Slashdot Mirror
Mandatory DRM for Podcasts Proposed
Knytefall writes "Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and two GOP senators are sponsoring a bill called the PERFORM Act that would require podcasts with music and satellite radio to be locked-up with music industry-approved DRM software. From the article: 'All audio services — Webcasters included — would be obligated to implement "reasonably available and economically reasonable" copy-protection technology aimed at preventing "music theft" and restricting automatic recording.'"
I have not read the act itself but the TFA (and summary) is worded in such a way that implies that it applies across the board regardless; whether the content is free or not. What about all those podcasts with 100% legal content? Music from the podsafe music network or other Creative Commons licensed work for instance?
Implement a DRM system but do not force us to use it. I would much prefer the RIAA simply not license content to DRM free broadcasts and sue those who don't have a license.
Requiring DRM by law for all statutory licensed work is massive overkill.
Let's just stick to streaming audio, or even downloadable mp3s. You don't have to "podcast" to be heard. There are other alternatives.
Are they trying to restrict internet radio in general, or are they really talking about podcasts only as per Slashdots title?
From the article: 'All audio services -- Webcasters included -- would be obligated to implement "reasonably available and economically reasonable" copy-protection technology aimed at preventing "music theft" and restricting automatic recording.'"
What about copyleft-licensed broadcasts? You can't "steal" something that's free.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Oh, this is going to be good.
I have my marshmallows all ready, let's get some fires going.
Don't they have something better to do? How about funding our troops? Working out a resolution with Iran? etc etc.
Damn. Feinstein needs to be doing stuff for me, a Californian. I want her to get us off of using Oil, not worrying about Podcasts.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
I get it... By making everyone use DRM on their podcasts, each terrorist will have to legitimately purchase Osama Bin Laden's podcasts off of iTunes, thus driving up the price of terrorism!
Brilliant!
The availability of entertainment and the distraction it is to persons who might otherwise be motivated to do something more productive than consuming entertainment is what keeps the majority of Americans disinterested in the political process.
It makes me wonder if these senators know they are poking a sleeping beast with a stick. If I were a senator who preferred constituents who didn't care, I would be wont to introduce such legislation that may them from their distractions.
"Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and two GOP senators
The "two GOP senators" are Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).
Here goes my support for Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries.
This is old news. At least two days old: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/13/07 55256
People who voted for democrats thinking liberty would be restored should take notice. Only Libertarians truly stand for constitutionally protected freedoms!
My blog
If it's not your music, why do you care?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
The bill is meant to secure music libraries and broadcasts, but there's nothing there about exclusions for educational (non-music) streams and podcasts like JapanesePod101.com. They also go on to say this:
Ok then, what the hell is DRM if it's not inhibiting the consumers' recording habits??
I'm an independent filmmaker who releases all my movies under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License that allows anyone to freely copy, distribute, display, and perform my work.
This pro **AA act could be the nail in the coffin for not only the Creative Commons, but MY freedom as an artist.
I admit I am Anti-DRM, but there's two sides to every viewpoint. When big business wants to trample on MY rights, they'll trample on yours next. Call your House and Congressional representatives immediately to stop allowing big business interests to stomp on the rights of the actual artist.
Although my rant here is over, I won't quit until this legislation is dropped in a hole, set aflame and then buried.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
DRM doesn't work. I would ask, "when will they get it?", but it's pretty clear that they do "get it". Look at the recent crack of HD-DVD protection. That's the best they have, and it's already cracked. They know full well any DRM they put out there is not a deterrent against piracy, which means their goal with DRM is clearly to control legal activity.
When it comes down to it, DRM is not intended to control piracy. It's intended to maintain **AA stranglehold over the market, to be used as a cudgel against hardware manufacturers, and to be used as a way to extract money, justified or otherwise, from the content-buying public.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
'For USA citizens: Mandatory DRM for Podcasts Proposed'
Write them and your own rep and let them know how you feel- I mean are you shocked? Biden is from Delaware where most large corporations are headquartered, Feinstein is from California, Lindsey Grahama and Lamar are well known freakamazoid. Check out who donates to these clowns and see if this isn't exactly what you'd expect!
? cid=N00009975&cycle=2002
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp
Of course they represent those who donate to them and unless you write their offices and your own they'll get away with this sort of crap!
wow, what a bold, scary strategy considering that about 99% of streaming internet radio for example is captured in almost full quality internally on the sound card by changing the recording device to stereo mixer (or WAV on older ones I think) and pressing record. DRM won't change that because it would still be getting it from the sound card's final output. Who the heck tries to steal the audio data out of the place its cached or something like that that DRM could actually protect. That's why intel motherboard manufactureres agreed to disable the stereo mixer to work as a recording device on most recent motherboard after they found out a ton of people were stealing music that way. Of course, they have to then cross their fingers and hope people don't hook the digital out to the digital in port, which loses almost no quality and record it that way
And all this useless protection is on top of the fact that most podcasts and other streaming audio is really low quality, and thus undesireable for most ppl that download it to steal it. Well at least they're wasting their time and money doing stupid stuff like this and not something really restrictive and effective.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
IANAL, but sometimes I'm told I'm anal. Aren't podcasts only for iPods? I hate that.
Second; this is another example, a fine one at that, of government types trying to show they know something about the intarwebs and failing miserably. This shows little understanding of the actual content on the intarwebs, or the licensing models currently in use. They might as well have said that all wheels need to have an extra tax on them, or that all chairs should be taxed unless rated for less than 45 lbs. None of it makes sense. The blind leading the sleeping.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Hey Armericans: You have a supposedly democratic society. Write your senator etc.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
for making my own podcast without DRM'ing it! Oh god, the legal system has enough woes . . . .
they dont want webcasters, citizen journalists to broadcast the shit politicans and their big-money backers pull around. so that it can be good old 1950s again
Read radical news here
Feinstein clearly does not understand that the point of the copyright allowed in the constitution was to promote progress, not to protect rich corporations. She is clearly more of a Republican in this area. Here are some form letter responses that her office sends to complaints.
