Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mandatory DRM for Podcasts Proposed

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the good-idea-bad-idea dept.

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.'"

16 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. Completely ludicrous by jasonwea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Completely ludicrous by garcia · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are talking about XM radios that allow you to record the content. Are they going to demand that all audio recording devices use DRM to disable people from recording and redistributing this content? This is nothing more than a direct protection of the RIAA cronies by the government to try and hassle Sat radio.

      Fuck, we should really mandate all line-in, cassette recorders, and DAT recorders have this technology retroactively installed. We wouldn't want this precious content being recorded by those means!

      Report for retroactive DRM installation immediately!

    2. Re:Completely ludicrous by Itchyeyes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At minimum proposals like this should be struck down for their extreme short-sightedness. Patent and copyright law exist to foster innovation and reward people for producing new works. Instead, laws like this merely protect the entrenched powers from having to do just that. This bill serves as an example of just how corrupt (or ignorant, pick one) its backers are. This law does nothing to protect the will of the people, nor does it advance any sort of greater good for society. Rather it promotes the interests of a specific group of businesses at the expense of everyone else. This is not democracy.

    3. Re:Completely ludicrous by pete6677 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Will it also become illegal for a band to freely distribute music on their own website? Or even to have a free concert? Its about the same damn thing. Why should anyone be required to lock up their own broadcast if they don't want to?

    4. Re:Completely ludicrous by antarctican · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, if they're really serious about this, they have to somehow block people from, as you say, recording and re-distributing. So, what they should be asking for is funds to research how to DRM compression waves (i.e., sound waves).

      Well it seems the logical way of implementing such a scheme is direct implants in to everyone's ear drums. If the implant detects any illegal music or noise, your ears turn off.

      That'd certainly make electronics manufacturing simpler. The next phase could be for ocular implants.

  2. Don't they by ericdano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    --
    1. Re:Don't they by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Damn. Feinstein needs to be doing stuff for me, a Californian.
      A lot of music and entertainment industry execs are Californians, too. And they have more money than you do...
      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  3. The REAL Reason behind DRM'd Podcasts... by andrewd18 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  4. My rights : Your rights by robyannetta · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This act must be stopped NOW.

    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.
  5. Re:underground by DJCacophony · · Score: 5, Informative

    The PERFORM Act will require streaming radio to be DRM'd, too. In fact that's really what it applies to - the fact that it might affect podcasting is just a side effect.

    --
    Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
  6. Re:underground by DJCacophony · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now that I RTFA, it doesn't even mention podcasts - not even a passing reference. Why did the submitter even mention them? "Mandatory DRM for streaming radio proposed" would be a more accurate headline.

    --
    Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
  7. Re:copyleft? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Welcome to my podcast.
    "Before getting to the music, you have to listen to this GPL license.

    *mad llama rant*

    "If you do not agree to the license, please stop the tape and listen to something else instead.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  8. my letter to Senator Feinstein by robtow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  9. Re:Why call out only the Democrats? by exploder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because you expect it from the Republicans.

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  10. Re:Copying music is not theft by wordsnyc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Joe Biden? The senator from MBNA? The lowlife scumbag who pushed through the "bankruptcy reform act" and fought to prevent caps on the interest card companies could charge? The guy who's never met a bank or payday lender he didn't want to help to screw the consumer? You were going to vote for that turd?

    --
    Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
  11. Of Mozart, Allegri and the Miserere by Evil+Pete · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.