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."
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.
I think "Selectively Enforcable" would be a more appropriate term.
Maybe some pseudo-DRM that ~prevents~ people from ~not~ sharing could be added to Ogg.
It could be the "copyleft" of DRM. Haha, just kidding.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
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!?
I'm surprised we haven't yet had a war on piracy.
It's not a war, it's a "police action."
And it's one, two three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give damn
We hate mp3s and spam
KFG
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.
In the words of Louis Black: "This is Congress doing the people's work. The people's stupid, stupid work.
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!
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
That's right! DO NOT re-elect Senator USS Nimitz!
Don't just game, Dungeoneer
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").
How is this off-topic?
I'm sick to f'ing death of an *extremely* miniscule population(the content-owners) twisting our politicians into knots like voodoo dolls. I'm not sure who to blame more, the politicians or the media companies... They should be sent to Gitmo(I'm completely not even joking, either).
This protectionism is harmful to the citizens of our country. It will provide marginal reductions in piracy, but will completely obliterate the distribution channel for music where the artists want their music to be free. Is it truly necessary to destroy the freedom of 99% of the people so that a few already-rich people can attempt to squeeze that last penny from people?
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Alberto Gonzales's logic could not be more clear:
1. Teenager spends no money to acquire song.
2. ???
3. Terrorists profit!
It has been well established through precedent that this counts as a valid argument on Slashdot, so I don't see why people question the statement.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
The problem isn't the senators. It's the industries that *own* them.
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
Personally I'd enjoy plugging another hole in some politicians...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
and after the gov gets rid of network neutrality, they'll demand their benefactors at the telcos block all foreign content that is deemed to be unsavory.. so that their **AA benefactors will be pleased. and then everyone will give our politicians even more money.
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
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.
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.
Gonzales is the same clown who thinks torture and wiretaps are all perfectly legal. He must have skipped the class on the Constitution at law school. He probably cheated on his Ethics final, too.
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
You know, I'm tired of this old less pirates == more global warming crap. There are not less pirates now. There may be less eye-patches, but South East Asia and Africa have a *huge* pirate population. So if it isn't the pirates, what is it?
Ninjas.
Yes, I know, you're a bit sceptical. But really. Do ninjas use cars? Do ninjas use hairspray?
NO!
Everyone blames global warming on the US; let's put the blame where it really belongs: JAPAN!
When was the last time Japan produced a significant number of ninjas? That's right, you can't tell me, because they haven't produced a real ninja in *YEARS*!
So, Japan, I'm calling you out. Fuck the Kyoto treaty, we need the Ninjyoto treaty.
Step the fuck up Japan!
A blog about stuff.