Senate Bill Again Aims to Restrict Internet Radio

JAFSlashdotter writes "If you enjoy MP3 or OGG streams of internet radio, it's time to pay attention. This week U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander, Joseph Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and Lindsey Graham decided to reintroduce the 'Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music (PERFORM) Act'. An Ars Technica article explains that PERFORM would restrict our rights to make non-commercial recordings under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, and require satellite and internet broadcasters to use 'technology to prevent music theft'. That means goodbye to your favorite streaming audio formats, hello DRM. The EFF said pretty much the same when this bill last reared its ugly head in April of 2006. It's too soon to get the text of this year's version (S.256) online, but it likely to resemble last year's S.2644, which is available through Thomas."

Comments

You got to ask

[dbcad7]

I would like to know exactly how.. Lamar Alexander, Joseph Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and Lindsey Graham came up with this need for legislation ?

Of all the problems in the US, and around the world, they decide that this is something they should work on. Ignore all the letters from the people they represent, and take care of special interests. This is what is wrong with our government. I am sure each and every one of these people have received thousands of letters on Iraq, and healthcare, and numerous other problems from everyday voting citizens. I would love to see the letters they have received that convinced them that this was an issue that needed their attention over all these other issues. I doubt they can produce even one that came from a private voting citizen.

Money Trail

[gerrysteele]

It is assuredly vomit inducing that the government thinks it can get away with a law like this; forced onto citizens who were, the previous day, quite unaware of the need for such a law.

I read the article, yet, as is almost always the case, it is unclear why the bill sponsors have committed their names to it. Clearly there is only one benefactor: recording industry groups obsessed with piracy. The radio stations do not benefit, the listeners do not benefit. However they [the lobby] are probably well aware that Internet Radio area is, most likely, not a common place for piracy.

This leaves us the option that they are trying to push this through as an attempt to soften the ground for a larger blitz on personal freedoms on commercial products of a digital nature.

But can anyone say for sure why these alleged representatives of the people have deemed it necessary to impose a law that most people will not need, understand and be worse off for in the long run? I can think only that, someplace, there is a trail of money, or of gratuity, or of favours and deals or offers that are the real reason that any member of the nation might even acknowledge the phantom problem of audio piracy.

Re:Why this is necessary.

[rohan972]

What should be done about it?
Come up with different business models to respond to changes in tech, instead of trying to enforce systems that were created to deal with very different technological/business environments.

When copyrights were invented, it was unthinkable for one person of modest resources to be able to quickly a cheaply send unlimited copies of a written work across the world at no charge. Now nearly every household in the western world can do this. I don't think we can abandon copyright, but I do think some different understanding is required.

I think of the movies Cars, for example. My kids really like that movie. We have the DVD, but I'm sure Pixar have made more from us out of merchandising than by the DVD sale. I'm pretty sure that financially succesful movies could be made even without ever doing anything to stop downloaders. Commercial pirates could still be prosecuted, but have liberal fair use for non-commercial purposes. If they went so far as to promote it as free to download (a reasonable time after the cinema release) they could potentially gain a much larger market share and therefore merchandising revenue.

Looking at software: Microsoft use copyright violation to sustain their market share. It is a part of their business model, they don't openly admit it, but it's not a secret. If personal copies were permitted, but copying for commercial use forbidden, in reality it would not destroy their profits. Most people buy their computer with software on it, and would continue to do so. Most people simply don't want to install their own operating system. Redhat seems to remain a viable business, despite CentOS. Probably CentOS helps Redhat retain market share in much the same way that pirated windows does for MS, but without requiring the law to be broken.

In short:
1 - There are currently viable business models that don't require changes to copyright law/enforcement. Use and improve on these.
2 - Accept that some businesses may have to operate with smaller profit margins. Deal with it.
3 - Accept that some industries may have to become smaller. Deal with it.
4 - Acknowledge that there is much "content" produced today that would not harm society in the slightest if none of it ever got made again.