8 92380
p onds-to-perform-act-dispute.html (scroll down)
= 2234915
Feinstein responds with a form letter about the PERFORM DRM act:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193819&cid=15
And the same response to someone else:
http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/congressman-res
Feinstein response with a form letter about the DMCA:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21099&cid
"....
If you have other questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to write to me again, or contact my Washington, D.C. staff
at (202) 224-3841."
Recent raids here in Europe proved that your "recordings" of any kind could harm you. Some guys here were tracked by police due to their over-usage of torrent networks, then their appartment raided. Everything you've ever recorded, that you do not have a hardcover or original CD/DVD from can backfire at you. Learned this I would be cautious even about iPod stored MP3s purchased over MP3.com or elsewhere, because there is virtually no proof to that MP3 was purchased and that is really yours. I actually welcome Microsoft's DRM management in hope it would give me a protection in such an event.
I don't think that mandatory drm is what americans were thinking of this past election.
Haven't we been down this road before? I guess this will finally shut down SOMA FM.
Life is not for the lazy.
Sigh.
-tom
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
DRM the hell oout of it all till none of us want to use it, and the hackers/crackers et all laugh in there UNDRMed viewings.
go go go. No music cds are drmed anymore , to put it they see it as too much money to do for what getting it cracked. I am all for drming everything , hten hackers and pirates become more of the
peoples people. Screw da man vote for drm. GOP dont have the votes in congress so if you dont want it get on the horns people and let democrats know that drm will get them outted form office.
we did it here in canada, are you pussies down there or what, get out and tell em. we don't want big mother ( er brother)
Yet another prime example of why lawmakers need to educate themselves a bit on the technology they are going to write laws regarding. DRMing all podcasts, including independant ones that are public domain, is not only a pain for consumers, but will also cut back on the number of independant podcasts since a large number of private internet broadcasters are not going to mess around with DRMing their material.
would be obligated to implement
Could they take away by force the people's right to give something away for free and/or without any restrictions ? Ok, I know they could do it, in a theory [i.e. they can do anything these days with none to any repercussions], but could they do it in practice ? Would the Act get signed ? Would the people let it happen ? This whole thing sounds so ridiculously ignorant. But, I have to add, not really surprising.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Biden, Feinstein, and two MORE GOP senators...
There, fixed that for you.
First, all but two of the podcasts I listen to (5 or 6) are voice only, and owned wholly by their producers. Second, I don't own any iPods and never will, but I always listen to my podcasts on an MP3 player, so the only effect DRM would have is that I wouldn't have any hardware that could decode the podcast, and I'd have to stop listening to them.
This idea wins big points for stupidity though. Almost as good as radio transmitters hidden in Canadian coins!
...stuff like Nullsoft's Disk Writer plugin for Winamp, through which I can dump streaming radio to disk (I think, I've never really tried it). Of course some radio stations discourage this by commenting over the end/beginning of songs or mixing songs into each other for a track transition, thus making ripping undesirable. But still... DRM is rather useless if I can send the output to disk instead of my speakers.
Funny how this is being introduced now.
/. won't lift a finger to slow this one down. This is one of those times I wish you all would.
An incredible coincidence that the Democrats control the Senate and House now. ("control" being very loosley defined in the sentence)
Sad, especially since the legions of
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The full paragraph containing summary's quoted section is:
So, on the face of it, this particular "feature" of the Act shouldn't affect the use of music that is licensed freely (e.g., many Creative Commons licenses). In that case, the step of "negotiate a licensing agreement through the market" is done up front in the form of the music license.
What would probably cause problems for free music is the terms that restrict what players can do (e.g., "What a listener cannot do is set a recording device to find all the Frank Sinatra songs being played on the radio-service and only record those songs."). Hopefully, we can figure out a way to create players that support restricted features but only use them against music with appropriate licensing metadata, versus those features simply not being implemented.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
How could the composer of the music used in the broadcast prove that he or she had the authority to publish the music under a copyleft or otherwise Free license? It might have been a case of cryptomnesia like what happened to George Harrison.
I used the form interface on Senator Feinstein's website to post the following letter to her concerning PERFORM:
Senator Feinstein,
I continue to oppose your misguided attempts to impose draconian digital rights management on consumer electronics.
The so-called PERFORM act will put the government in the business of mandating technology, and instituting what amounts to price controls on media distribution, and will prevent important technological and social innovation that increases the agency of the mass public, and will instead further entrench dangerous media consolidation in our republic.
The so-called rights of big media are a creation of 20th century technology, and did not exist before centralized mass production instrumentalities utilizing expensive technologies out of the reach of the people were invented by technologists such as Thomas Edison and Philo Farnsworth. Newer technologies now are changing the means of production and distribution, and make these "rights" as appropriate as the "rights" of 18th century Russian noblemen to own their landed serfs. Importantly, the new technologies of the PC and the Web are cheap, fast, and decentralized, and allow the people to re-assert democracy rather than passively consume the "Spectacle" offered by Fox and other media conglomerates.
The copyright and patent clause in the Constitution has been warped out of recognition by Congress passing such laws as the Sonny Bono act of 1998 in response to the corrupting influence of campaign financing on the part of members of the RIAA and MPAA. Current law bears no resemblance to the intent and practice of the founders. Your quotes of the Constitution in response to my previous two letters to you on this subject are dissembling, at best.
Although I am a "liberal", I will vote for an opponent of yours who opposes DRM in the next election.
Please change your position, so that I may support you in the future.
Robert Tow
It has the most important thing: the cutsey acronym. How can this possibly be bad?
It looks like they are forcing copyright holders to have their works DRMed, whether the copyright holder wants that or not.
It should at a brutally fascist minimum allow opting out, and more seriously, it should be opt-in. Forcing this on everyone is totally unfair to those who want their content to be as widely distributed as possible. Imagine advertisers. No wait -- imagine works that contain a political message; now in order to broadcast, you have to comply with a government-mandated standard that interferes with distribution and use? That seems to conflict with the First Amendment issues.
