All these laws are being put into place to "protect" only people who's most reliably common trait is the word ", millionaire" attached to their name. I just wish the people would step up and SAY SOMETHING before our rights erode to only being able to listen to cd's without fear of imprisonment.
Coming to you, from a country that has better problems than doing the bidding of the music industry.
Just a hunch: Could it be that a national law ain't worth jack in an international medium? So it's illegal in the US? Move to Mexico. Make it illegal there? Move to the EU. Make it illegal in the EU? Move to Russia. Make it illegal in Russia? Who cares?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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 story is covered HERE
I was suprised this wasnt filed under YRO as well.
I run a 24/7 shoutcast server; It is my belief that this is part of my freedom of speech as an American. I honestly don't care if this bill passes or not, because they are not going to make me stop streaming music.
Does terrestrial radio have any sort of DRM? Last I checked, I can toss a blank tape in any $20 wal-mart stereo, and record whatever I want.
Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.
You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government, you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS!
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
There are only so many radio stations. That's something you can easily buy. Ever listened to mainstream radio recently? Wondered why they play the same shitty song every hour or even half hour?
Take a wild guess why. And no, it's not 'cause they think that song rocks.
Podcasts are not controllable by the music industry. There are simply too many to buy them all. So, what we can't buy, we destroy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is the silliest attempt at legislation yet. What with stations whose mainstay still is FM, but also do MP3 as a service? Will their streams be DRMed also? The radio waves they send out sure as hell aren't! As a foreign listener without any possibility of snapping up US radio stations via the ether, will I lose my WFMU?
If this whole RIAA-member circle jerk continues I bet that you can't even get an analog radio reciever soon. It'll all be digital, with 7-layer DRM, so as to disable any pesky copying of anything broadcast anywhere, ever!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).
Christ. You people just CAN'T leave Natalie Portman alone, can you?
+++ATH0
Is it for all, and I mean ALL, copyrighted music? Even music that is released under Creative Commons, on a non restrictive type (public domain kind of thing)??
So is not enought having to pay licensing fees for freaking MP3s, for the music being distributed, but now this??? WTF???
No, I did not bother reading TFA, this is slashdot, remember?
Besides, if moving to WMA with DRM, didn't support of Windows Media Player for the Mac die a while a go?
Errrrr... shit, have to get to work...
Have a good one.
===== "Every head is a different world so don't invade mine you FREAK!" smartSAGA said
Well, here's a thought -- you are number 50 on a list of 50 most important "targets" this law would go after. Yes, I'd say there's a small chance they will harass you but I think there are WAY bigger and WAY more targets of interest out there besides you.
If you are in a group and being chased by bears, you don't have to be the fastest person in the group. You just don't want to be the slowest. Same thing here.
Developing some OS-DRM standard that's super restrictive and explicitly disallow commercial music to be broadcastet with it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I look forward to all stations switching to my upcoming audio format, which is both the most restrictive and most expensive to license in the world. Contact me for the address to mail the checks.
...and make sure it's an actual *LETTER* for more impact. But, expect them to not give a damn what you actually want.
Probably at this point the ONLY thing to do is to educate as much of the populace at this point and REMOVE people that are currently in office either by referendum or election. Not a single person in Congress really and honestly represents anything other than Corporations.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Here is the link for the video for the senate hearing on this: http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6 .0.12&&title=Sen.%20Judicaiary%20Cmte.%20Hearing%2 0on%20the%20Music%20Industry%20%26%20Digital%20Rad io&link=rtsp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.c-span.org%2F15days%2Fe 042606_music.rm
They had the following music artists on the panel: Anita Baker; Todd Rundgren, Victoria Shaw.
The corporates that were there were Warner Music; XM Satellite Radio; Live365, Bonneville International Corporation. Noticely absent was anyone from Nullsoft the makers of WinAmp and Shoutcast.and you'll see that Feinstein's sixth biggest contributor was the TV/Movies/Music industry and Graham is also sucking on the entertainment tit where he received over $100,000
The United States: Best Government Money Can Buy (tm)
Thank you USA congress for passing yet another law that will help ensure that people outside of the USA will have an easier time making money using new technologies. Thanks for banning most of our streamcasting competition - OH! and thanks for stupid software patents too! Those realy help. Please, keep up the good work. Only the American Congress could work so hard to help the rest of the world make a buck using new technologies like the internet and digital media.
