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

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.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'?

[orclevegam]

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?

Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?

Does it matter

[funkatron]

Surely the obvious solution is for the net radio stations to move their server out of SoundExchange's reach. I hear hosting in Russia isn't too expensive these days.

Rippers

[Anonymous Coward]

Noticed this reaction from one ripping software company. Used the software before, works petty good... and I agree with a lot being said on this about the latest in this mess.

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.

Already done for Clear Channel

[Southpaw018]

I listen to a local Clear Channel station online while at work. The week of July 4th, the stream suddenly stopped playing in Winamp. They had implemented a DRM scheme that requires you to play it through their web player (WMP10).

So...I'd say it's already here.

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.

Re:How about...

[griffjon]

That comment reads (in ROT13):

We just encrypt everything with Rot13? It benchmarks favourably in terms of security with such industry standards as CSS and WMA, both of which are broken.

I reply - even better, we have the DMCA already on the books; so legally ROT13 is just as secure as any other protection mechanism, if you break it, you can be sued. This is the case, I propose DRM move to Double-ROT13. ROT13 is an old method, and like DES moving to TripleDES (3DES), ROT13 should update to 2ROT13 for increased security AND performance - even better, it works out of the box on existing players - zero compatibility problems, no need to worry about whiny users with old or new technology.

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

[rastoboy29]

Yes. Next.