It fucking better be opt-in. And that means it shouldn't force toolmakers to always add the DRM. There must be a way around it, and it should be disabled by default. Either do that, or pass an amendment to repeat the 1st.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and two GOP senators are sponsoring a bill..."
The sickly ironic part is "GOP" is supposed to stand for "Government of the People".
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
MS would love to have a format (FairPlay) that Apple doesn't want to release. Then the only "Approved" DRM is theirs. Life is good move along. Yes it's another bit of assinine kowtowing to the media by the government - it precludes fair use by definition, but that's not an issue that Congress sees because there's no money in it.
Any Mac user (or Linux, I guess) who has tried to access wmv files, with or without DRM, knows that cross-platform support for media coding can be a SOB. Even when it works, it doesn't work well. Especially with streaming media. I worry that requiring DRM could create de-facto dependence on a particular platform in order to access online media. I know that Apple is a leader in DRM music files, but it seems that wmv dominates the mainstream media outlets (example cnn.com) and I can't think of any reason that they would switch to something else if required to use DRM by law for all broadcasts. Can anyone think of any reason that I don't have to worry about being locked out?
"All audio services -- Webcasters included -- would be obligated to implement "reasonably available and economically reasonable"
All you have to do is tell them you can't afford to apply DRM to your audio.
Let them know how much you DISLIKE this bill.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Host the podcasts in another country.
This has as much effect on podcasts and the like as legislation against DVD-ripping software developed and hosted in Europe.
Just how the hell do they intend to enforce US laws against foreign produced and/or hosted content?
Don't use the temporary shutdown of ThePirateBay as an example; the majority of podcasts are perfectly legit, otherwise Apple wouldn't dare point to them in iTunes.
At least, nobody I know. I voted Democratic to have Congress run in opposition to the President.
The machine works best at a standstill, IMHO.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If this gets done, how long before we get non-US-based net radio and podcast hosting for US citizens?
Let's call it Radio Free Eu... I mean, America...
So, since I've only read abot half the article summary, not the article, and none of the comments of which a few I'm likely redundant to, would it then be illegal for me to make a podcast, add some music which I myself composed, directed and performed, without applying industry-grade DRM to it?
Does that mean that anyone who releases a podcast or webstream or whatever covered by such a law is thus legally required to pay some fee to some DRM IP owner? Thus there will be no such thing as free because if nothing else, at least the creator of the content has to send off a check to some IP troll eery time someone listens to his production? And thus it gets far less likely that any such production will be free to the listener?
it's too bad Feinstein is doing this ....again....she keeps forgetting who her constituents are....the tech companies in the Silicon Valley and free-minded ppl in the area.
even if this "law" passes (remote), the "reasonable" loophole exists.
Maybe it can be as simple (and economical) as a javascript alert box.
Why must the entire nation implement DRM, anyway? If the RIAA members don't want their stuff broadcast for fear of piracy, why don't they simply withdraw it and not allow it to be broadcast? Anything you publish is out there for pirates. This makes absolutely no sense. If piracy is a problem, the members of the RIAA should simply not put it on the airwaves. It's their content. Why should every free broadcaster have to deal with a layer of useless DRM? How could it be enforced, anyway? If some university doesn't DRM their creative commons lectures, the government is going to do what to them?
http://cachepe.zzounds.com/media/quality,85/brand, zzounds/CMM503R-d17aa143880be691baf92ef56c06532f.j pg/
Recording software: Audacity
I keep on thanking god (whoever that is...) a lot on slashdot. Mainly for not living in the Unites States of A.
This braindead piece of legislation won't have the slightest effect on any podcasts I care about.
How, pray tell, is this going to be enforced? The internet is still international. Requiring DRM for podcasts in the USA does what exactly? Force americans to put their podcasts on servers outside the USA? Damn, that's freaking scary.
It's a well-known tactic to demand more than you actually want before "compromising" on less - here one side of the argument (given that the article's preaching to the choir) seems to be doing the other side's negotiating for them!
I live (and vote) in California. What were we supposed to do in November? These were our choices:
- Richard Mountjoy, a far right Christian with all the usual values.
- Diane Feinstein, a bleeding-heart liberal who is a bought and paid member of the mafiaa *.
A lose-lose situation. I voted for technofascism over theocracy.
* To avoid a slander lawsuit, I note that the misspelling of "mafia" with an additional "a" is intentional and is a known term on this discussion forum. It does not mean the Cosa Nostra.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
If I want to talk to "the industry", whom should I phone?
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Only Libertarians truly stand for constitutionally protected freedom
Libertarians (at least, your traditional anarchocapitalist) also have their problems, often including a rather large blind spot towards the abuse of private power and some seriously inconsistent views regarding the trustworthiness thereof and the strength of the profit incentive.
Not that I don't think it might do us some good to turn the entire Democratic and Republican parties out of office for a term or two, and I agree with the libertarians that civic power presents the problem of misuse. But a vacuum leaves only private power to protect from other private power, and once collusion sets in, the problem becomes nearly intractable, and freedom is again lost. The alternative -- having a democratic republic where civic power is accountable to the citizenry -- also has flaws, mainly that it's only as good as the citizenry attempts to keep it, but it's more easily subject to change when the citizenry chooses.
Tweet, tweet.
This is about killing the advantage of unsigned bands selling their own MP3s.
Libertarians, to do anything effective on the national level, need to acquire power within one or both of the established parties. So far they've tried mostly within the Republican Party - and look where that's gotten us. Although there are inconsistencies among Democrats on IP rights, there would seem at present to be a much stronger basic defense of the Constitution and citizen's freedoms. Arch-blogger Kos has even declared himself a "libertarian Democrat." So might it be more possible to reform the Democratic Party to accord with Libertarian ideals than it's been to make some bargain with the Republicans? Consider, it's the Democrats who generally believe in science and education and reason and the value of the common citizen, while the Republicans believe in creationism and only that education that doesn't incubate "elitist" attitudes and only that reason which follows the leader and only the importance of those citizens who are lucky and rich. Yeah, many Democratic politicians are deeply flawed. But the Libertarians have largely been in bed with those with faith in Creation Science. What kind of backasswards strategy is that?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I don't see the benefit of this act, to anybody. Surely, if you're webcasting/podcasting music at the moment, you're either:
Number 1 is the one affected by this, but then the purpose of all of this, stated in TFA, is to prevent music theft. If the music cannot legally be stolen (because it is being given away), can the act still apply?