Anarchists never rule
How is this not a violation of any number of our rights? If I can already legally broadcast it, how can the government tell me what language to use. I know we voted for english way back in the day, but that doesn't make publishing in german a crime. What's next? Are they going to start telling us that we can't broadcast in arabic because it helps the terrorists? or can't broadcast slang because of the war on drugs?
Have you ever priced out either Real or Windows Media streaming servers?
The software license starts at $10K
I used to run an advertising-free internet radio station. Our annual budget was just enough to buy an ounce of weed for our New Years' Eve broadcast lol.
Ok everyone involved actually chipped in on that one.
My point being that when I was in that position it most certainly would not have been economically reasonable to purchase either of those products.
So would I have been exempt? Or is the government going to go around handing out licenses?
Oh wait I know! They'll federally mandate free streaming servers - to go along with state-provided lawyers, food stamps, and welfare checks!
lol Real will go bankrupt on the third day.
Unfortunately, it'll be three days too late for pirate radio networks (my old broadcasting software)
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
I'm sure there's a provision for that, but the leadin to the article causes people like me to begin foaming at the mouth!
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
This week the Director General of the BBC stated that he was going to put even more of their broadcasted programs available for download and most of it in mp3 format. And here we have the USA(opps sorry the RIAA) government trying to outlaw this perfectly legal practice.
A generation agom the USA was considered the centre of innovation. Now various vested interests are doing their level best to stop it all.
This bill (if it becomes law) will force podcasters and other content providers to move offshore and millions of otherwise law abiding US citizens to breal the law on a regular basis.
Somehow, someone must as the say in the USA, "Kick some Ass" and get that thing which is such an anathema these days, "Common Sense" into the US Leglislators to stop this madness.
But until it does, get downloading guys and gals!
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
eom
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
So if this forces webcasters to use the "most" restrictive DRM available, and someone comes out with an incredibly restrictive DRMd platform, will every webcaster need to migrate to it? And if someone else comes out with a more restrictive one a week after that, will they need to migrate again?
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 means that Non-USA mp3 streaming stations will suddenly see a jump in listeners - which has to bee good for their ratings with their advertisers.
It's all about USA corp screwing USA mom-n-pop, because they know full well that this law won't affect any non-USA radio station - what you gonna do, packet filter every HTTP packet coming through for shoutcast streams?
In fact it could be a good thing for some US citizens, too - non US radio stations getting a greater listenership in the US, thereby fuelling international understanding despite el Prezidente's best efforts.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Guys you all need to take a chill pill, the general election for the United States is this November, after the general election any bills that did not make it through congress are dropped and must be reproposed during the next cycle. There is a reason why the speaker of the house waits until the last minute to put stuff like this on the agenda, because it will never make it through the process in time, yet on the same token nobody can say that he prevented it from entering debate. I shutter to think how many Americans don't know how our political system works.
Oooooooooooooooooh! Can I get a copy of that letter? I have a Kerry-loving aquiantancewho thinks that Kerry is against the Corporations.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
So long as they keep "economically reasonable" in there, it is trivial to say that since you're not charging to receive the broadcast, all you can afford to broadcast with is a Linux computer running ShoutCast - which only supports streaming MP3s.
And if you are charging for it...how do you justify charging for people to receive unrestricted or restricted copies of other people's music without licensing it for redistribution? Especially if you're not encrypting it, this could probably be prosecuted under existing laws as buying music, making copies, and selling them.
Ok, how exactly does an ipod play streaming music?
Actually the number would be over 8000 Representatives - the Constitution specifies a 1:30k ratio. I think 1000 Representatives would be a good compromise, though.
