Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy

RadioFan writes "The settlement between webcasters and SoundExchange is starting to come apart at the seams, because everyone is realizing that SoundExchange wants to force DRM on Net Radio. DiMA, one of the largest Net Radio lobbyists, has fired back at Sound Exchange, calling them out for leveraging high royalty fees to push through DRM requirements that they failed to obtain in Congress via broadcast flag and anti-recording legislation. Was this whole thing a ruse to get DRM on net radio?"

Comments

Net Radio? What net radio?

[raydobbs]

Doesn't the crushing, recursive fee schedule pretty much wipe out all the players? I mean, forcing DRM on something that won't be exposed to the public (for fear of never-ending, revolving bankruptcy) seems utterly pointless. I mean, it could be the desire to stomp out the few remaining embers using any method possible...

How Could You Implement This 'Solution'?

[eldavojohn]

The source also tells me that DRM is the only plausible "tool" at the disposal of webcasters to accomplish SoundExchange's goal of working to stop music "streamripping." I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.' I mean, even if you closed the loop all the way down to my soundcard, it would still have to come out as sound in some quality or another. Once it's in that analog form, I just pipe it into another input device on the same or different machine and begin recording. I've used TotalRecorder to just copy the buffer of my sound card to a file and have captured many NPR shows that I could not find otherwise to purchase.

How in the hell could DRM prevent this?

But, then again, look at what I'm criticizing! I challenge anyone to list one technology or product that DRM has successfully 'worked' on (in that it prevents piracy). This is laughable and brings the phrase "defective by design" to whole new levels I never thought possible. Not only will it be defective, use cycles and memory on your machine but it will probably make the quality worse. Bravo, DRM, bravo.

Nothing I've found on this lays out the implementation so here's my prediction. SoundExchange wants the minimum offer/DRM model in place. Then they can prove it's possible to still streamrip. Then where does that put the web radio sites? At the mercy of SoundExchange, of course, because they implemented something that didn't satisfy a contract.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'?

[morgan_greywolf]

I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.' I mean, even if you closed the loop all the way down to my soundcard, it would still have to come out as sound in some quality or another. Once it's in that analog form, I just pipe it into another input device on the same or different machine and begin recording. I've used TotalRecorder to just copy the buffer of my sound card to a file and have captured many NPR shows that I could not find otherwise to purchase.

And similar tools exist on Linux to capture the ALSA buffers. There's absolutely no way to prevent 'streamripping' with any DRM. The broadcast has to be decoded at the time of play -- there's no way around it. For that matter, these same techniques work with any DRM.

The bottom line here is that DRM schemes are inherently broken and can't be fixed. So let's just get rid of all DRM and be done with it, 'k Mafiaa?

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'?

[MBraynard]

The quality of online is at least as good if not better and is getting better than analog over-the-air radio. That's the crux of this. They see the way things are going. They see that wireless clouds are proliferating and that terrestrial radio may disappear as people carry around wireless internet radio devices. If they could stop you from recording off of HD radio, they would. If you can get your singles off the radio/internet radio, you don't need to buy it, and these guys are in the business of selling the music that they create.

Motives are simple

[multisync]

I've said it before: the RIAA wants to hobble net radio, because it represents a huge threat to the control they currently hold over what people listen to. They dictate to the terrestrial stations which artists will get airplay, something that is impossible to do when any schmuck can start a web site and stream music. That's why the terrestrial stations don't pay this "performance royalty." They're the "good guys."

Net radio gives opportunities to unknown/independent artists to reach potential fans, and this simply does not serve the interests of the "big five" (or is it "big three" now?) record companies who are responsible for all the crappy music, cross-fading and talking over we get on commercial, FM radio these days.

So, sure, they want to introduce DRM to net radio, as well as crippling fees that only allow big companies (like AOL, for example) to play. Anything to wring a few more dollars out of unsuspecting music fans and prolong their control over the choices available to us.

Re:Already done for Clear Channel

[multisync]

The difference is that the Clear Channel stations was probably more than happy to accommodate the wishes of the RIAA, as they work hand-in-hand with each other in the "terrestrial world." The RIAA would like net stations to fall in line too, and are using the "performace royalty" - by way of their proxy SoundExchange - to accomplish this.

Was this whole thing a ruse to get DRM on net radi

[rastoboy29]

Yes. Next.