Number 2 is not affected, because they're already using DRM. (I'm not sure if this one actually exists yet, but I stuck it in for completeness.)
Number 3 is the bad guy that the RIAA could go after with some amount of moral justification, but if he's already breaking copyright laws then he's not going to be particularly bothered about breaking the PEARFRHIM (sorry, PERFORM) act either. And if there's already a law to prosecute him with, why introduce another one?
Of course, the bad guy in the RIAA's eyes might be Number 1, if the RIAA have acknowledged that independent artists are competition that must be crushed...
Thank-you for saying that.
I'm so sick and tired of people asking me about PODcasts. Its just a !@# downloadable music file. It doesn't need a special name.
"I recorded an MP3 of me talking about crap" just doesn't sound as cool as "PODcasting"?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
It's total control they're after. Except for those who do the controlling..
You're missing out. A podcast is simply an mp3 file, full or streaming, that is hosted via rss feed.
This makes it really easy to get the file or stream, and you can even have an application like Juice that will check on your podcast subscriptions and download any new mp3 files. Subscription in this case does not mean pay. I get hundreds of effort-free mp3 files a month from my podcast subscriptions.
Despite my huge appreciation for the technology, I hate the name. And I hate iPods. Oh well. At least I have my mp3s!
Man, you really need that seminar!
>> would be obligated to implement "reasonably available and economically reasonable" copy-protection technology aimed at preventing "music theft.
I propose ROT-13. Its free and easily available.
You know what. I'm sick of these attempts to regulate the internet. Just call me a criminal but I'll hapilly circumvent drm on files I download or dvds I own, and happily fire up a shoutcast server and you can take your obligatory drm and FOAD. There will be zilch you can do about it.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Anyone who smells the skunk coming from down the hall on this one should write their local congress critter and tell them to vote no.
Doesn't this also violate something called the 1st amendment?
They are not affected. If you own the copyright, or get explicit permission from the copyright holder, you can do whatever you want, or they allow. However, working out licencing deals with potentially thousands of copyright holders is impractical, and therefore in order to to make radio feasible congress created an exception to normal copyright law called a statutory license, which basically says that can broadcast any song you want without negotiating a license, if you pay a broadcast fee to a regulatory group, who then "fairly" distributes the money - see section 114(d) of the copyright law.
But see that is the whole point - with statutory licensing the RIAA doesn't have a choice - the license is required by the law, hence the word statutory. They cannot block radio stations from playing their music as long as the stations are paying the appropriate fees, and following other applicable laws.
Ever since the internet came into existance, the major labels have been doing everything they can to keep internet radio impractical including convincing congress to make the statutory licenses fees for online broadcast fairly hefty and apply per-listener, which makes them financially infeasable. Because of this, all of the major successfull online radio stations have forgone statutory licensing, opting instead to make deals with the major 3, thus giving the RIAA far greater influence in how the station is run (including what codec are allowed).
There is one other caveat I should mention. Even if you are playing only free music you need to keep good records of all the songs played, and documentation of the licenses of those songs in case you ever get sued. Remember - civil court cases have a weaker burden of proof, and in the past online radio stations playing only free music have been shutdown because they could not provide reasonably supported argument that they did not play the plantiff's music.
pavon - at work and forgot my password.
Works every time.
OOOOOH Look children, over there you'll see a great specimen of a Pedantic Ass.
These are usually shunned by other members of their species because they pretend that being pretentious and condescending when discussing shit no one else cares about somehow elevates them intellectually.
Meanwhile, everyone is laughing at how pathetic they are behind their backs.
And in this case the Pedantic Ass is wrong too, as podcasts are called podcasts, regardless of what device one listens to them on.
Is you life really so empty and meaningless that you waste time trying to convince people you're right about this shit?
Oh wait, you're a Pedantic Ass, of course it is.
The only reason the *AA are pushing this bill is to harm independent artists. There's nothing preventing them from using DRM on their own published media, or from requiring licensees (such as online radio stations) to use DRM. They want this bill to pass to require independent artists to do the same; they hope many of them will not want to foot the bill themselves, opting instead to sign on with a *AA label or give up entirely.
It's a sad state of government where corporations dictate freedom.
Oh yeah, I can think of nothing better than loading up my favorite Ebert & Roeper podcast, skipping to 9:18 and ripping my favorite song. This is asinine.
The only good thing about all of this is that DRM doesn't work. The bad thing: you'll do federal time just to enact your rights to fair use.
DRM that muthafukas!
I shouldn't tempt them, next thing you know they'll ban radio.
And then the US people will be forced to listen the non-DRM:ed streams coming from the rest of the world... since most other sane countries will NOT require this...
The alternative will be to censor access to non-US internet, which on the other hand is not unthinkable with these stupid ideas...
Lets say that they can make DRM required but it cannot cost the customer, the government, or the manufacture of the item a single penny... All costs associated with enforcement, research, implementation, Jailtime costs, police enforcement, customer support, ect. Must be absorbed by the music industry and they can't hire thier own people to enforce it... All must be payed to the state and use only public agency lawyers. Music industry of course will balk at the idea that they have to pay for DRM which already costs societ well into the billions of dollars in both time and money.
Mod parent up.
If you read what Feinstein herself says about the bill, it's clearly about commercial broadcasts-- the kind you need a government license for. If you broadcast other people's music under a government broadcast license, you have to apply DRM. If you make your own licensing arrangements with the copyright holders (i.e. yourself, perhaps), the bill doesn't apply.