Constitutionally Correct
What if my band wanted our music streamed in mp3 on internet radio stations without DRM? Just because our business model doesn't match that of the major recording labels, doesn't mean that it should be outlawed. Does it? What if we _want_ people to stream rip/download our music and send it to their friends so they will come to our shows? This bill would be limiting our potential audience to those who happened to be listening to the station at the time our music is played and killing all viral interest.
Before we all get too upset, remember that this is not law yet, and probably never will be. Most bills die in committee and are introduced as a bone to throw to your favorite lobbyists. Diane Feinstein is from California and the Entertainment industry is one of her top contributors. If you don't like this law, write to your Senator and encourage him/her to vote against this law. Also, you should probably vote him/her out for good measure, because incumbancy is pretty much the single largest foe of Democracy in America. So while you're at it, push for mandatory term limits by Constitutional amendment if necessary (one term would be good--that way, the special interests can spend all they want electing candidates they think will be beneficial, but have basically no power over them after the election). That would put an end to a lot of this pandering.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Fine Swine
That's what we called her when we lived in California.
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).
They generally benefit the party in power, but not always.
--MarkusQ
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?
uses technology that is reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making of copies
That is? I've got no software that can stream DRM'ed content (not available). Even if I had - it's still not preventing making of copies. Of course decompressed real audio compressed back to mp3 vbr loses quality... but it's still many times better than recording analog radio.So... Is DRM really that technology?
can we not just build a new internet and kick out people who do not know how to use it? these people all need to be jumpsmacked
Kill your TV
I always think it's fun to look at who gives money to candidates that make decisions like this. I've always disliked Feinstein, and stuff like this just reenforces my opinion.
7 6/ (slow server)
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/C003151
I know this is a full contribution history, but here are the names I picked out as having opened their checkbooks.
ASCAP
RIAA
MPAA
AOL/Time Warner
MGM
Viacom
Sony
Disney
Sorry, but these days questioning a Democrat is obviously a troll because Bush blah blah oil blah blah conservative evil blah blah blah religious right blah blah war Carter (D) started the draft up again oops I mean blah blah PATRIOT act (all Bush's fault of course, totally not the House or the Senate) blah blah Iraq blah blah Clinton (D) made it legal to send people to Syria for torture oops I mean uhhhh REPUBLICAN BAD ANYTHING BUT THIS GUY A VOTE FOR GREEN IS A VOTE FOR RED HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
...sorry. I just need to hear someone say that every now and again... or as most say, "get that off my chest". Sigh... and my Karma was Good, too...
(iv) do not permit the redistribution, retransmission or other exporting of a phonorecord embodying all or part of a performance licensed under this section from the device by digital outputs or removable media
OK I read that as saying if your trasmition can be recorded on any form of removable media it's illegal to broadcast without DRM. You know if I read it that way, some **IAA fucktard is going to try to use it that way.
Remember the DCMA will never be used to sqash innovation or competative ventures, and the PATRIOT act would never be used except to fight terrorists. Our dedicated politicians told us so.
What if I'm drunk or horny? Will it know that I'm a geek by day and a drunk pervert by night? I can't log on to my own system to watch porn? WTF?!?!?!?!?!
What, you didn't hear? The latest technology requires you to have implants that bypass the ear drum and send signals straight to your brain. Without them, you won't hear the music at all!
This new HD-CD chipset will cost $1000 plus $10,000 installation fee. Each HD-CD will cost about $40.
There is also a law banning mandatory implants. We'll see how long until that law is repealed.
They cant tell us what formats to use. Thats corporate favoritism. Its a slap in the face to free speech, innovation, technology, and basic common sense.
:)
Do they have to make laws every day? Can't they just sit around and count their money on some days?
Free speech is Mp3, OGG, Xvid, you name it...
A format is a format is a format...
Microsoft and real are greasing someone... I guess Apple didnt pay up....