Usually it's only one constitutionally protected freedom judging by the Libertarians around here.
And what it that?
As a Libertarian I support and freedom and liberty. As long as someone doesn't harm another they should be able to do whatever they want.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yup. I guess politics is not as simple as many (anti-Republican) slashdotters think.
Mandating DRM is going to bump up against freedom of expression and won't go any further.
Why. Is the house immune?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/13/07 55256
time for some it seems
This is completely crazy. First, they assume that all podcasts contain copyrighted music tracks. Not so, most podcasts I've listened don't contain any music. And those that do are purely centered around unsigned indie artists who want to be heard, and wish for their music to be freely distributable.
Second, this would be akin to shoving DRM requirements down the throat of National Public Radio and news broadcasts, only to spite tape recorders everywhere.
I truly hope that this does not succeed.
Because the Libertarians did personal liberties such a favor by backing the President's invasion of Iraq.
Proposals and Law are two different things. I'll fret and claim the sky is falling if and when it's actually passed.
This GOP initiaive is bullshit, of course. Yes, the democrats will pull out boners like this on occasion. PMRC, DMCA anyone? But after witnessing the NeoCons trash America, we certainly cannot afford to conflate both sides.
Libertarianism seems to have become a haven for embarrassed right-wingnuts. They now point to our shitty government (for which many of them probably voted) and say: "See how badly government works. Let's to turn our futures over to the major corporations now!"
But I can't get over all these Slashdot 'libertarians'... More than ever I see them pushing their magic solution/trick -- [look ma, no guv'ment]. Yet the social consciousness doesn't go beyond having gadgets and/or lower taxes.
Am I wrong? Are engineers not brain-dead outside of work?
"...objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences, subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." -Gould
Feinstein. Biden. 'Nuff said.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I have seen 4 laws passed in the past 5 years that have taken perfectly innocent and honest behaivoir and make it criminal. Now they make me even more of a criminal because I refuse to use ANY DRM on my podcast.
I wonder how long before they will start rounding up all us dissidents that are trying to use this dangerous freedom and dare to have free thought.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So I guess the next wave is that the government will require DRM chip implants since being able to HEAR an unencrypted stream of audio permits it to be recorded thus the audio playback must be encrypted and decrypted internally via the implanted DRM chip in your brain.
It's nice of the general media to reveal the names of exactly who is having their pockets lined by the music industry.
The RIAA screwed up and didn't make DRM mandatory on their media - the CD - and so, it turned out that just about anyone in 2000 could produce and reproduce and sell a fairly decent product without needing the "music industry".
The MPAA learned from this, and since video gear is about two decimal places more expensive, they've had a head start in making sure that independent film makers are fucked when it comes to producing next-gen video. I can shoot, edit, and create totally fine high-def product - but the MPAA is preventing me from distributing it. I have to go thru them, or pay an insane price to ensure that high def disks (BR/HDDVD) will play on consumer gear by going thru a high priced disc publisher so-as to get the new DRM put on the thing.
The point of DRM is to prevent the next George Lucas (his beginnings, not his shitty blockbusters of the 2000s) from going out, making a damn fine movie on prosumer gear, editing it in Final Cut, and burning copies of the disks that will look stunning on all those plasma/LCD/DLP screens that people will want to buy and see more of. Right now, it could be done on DVD since you can make DVDs without CCS. You can't make movies without AACS and BR+ that will playback on consumer gear.
They have, by all logic, prevented independent production of next gen video disks ahead of the formats even being available. You want to make a disk - you gotta pay the toll, or you don't play. No more small, independent firms making a living heling folks get their content onto next gen disks... no more making home movies that you can send to other people.
That's what it has been about all along, it has been very little to do with piracy. Its all about making sure that when the equipment is up there with what Peter Jackson and Spielberg can get that you can't compete with them.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Acording to this document on Feinstien's website, at least home recording would be exempted under this awful bill. http://feinstein.senate.gov/07releases/r-perform01 11.htm
This is about royalty payments and preventing theft for the traditional record labels. This is *not* about limiting legitimately free music (which doesn't have royalty payments associated with it by definition). So if you write a song, record it, an release it under a free (e.g. creative commons) license, then you can distribute it however you like without limitation. I don't see how any reasonable person would interpret that any differently - and that is how it would go down if brought to court.
The sky is not falling - but there might be a fight ahead regarding the interpretation of the meaning of this if it is passed.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I'm so sick and tired of people asking me about PODcasts.
That's funny, because I've never spent a single second thinking about it. I suspect that's because I'm busy thinking about things that are important, like what I'll be having for breakfast or that great dump I took a few days ago.
But I'm not a disgustingly pathetic loser with no life who has time to think about stupid shit like you are, so I'll have to defer to you.
It doesn't need a special name.
And yet, it has one. Like virtually everything that is an amalgamation of several common things, the populace has created a term and it has entered the vernacular.
I guess you lost this one douchie, how does it taste to care about stupid shit AND be completely impotent in changing it?
I bet it tastes like a lonely Saturday night. But, I don't know how that tastes, so again I'll have to defer to you and your expertise.
Here is the act: http://www.performact.com/pdf/s2644-109.pdf
Here is the law that it changes
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114
AFAICT, it does not seem to restrict broadcasts if the material being transmitted is not copyrighted. The relevant text from the bill is:
(c) Content Protection.--Section 114(d)(2) of title 17, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
(B) in clause (iii), by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(C) by adding after clause (iii) the following:
``(iv) 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;'';
The section that is being editted, 114(d)(2) restricts broadcasts that would otherwise be under section 114(d)(1). 114(d)(1) exempts certain types of broadcasts. However, the section 114(d) is only qualifying section 106 which deals with the exclusive rights of copyrighted work.
This is precisely the sort of legislation that makes my blood boil. This piece, in particular, hits very much home, as I recently took a full-time job at a radio station (WJBD). I'm an on-air personality, but more importantly I'm "the computer guy" and in charge of a lot of new and exciting projects that are already starting to make us a lot of money in ways we'd never imagined. In the forefront of those is, you guessed it, streaming radio.
At present we're broadcasting local high school ballgames (football, basketball) but will eventually be streaming our entire broadcast 24/7. Right now there's no music involved, as it's just games, so should this pass we still would have no need to apply DRM. Or is there? Technically, as the law would, in theory, read, we would have to apply DRM since we're an FCC-approved "real" radio station. This is a cost we're not ready to accept, nor is it convenient for our relatively technically-uninclined listeners who will undoubtedly have trouble making the upgrade/conversion. Even if we weren't an FCC-licensed station (such as a college online-only station) we would still have to use DRM on the off chance that music gets played at the game. Yes, friends, I kid you not. If the basketball team has warmup music, we're responsible for that being broadcast. If the national anthem is a recording (which ours never is) then we may be liable depending on who recorded it. Or, if this law is as all-encompassing as I believe it's going to be, then we definitely will have to have DRM, period. And that pisses everyone here off.
Why does it piss us off? For one, it's costly. We're operating on free software at present. Likely that will not immediately be available for legal reasons; this is usually the case, and during the time we're 'off-air', we'll be losing money. We simply can't take chances on pissing off the FCC. Since I'm primarily the overseer of our digital projects, my job may be in jeopardy, all because the **AA wants to ensure that music executives in the United States make every penny they can. Rather than making their products enticing enough for us to want to pay for, they're trying to force us to do so through totalitarian means, using the government as their puppet and spending millions, perhaps even billions to force everyone into their monopolistic traps.
It's ridiculous and it will continue until such a time that we, with extreme prejudice, force the offending legislators out of office and replace them with ones who actually have respect for the people they represent.
If all my base are belong to you and I attempt to retrieve my base, does that mean I'm freebasing?
As a non-USian, I feel like congress keeps helping me be (relatively) more competitive with each passing day.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Do you think that legislation will end at POD casting? The media industry won't quit until it has positioned itself to squeeze every possible penny from consumers. Controlling our fair use rights one media at a time is part of their plans.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Actually, it's not just podcasts. This post has DRM enab(=! ïK & .áÉ d@ @Bàe@AuAÅ4t h\L gi÷W14b (2£]CD) 371 /65
Has anyone just tried telling them to Fuck off lately? Maybe a few times?
...used to be something that no one really thought about. Now It is turning into something that MUST be done. CDs infect computers, DRM is incompatible with your MP3 player, or now, you simply want to make a podcast for anyone to listen to. They want technology to move backwards, but I know I won't be giving up any ground.
I live (and vote) in California. What were we supposed to do in November?
By November it was far too late.
What you should have been doing is:
- voting in the primaries (where you get to have an influence in the selection of the "lessor devil") and
- becoming involved in the local organizations of one of the major parties.
You think the politicians pay attention to their contributors? It's NOTHING to the attention they pay to their staffers, election workers, and other party functionaries.
And it's a real scream when it comes election time and the volunteers refuse to distribute literature for one of the party's candidates - leaving the local party boss with the choice of getting the other candidates' literature out or getting none out. B-)
(The Republicans found that out in the last election, when a bunch of their volunteers refused to post signs, circulate literature, or even talk to voters about, a notorious gun-grabing R.)
So get off your heinie and do it NOW, to head off more such fallout from the NEXT election.
(And also to get the word across to the fallout from THIS election that they've misjudged the opinions of their TRUE base - the rank-and-file of their own party.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I did not know that voters are obligated in any way to vote for the candidate with the most money. The real problem is that nobody pays attention.
A PODcast is nothing more than an electronic pamphlet. The proposed law using typically mass market DRM would have a CHILLING EFFECT on free speech by preventing anonymous speech.
Part of free speech is anonymous speech, as in the anonymous pamphlet protesting unfair taxes imposed by King George or in the modern era protesting taxes, war or anything else. As long as you aren't "crying fire in a theater that isn't burning" free speech means not only do you have the right to say what you want but also that you have the right to keep your identity hidden.
Most DRM that I know of provide cryptographic secure proof of whom the owner/originator of the document/file is. Now it could be done anonymously just like e-money could be done anonymously... but often isn't.
http://www.hawknest.com/
So is this your example of "reasonable discourse"? Nice rebuttal there, I like how you didn't needlessly resort to insults right off the bat.
BTW, I'm not a Democrat, regardless of what your (apparently poor) intuition tells you.
I've read the act and it applies to music acquired under a statutory license (SoundExchange license) ie music from the major labels.
If you use your own music or indy music you're not required to use DRM. I guess the question is whether or not webcasters using services like Live365 and Shoutcast will get a choice or if DRM will be added regardless of content. The Shoutcast protocol is fairly well known so I suspect even if the offical webcasting software requires DRM, third party software will still allow open streams.
The EFF still has their analysis of the bill up from it's previous unsuccessful introduction at
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004587.php
Now I need to find a brain eraser for that mental image that your sick, sick, sick mind came up with!
The sickly ironic part is "GOP" is supposed to stand for "Government of the People".
Actually "GOP" means "Grand Old Party". Try googling "Grand Old Party" and the first two results are Republican National Committee websites.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oh, wait...
I for one am heartened to see that Congress hasn't gotten deflected from *real issues* by the sideshow of Iraq, gerrymandering, oil dependency, the education system, corruption on Wall Street, or the environment.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Effff you, illustrious leaders.
As the author of Autiorecorder ( a program that allows the recording and filtering
of XM content, allowing naming and population of mp3 tags according to the Xmitted
data from XM radio, direct competitor of TimeTrax ) I give you the middle finger and
GIVE AWAY my program in order to directly spit on your bill.
You all know who elected these people, and that they are not doing what you elected
them to do. Instead, they are taking their new found and very temporary power to
stomp on your rights. YOUR rights. Get it?
So underground it is. Runnin' with the moles ( as harvy so aptly put it ).
Get busy with your REAL job and leave the impossible to those that can handle it.
(Burning with hatred for the man).