I hope it passes. I hope all of these dictatorial laws pass.... I hope we get rid of freedom sooner because the big lie that is America is becoming tiresome. The sooner we just ban free speech, and hand over all of our rights to the rich corporations of the world, and stop teaching our children about "revolutionary wars" and "freedom"... The better we'll all be. I dont need the headaches
Just use Total Recorder
Total Recorder is a shim driver. Shim drivers don't work if your streaming station requires the Secure Audio Path, which works only on audio output drivers that have been signed by Microsoft as conforming to Windows Media Digital Restrictions Management rules. Drivers must turn off all cleartext digital outputs as a condition of getting signed; all unsigned drivers get silence. But ye still cannae stop the analog hole.
is to not stream major label music. The RIAA would feel the pinch soon enough if ALL streamers were to refuse their content. Just stay away from their stuff. It's poison.
What?
Like she cares...
She gets her votes the same way they all do. They lie, they promise... and when they get into power... they throw all of that stuff out the window and let lobbyist right bills, and they pass them because their pockets are stuffed with yummy green cash.
I need a politician, like i need a politician with a hole in its head...
Seriously...let's take Gnarls Barkley for example. They have a record contract (I think), but they also allow you to stream music from their album on their Myspace page. So, would they no longer be allowed to do that, since their music is licensed? It seems like this idea is so bad that even licensed artists will suffer because of it. On the other hand, my music on my Myspace Music page is not licensed. (what do they mean by 'licensed' anyway? i could put a CC license on it easily.) So, I'm assuming I could still stream my music. Then again, why should I assume that this law will be applied in a logical way?
You sure 'bout dat?
John "I don't own an SUV (but my very rich wife owns seven and I just happen to drive them)" Kerry is the sole reason I voted for Bush. It was the only way to vote against Kerry that had the slightest chance of counting.
Looking back, I think that Kerry would have been less harmful to our nation and our essential inalienable rights because you can do only so much damage when you miss 60-80% of your scheduled meetings.
Both candidates were scum. Matt and Trey are right: we get to choose between a big turd and a stupid douche - we need a good, strong third-party candidate with a backbone, not some fork-tongued two-faced spineless corporate puppet.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
MP3 players these days commonly support ID3 tags
One ID3 tag (type CRA) can specify encrypted audio. But it also specifies that part of the stream can be a unencrypted sample.
So satisfy the law. Use DRM. Use MP3 with embedded CRA tags. Make 99.9% of the stream a free preview. Encrypt a millisecond ocasionally. Pick a moment of silence.
I suggest using the 'XOR with a Zero' code.
See section 4.21. http://www.id3.org/id3v2-00.txt
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
It hurts RIAA more than it hurts the public - by stopping podcasters from commenting on RIAA members releases, it actually helps the independent musicians who release their music under a more compatible license!
There's not downside here. RIAA members lose - we win.
And the best part is that they cut their own throats. How is that not a good thing?
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Licensed streaming audio in other countries will continue to stream in mp3 format, and this legislation will just push hosts of such services to operate out of those countries, widening our trade deficit.
I will no longer download any trial music, will never again purchase music of any sort (I can't try the MP3 first)
I believe most people are disgusted enough to do without music, at this point.
In short, this will hasten the demise of the RIAA, that will be great.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Tommy Chong is now selling bongs over streaming MP3's. We must spend another $12million in anti-terrorism resources to stop him for good.
Sounds more like special interest BS than aiding the "war on terrorism". Smoke and mirrors I guess. Good thing U.S. can't make laws for other countries. It will be cheaper for entities to move their syndication servers to other countries than comply with this bill, if it does indeed pass. What open source alternatives to DRM exist..? I know of none. Perhaps this really is a result of special interest groups and their incentives for congress peoples.
Michael Peroutka. http://www.constitutionparty.com/ No spinelessness there.
The logic used by our government is pre-kindergarten at best. I suggest we vote out every single incumbent in the next election. Show them we don't want their crap anymore. Then those that don't fall in line for the next election, vote them out. It may take a few elections, and it may cause a few problems here and there, but at least it won't be the train wreck we're going to see in the not too distant future if we don't change things.
I once heard a podcast withChristopher "Monty" Montgomeryand other geeks saying that MP3 and Music traffic in Internet now has 90% of bandwith use. Is this all about big companies trying to stop the next revolution that Internet 2 (not web 2) will have for all of us?
I have 3 comments for this ignorant corrupt senator wich has to hear:
Senator Feinstien (Fr-ah-kenstien whatever) is up for re-election in Nov of this year. As a result this may encourage more of you to register and then vote for someone else who is actually in tune with the companies and people of the State of California. Need I remind you that this Senator also was a sponsor of the DMCA and similar legislation. The biggest problem is that in Nov everyone will see it as a choice between Feinstein and a Republican. Which is IMHO no choice at all, both having equal anti-american attitudes. *sigh* Again Rock the Vote in Nov.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
Here are her numbers:
DC: 202-224-3841
SF: 415-393-0707
LA: 310-914-7300
SD: 619-231-9712
Fresno: 559-485-7430
Or you can e-mail her here:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.htm
OK, so from the post the bill specificly names "webmasters" needing to use DRM. I would say that MP3 streaming is the digital equiv of FM radio. The quality, at least to my ears, is about the same. Hide your tape decks! Those are next to be banned!
My spouse needed some music from her dance classes. We found nearly all on iTunes. I bought, DLd and burnt them on a CD-Rom. Perfect. Steve Jobs, Apple and the Industry got their fair share from me today. Zero hassle, zero fuss and a DRM that interests NOBODY who doesn't do illegal stuff. So I can't burn a playlist more than 7 times. Who cares.
WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ANY MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, I ASK?
Bottom line:
Get pissy with me, and I'll be off your customer list again. Play nice and you'll get my money. BTW: I recommend Magnatune.com to everybody. They've got some really cool stuff on their download site. All formats (including FLAC and OGG) all bitrates and no DRM. And 50% goes to the artists directly. Oh, and the music is good.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"Carter (D) started the draft up again"
we have a draft?
Clinton made it legal for people from the middle east to be rendered. To satisfy the egyptians and avoid international law.
I don't agree with it, but that is a lot different then rendering your own people.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://www.nmedia.net/~chris/mp3ivo :)
this law would not have anything to do with copyright, only with requiring DRM on *all* music streams. Yes, it's that bad.
If I obtain a negotiated license from a label to perform a work publicly through a digital transmission, with the label's full contractual understanding that the transmission will use no digital restrictions management, then who is the plaintiff?
I suggest that a better use of the governments influence would be to ban the usage of cars and make people use horses instead. Think how many deaths a year would be eliminated through the elimination of drunk driving (in case you do not know the number it is about 15,000). Gad, are these people stupid or what...
Good, at least the standards will now need to be open standards.
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!").
Maybe... but not if you get involved before then. Vote the pro-DRM bums out during the primary so your favorite party doesn't nominate them in the first place, and then you can happily vote a party line ticket knowing you won't be voting against free speech.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The Senate can KISS MY ASS!!!
(I live in Sweden)
To anyone in California who may be reading this:
As much as it galls me, I know the only solution is to vote for the Republican Candidate this year (Richard Mountjoy), who is running against Feinstein.
Feinstein is the most pro-Hollywood senator around, for reason that should be obvious. She's extremely pro-business, siding with Republicans trying to take away your right to sue companies. She was the co-sponsor of the PATRIOT Act. She voted to invade Iraq, and now her husband's company is making millions in contracts there. That seems to be the same reason she's a heavy supporter of China.
The only way the democrats are going to put up somebody else is if we kick Feinstein out, and live with Mountjoy for the next 6 years.
I've sent MANY letters, faxes, and e-mails to Feinstein's office over the years about the RIAA/MPAA's overbearing and heavy-handed tactics, and they all come back with the same form letter about the need to protect copyrighted material. She clearly doesn't care, and it's time for her to go.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Remember you might let your friends listen to the speakers at the same time, and cut into their revenue.
Now, if they would just go after those idiots with the too loud stereos under the 'unauthorized rebroadcast' concept..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...only the outlaws will have streaming MP3's.
Doesn't quite have the same *ring* to it.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Anyone technically inclined enough to rip mp3 streams is perfectly capable of doing the same with Real Media or Windows Media. Neither streams are truly encrypted and requiring a key to listen to streaming audio would effectively kill it anyway.