Herring. Red. Herring.
This idea is stunningly stupid. Why is it that technology can bring out the stupid in even some otherwise reasonable people? Is there something about the fact that so much money is involved, or is there something about most people of a certain age just not knowing a goddam thing about it?
Or maybe there is something built-in to the hype surrounding technologies that are targeted at mainstream consumers that creates a momentary insanity in even well-educated folks?
Whatever it is, I'm starting to think that it's incumbent upon those of us whose lives are closely entwined with tech, and who use tech on a daily basis, to keep a constant pressure on those of the ruling class who open their mouths about technical issues, and to praise those who put forth ideas that make sense and mercilessly ridicule those who, like Feinstein, Biden, Graham and Alexander, have shown remarkable bipartisan dopiness.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Presumably anyone playing RIAA music is either A.Playing it without permission (in which case its a copyright violation and the RIAA can sue) or B.Playing it with a license (in which case the RIAA can change the license to mandate DRM).
What this is really aimed at (like all the paperwork requirements for online streaming radio stations the RIAA rammed through) is making it too hard for online streamers (particularly those that play music not owned by the RIAA) to continue to operate.
Taking a page from the Republicans' play book, I would like say that Senator Feinstein is a DINO - Democrat in Name Only. She's totally beholden to large corporate interests, is a big-time drug warrior, has massively expanded California's prison system, and generally has little to no interest in upholding traditional liberal (as in, "liberty") ideals. Like Lieberman, she's the worst combination of social conservative and economic liberal.
And I say this as a life-long democrat.
Causation can cause correlation
I always thought Congress was there to do the bidding of the people. Sounds like its once again time to clean house.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I say we allow it so long as no costs are passed on to the customer, government or seller. So the RIAA has to come up with the money to cover all costs associated with implementation, research, enforcement and all enforcement has to go through public agencies which again they must cover the costs for.
HOLY FUCK, SCUTTLEMONKEY. Didn't the internet community just bitch about Fox claiming that Mark Foley was a Democrat, and now this?
Let me set this straight for you: Both Biden and Feinstein are DEMOCRATS. Neither are members of the GOP. I'm just pissed about this, because the US elects the Democrats into power presumably for change, and then it's business as usual with the Broadcast Flag. Feinstein is the Democratic senior senator from California (Hollywood, etc.) and Biden is a senator from Delaware, where nearly all corporations in the US are incorporated (legally "born"). Big surprise that these two would be snorting coke of the MPAA's thighs like they are now.
How the hell could you fuck something like this up?
On a related note, Ron Paul has formed an exploratory committee for the '08 election. I've written to him before asking him his opinion, and he opposes the broadcast flag. If we get a president in who opposes the flag, we can have a safety net in the Executive Branch.
Will I commit a crime if I listen to a DRM free podcast from Russia, India or Kenia? Will there be technology put in place to keep me from pulling DRM free evilness from other countries? Maybe it's a good idea to put a huge fence around the internet.
And a lot of you people thought the Democrats were going to be more friendly to tech than the Republicans. Ha!
We have the best government money can buy.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The entire fashion industry is based on copying other peoples work. Let's campaign for DRM (Dress Rights Management) for a change!
Suddenly reminded of the story of Mozart and the Miserere. The Miserere, a choral piece of exceptional beauty, was written around 1630 by Allegri. The Church in due course decided this was too good for the plebs so one of the Popes decreed that only it could only be performed in the Sistine Chapel in Rome and furthermore, this is the part I love, any of the performers who divulged, copied or gave any part of it to anyone else would be excommunicated. Ahhh original brand DRM.
When Mozart was 12 years old he went to Rome and witnessed the performance. Then later wrote it down from memory.
DRM didn't work then, and wont work now.
My 2 cents worth.
Bitter and proud of it.
Take a look above and you will find an equally-irate person complaining that the Democrats got full names and that they thought this was disparaging to the Democrats. This was somewhat backed up by responses which indicated that the original submission had the title "Democrats push new DRM bill" which certainly implies the original wording was done by somebody who did not like Democrats.
The should fix these articles by naming everybody and putting (D) and (R) after each name, so you and that guy will stop throwing hissy fits. Apparently any discrepency in how things are decided is considered an insult by both sides...
A bill to raise minimum wage has been introduced by Democrats. But an exception to this bill is the US territory of American Samoa.
9 873
"Why" one might ask?
Because StarKist the tuna company has a factory on that island. But why does that make them special? Because their HQ is in the district of Nanci Pelosi who introduced that part of the bill.
Anyone who says that Democrats are "for the people" or "dont sell out to corporate interests" are full of horseshit. Both parties do it, both parties are guilty as hell, and BOTH parties should be barred from holding a majority of seats in the Congress.
This is the sort of shit that makes my blood boil! Anyone who voted for EITHER the Dems or the Reps is part of the problem and helps continue this corporate sell-out of the US. Remember, the government that governs the least, governs the best.
Don't believe me? Look here:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&n...&ncl=111256
Libertas in infinitum
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
(link)
How could they possible have any right to mandate DRM for broadcasts? I could understand, but still not agree with, a company deciding they will copy-protect their broadcasts; but a law?????
"The PERFORM Act would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters to pay fair market value for the performance of digital music. Additionally, the bill would require the use of readily available and cost-effective technology to prevent music theft,"
Knowing the issues of figuring out the size of your listening audiance and the huge prices charged for fair market value for the performance of digital music I see a lot of Internet broadcasters to simply become Talk Radio or band advertisement promotional sites. Internet broadcasters simply can't agree to the fair market value for the performance of digital music as defined by the content providers. It would put them out of business which is the intent of the bill. Traditional broadcasters hate the competition. Some over the air talk radio stations have an online presense, but strip out the music for the online version due to the requirements of the music industry.
The truth shall set you free!
If it is required, the shadow government mercenary goons will (under orders from on high) pull off another 9-11, but this time much worse. They are in a position to do it and get away with it, and have already proven they can. This will completely stifle any effective opposition to the various wars.
The wars over resources and global hegemony are just starting, they have barely begun. You can call them the clash of the civilizations or anything else, but that is all it is really about, who controls the turf and resources. The wealth, the real wealth of the planet. Oil, fresh water, good arable land, critical minerals, etc. The real wealth.
Way, way up higher than any of your named politicians (or nations for that matter) is where the real political and economic power resides. A few thousand people control this planet.
Look at wars now, really take a look. They are full international in scope and are only maintained because of international (transnational) corporations. Get it? See it yet?
Wars are high tech, and for most practical purposes now, high tech *knows no national boundaries*. It doesn't. Bits and pieces and parts and gear to fight wars come from all nations-that isn't important. The important part is to look at the ownership of the bits and pieces and parts of the gear, from the boots to the missiles to the fuels used to the currencies used to the stocks sold to....all of it, a full industrial yellow pages, A-Z. Look upstream as far as you can, then interpret from there as best as possible. That's who runs the world now, who funds it, where the big decisions get really made.
Think of these ultra high level folks who control everything as wolves, all part of various smaller wolf packs with shifting loyalties. The wolves will fight amongst themselves over a carcass or some turf, but they are always going to be wolves to each other, and everyone else falls into the "prey" class. No matter where you go on the planet, you are either one of the top much less than one percent of the population wolves-or you aren't. And if you are, you know it (and are probably not posting or reading on slashdot either).
No, your mideast (and african and asian and south american and sometime again north american and european) wars are not going to be ending anytime soon. Don't believe any fairy tales like that. No little group of pipsqueak political money grubbers are going to change any of that-none of them are the wolves. They just aren't, they are the public actors who are given orders at those levels, part of the political psychodrama that is promulgated to keep the prey from even noticing the wolves.
Once you grok that, really grok it in your psyche, then the best you can do is develop an *individual* plan to work around that reality as best as possible.
Here's one guy who is probably running that I think most freedom loving folks might endorse. Longshot, the media will go out of their way to ignore him, his own party sort of ignores him but he gets relected by his locals because he's an honest dude, a true rarity in the district of criminals. Pretty smart guy, strict Constitutionalist, and etc. There needs to be a ton of pressure applied (and support for and $upport for) from the grass roots level.
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/
his regular website
http://www.house.gov/paul/
Here's one guy who is probably running that I think most freedom loving folks might endorse. Longshot, the media will go out of their way to ignore him, his own party sort of ignores him but he gets relected by his locals because he's an honest dude, a true rarity in the district of criminals. Pretty smart guy, strict Constitutionalist, and etc. There needs to be a ton of pressure applied (and support for and $upport for) from the grass roots level.
I'm not registered Republican, I'm registered independent, but if he's running in the primary I'll register Republican just to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Of course afterwards I'd change back to independent. I voted for him the first tyme he ran for president, in 1988 he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket. Hell, If I lived in his Texas district I would of voted for him again. I heard yesterday he was putting together an exploritory committee to see if he would run for pres on the republican ticket.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There is no content protection that works, much less any that is reasonably available. It is not technologically feasible, therefore it cannot be economically reasonable.
This bill, if passed, would necessitate the removal of RIAA material from all satellite rasio and webcasting until they have economically reasonable, technologically feasible and reasonably available copy protection.
I don't have a problem with that.
sheesh...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Say what you want about the rest of them but don't say nothin' bout Di-Fi. That chick packs heat. 'Cuz she's better than the rest of us.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
Most (but not all) color laser printers put several copies of a pattern of small yellow dots onto every page they print. The pattern is a fingerprint which identifies the printer model and serial number. The alleged justification for this "feature" is for finding counterfeiters. In practice, it makes any printout from such a printer (and sufficiently high resolution copies of the printout) traceable back to a unique printer. AFAIK, it does not apply to monochrome laser printers, and probably not to inkjets - or not yet, anyway.r ticle.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,118664-page,1/a
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
It really pisses me off that ever time we talk about DRM we hear Biden. (Remember his wacked out idea about DRM in every A2D / D2A electronic device?)
Now Feinstein is in there too.
It seems like every damn time the democrats (Who I absolutely believe need to be in control right now to put a check on Bush before everything is fucking gone) get power all we hear is Gun Control, DRM.
Yet with the republicans, The Gays, Abortion, Religion and the complete fucking destruction of the constitution.
I say, fuck it, have your fucking DRM for "podcasts" and "streaming radio"
The shit will just go underground.
Hey Feinstein, And Biden, I know you don't read slashdot, but IMPEACH BUSH before we have World War 4 (WW4) That shit wasn't in your 100 hour agenda. You SOLD YOUR SOULS, Do your fucking job! PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!
Bitches!
The submitter mentions podcasts specifically as something that would be affected by this new legislation. But don't podcasts already need to license their music for wide distribution? Unlike streaming web-radio applications, podcasts are physically downloaded and retained on the listeners' hard-drives, so distributing a podcast with unauthorized music should be equivalent to distributing an MP3 of the track itself. And I don't believe that fair use applies unless they are actually discussing/critiquing the music clips they are playing. So anyone distributing podcasts with commercial music in the background, who doesn't have a license to freely distribute that music as part of their podcast, is already breaking the law. Am I missing something?
Any moderately proficient musician (heck, I can do it) can listen to some music and write it down or reproduce it close enough.
If one day we have very successful DRM (ha!) musicians will do a Mozart as required in order to enjoy the music.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Considering that all of my free download music is released under a "non-commercial with attribution" licence (because this is the only way an unsigned artist can get out to an audience on the net - encourage filesharing) I'm going to have to deny podcasters the right to use my music if this comes into effect. I simply refuse to allow any 3rd party DRM to be used on my free material - frankly, no third party has the right to lock an artist's free music without their permission, not Macroslop (Zune DRM), not podcasters, not even the US government. This is worse than the whole multi-tiered internet shit. They can stick this bill where it doesn't fit!
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
If that's the case why bother to contribute to "your" guy? Just buy off the winner.