This is stupidity on the highest order. I run an internet radio station and I have and active interest in protecting my artists assets. There's a balance and if no-one's read everybodies favorite groups webcasting policies read up. I think they've pretty much got it covered.
I'm sure Real Media and Microsoft would love the extra royalties, but as a solution to a problem this does, how do we say? Fuck-all.
Quack, quack.
we have a draft?
Yes.. To be technical, what we now have is mandatory registration for a board that may or may not later on decide to make use of all this data. You see a fuss and a holler every time omg evil M$ collects user information, but I find this far more disturbing.
The brief, summarized draft history, for those unable/unwilling to click the hyperlink:
1) Draft for WWI
2) Peacetime draft pre-WWII when it was pretty obvious America would be fighting at some point. Interesting note: "12 months" quickly became "18 months" in 1941, and "six months post-war" once the US got involved. For those of you posting about the Government going down the toilet - sorry, but it's pretty much always been this way.
3) Peacetime draft on until the 60s (see also: Elvis)
4) Barry Goldwater (R) proposes ending the draft in 1964. See also "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today".
5) Draft ends in 1973 - oddly enough, under the term of "evil" "Republican" Richard M. Nixon.
6) In 1980, acting as the lame duck President, Jimmy Carter (D) signs the people's rights away by starting the Selective Service System.
7) In 1986, under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan (R), the last prosecution for failure to register for the draft was made.
Clinton made it legal for people from the middle east to be rendered. To satisfy the egyptians and avoid international law.
I don't agree with it, but that is a lot different then rendering your own people.
Khaled Masri. German Citizen. Eskimo Spy. (or whatever the actual case may be) I assume you're not going to deny the ongoing process of globalization - being that you sound (no offense currently intended) party-line "liberal" and all, and this is one of those things that everybody from the "left" goes on about (yes, in case my quotes don't make it obvious, I find the entire duality perspective incredibly distasteful - but if the words have meaning for some, then why not use them?) - however, a side effect of this globalization is that the lines between "German citizen" and, uh, the American Government's "own people" (which is, frankly, an offensive term to be using - I am not property of the Government, nor do I consider it my own - until the time comes when it acts on my personal, actual interest) are blurred. It's a small step from giving some German guy an enema and a trip to the Punishment Facility to kidnapping an American Muslim, and another small step from kidnapping him to kidnapping a political activist, whistleblower, or member of Fugazi - and a small step from that to grabbing that annoying Michael Moore guy and treating him to a special, private screening of Farenhate 9/11.
And who do we have to thank for these human rights abuses? Oh, yes, the hero of Student Idiots^H^H^H^H^H^HDemocrats from coast to coast. And, gee, let me see... before the government started torturing people, how many attacks were made on American soil? Like, none? Maybe one if you count Pearl Harbor as soil. Maybe two if the first WTC bombing came before this bill - which would not surprise me, since Clinton's middle name (and, as far as I'm concerned, and with the usual Russ "Gold, not Stein" Feingold exception, the entire Democratic Party's) is "wet 'em". And let's see, afterwards, there was a huge terrorist attack, a bunch of poorly educated Midwesterners and naive Republocrats living in fear, and a growing, relentless push towards anal retentivity in all facets of life - from the obvious plane flights to the less obvious - bringing bottled "water" to a sports game, or sneaking in covert recording equipment to a concert.
Your vote. Your choice. Is "not the other guy" really enough?
T[he plaintiff in the case of a digital transmission to the public without DRM would be t]he US Department of Justice.
This bill (page 1 and page 2) makes no amendment to Title 18, United States Code, which defines crimes. It changes only Title 17, which defines copyrights. Specifically, this bill narrows section 114, which primarily makes exemptions to the exclusive rights under section 106. Therefore, in the case of a licensor and licensee who have agreed to a license under the exclusive rights of section 106 to transmit a work to the public without DRM, how would this bill make either party guilty of a crime or otherwise bring the DOJ into it?
The problem is that the government has granted itself more and more power to legislate and regulate where it doesn't belong as defined by the US Constitution.
This is why big business likes big government. Might seem counterintuitive at first but think about it. If big business can buy influence and legislative bills, then they can stifle their competition.
For example, one has to jump through many many hoops to open a small business in this country. Why? Because the government has over legislated and regulated to ensure that every single rule is followed for business. Big business has the capital and resources to be able to handle all of these hoops because they have legal departments, paper pushers, accountants, etc etc. The sole businessman doesn't have all of these methods to be in compliance with the nessecary laws. Therefore they have to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort, and money to keep up.
If the government would stick to its original definition as set forth in the US Constitution and Declreation of Independence, then we wouldn't have any special interests, buying of influence, over legislation, draconion regulation, etc because the government wouldn't have the power to affect such things.
If the government doesn't have the power to regulate the markets, then no one will pay money for the government to regulate the markets because it would be futile. We should stop governmental creep and bloat NOW!
Libertas in infinitum
You are thinking about the "pirate" who unknowingly distributes copies of a copyrighted work to strangers while using a PTP "download" application (and receives no money for the distribution).
Gonzales assertion makes sense with the first kind. Trying to equate the two, ala *AA, is the logical fallacy known as "equivocation".
Where are the "Hands off the Internet" lobbyists and shrills now?
I thought all the "big" companies were for non-regulation of the internet?
Go fuck yourselves, music industry.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I did vote Libertarian. Doesn't make me feel any better about this bill.
The broadcasts will still be recorded. If only Congress would spend the time wasted on crap legislation like this one fixing real problems, perhaps they'd actually be worth keeping in office.
Later,
-Slashdot Junky
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
Polititions that sell out to the media companies like this make me sick . One I like being able to listen to radio froma linux box or even an amiga that has a PPC card. No way will I resort to running windows just to listen to an online radio station. Also it's unfair to the broadcasters in forcing them use an inferior and not free or even low cost close prioperitary codec wrapper. So they are forced to spend more and offer an inferior product.
No, that's a "giant douche" and a "turd sandwich", I believe.
There's several viable third-party candidates; Ralph Nader, Cobb of the Green Party, the Libertarian guy (can't remember his name), etc. The problem is no one wants to vote for them because they may be effectively helping the candidate they hate the most, because of this insanely stupid voting system that prevents anyone who's not a member of the two major parties from getting a real chance.
I guess if my choices are either MS or Real when it comes to getting music streamed, then the choice is neither.
One more product I will not be interested in.
The signal is the key. If the format of the signal is in some patented, commercially controled format like MP3, then any government from anywhere can influence the DRM within the signal. However, if the signal is OGG, an open format, then it cannot be controlled. Even if governments craft laws that make it illegal to "broadcast any music created by anyone other than the broadcaster" without a license (something which is totally impossible to reconcile with the american constitution allowing freedom of expression), they will have the obvious problem of enforcing an unpopular law on SINGLE INDIVIDUALS, not corporations.
That is not to say that governments won't try to make these laws. The only difference is, with open formats, these abhorent actions are presented with immediate resistance, whereas with commercial formats, the automatically bend over and take it, no matter if its right or wrong.
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
"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.
The RIAA has hated streaming audio since the days when "streaming audio" meant files comming over a 300bps modem that told your PC speaker how to beep a song.
The whole point is that, unlike traditional radio stations (ClearChannel etc), streaming radio stations play what THEY want to play, not what the RIAA wants them to play.
...the so-called "darknets" will grow in number. I've been doing my own for the past five years. Originally I started off with using simple OpenSSH tunnels to forward ports from home to work, parents to my house, friends to my house and vice-versa (with respect to all listed sources and desintations). Then I discovered OpenVPN and started using that to do the same thing. What this means is that I can stream whatever I want to whomever I allow onto my VPN in whatever format I choose and the FCC/RIAA/MPAA can't do a damn thing about it. As far as the net is concerned, anyone sniffing my traffic will just see a lot of traffic on a random port. They can't read my stream at all unless I allow them in. It's not that hard to implement and I believe this is the "next big thing" for the kind of user who wants the power to publish content without limits. American business sheisters, lawmakers and the government are currently a bunch of fools who think they can get away with controlling the general public and not get a backlash. It's coming and it's going to hit them hard...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
You can sneak the file through the ADC in multiple ways. Scramble the audio in an analog way, then apply a reverse transformation using DSP. You can repurpose an ADC chip from other application. You can pair two chips and feed them synchronously with a mangling signal and a mangled input signal, then again use DSP software to restore the original. Either they will have to use ADCs on chips larger and denser-integrated than Pentium IV, or it will be ridiculously easy to work around.
"it was about banning animal cruelty"
Which was already banned. So, as GP said, there are better things for the politicians to be doing than banning something which is already banned.
Unless you're trying to say it wasn't banned already. Is that what you're trying to say?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Why aren't the News stations, radio, etc picking up this news for tv and radio? I have not seen one part of this mentioned on the news. Is this being hushed so it will fall though the cracks with little fuss as possible?
"With over 2,000 dead, and thousands more left injured, the current situation is basically a complete disaster."
That is a misrepresentation.
"should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not?"
That is also a misrepresentation. As someone else said, there are MANY MANY instances where being drunk IS illegal.
So yes, you are misrepresenting the facts. Now ask yourself why you aren't willing to acknowledge it.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Radioparadise.com puts it well on their website (http://www.radioparadise.com/content.php?name=FAQ #160):
-----------
How do the artists you play get paid?
We pay fees to the industry groups ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC (who represent songwriters & publishers) in very much the same way that an FM station does. These fees are distributed to songwriters & publishers based on periodic airplay surveys & reports.
In addition, Internet radio stations are subject to additional copyright fees (performace royalties), paid to yet another industry group called SoundExchange. They represent performers and record companies - mostly the latter, since they are a de-facto arm of the infamous Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). RP pays a surprisingly hefty fee to SoundExchange each year, which is distributed to artists and record labels.
FM & AM Broadcast stations in the US are not required to pay performance royalties at all (though they do in Europe & elsewhere). Satellite broadcasters like XM & Sirius pay them, but at a significantly lower rate than Internet stations like RP. Due primarily to our lack of clout with the US Congress and the Copyright Office, legally operated Internet stations like RP pay the highest royalty rates - by far - of any class of broadcaster in the US.
"Hi. I'm from the government and I want to help."
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Are you kidding? Voters today can't even keep track of the issues of candidates in the two-party system. Those who vote on issues generally a) are extremely intelligent and well-informed, and research both candidates for each position or b) vote on straight party lines assuming that all Democrats hold this political position and all Republicans another. In actuality, there are liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, people who are all for gun control but don't like welfare. Politicians are people too, albeit perhaps a lower class thereof...
Anyhow, my point is that I don't think that the average voter could cope with more choices. We'd just wind up with either people voting straight party lines because that's what their daddy/religion/regional group/racial group always votes, leading to the two main parties getting the lion's share much as today, or people would vote piecemeal, voting in Doctor X because "he's tough on crime" without paying attention to his other stated goals of conquering the world and creating a dictatorship.
Jaded? Yeah, I guess I am.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I think some of these performace artist "advocates" need to get a fucking clue. A life would also help. These guys are the modern day makealottamoneyofsombodyelsesshit asshole ambulance chasers. I swear, it's going to get to the point where music lovers who download music (and buy the good stuff) won't take it anymore. Maybe we should create something that spreads the music so far and wide for download, and makes it so easy that these fuckers don't have the legal resources to counter attack it all.
We should do a hands across america or something. Fuck these assholes.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
Here's a additional requirement to be passed as Senate Bill: these senators should have their brains checked for illegal confined bio-chip inside skull or hands.
King James Bible (c)1611 :
Book of revelation:
13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor,
free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their
foreheads:
Robert
There was SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative), which used watermarks, but Prof. Ed Felten and others showed that all SDMI watermarks fell into one of two categories:
Obligatory Simpsons quote (by Kent Brockman): "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy doesn't work."
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana