Well wait a second. The article said the organizers at DefCon found out about the Dateline mole when their own mole at NBC tipped them off. So yeah, she misrepresented herself and sidestepped signing an agreement that she wouldn't do what she intended to do, but from the sounds of it the DefCon guys are doing the same thing. So it's not just "the media" who believe they are above the law, but hackers, CEOs, heads of state, cops and regular citizens routinely behave like they can do whatever they like provided it serves their purposes in the end.
If she had succeeded in getting people to admit to illegal behavior - which I doubt would have happened but you never know when a moderately attractive blonde gives a geek the time of day - then it's their own damn fault for shooting their mouth off. Just like NBC has nobody but itself to blame for looking like idiots after this episode.
And the owners of those documents - the citizens of the state of Mass. - are supposed to just use your corporate copy of Office 4.0 to read their documents?
Speeding kills people, going through red lights kills people, felons on the run kill people. I have no doubt that these technologies help to get less people killed so they can go on to die of smoking related causes instead.
The problem is I'm selfish and I don't want to live in a world where everything I do is monitored and scruitinized by skynet.
The difference as I see it is that the photo-radar and red light cameras are only triggered when a person is speeding or running a red light. Of course, their mechanisms can be faulty, and I am not necessarily arguing in favour of these measures, but there is a big difference between setting a machine to record the license plate of any vehicle that exceeds the speed limit, or enters an intersection after a light has turned red, and police agencies recording the license plate of all vehicles in a given location at a specific time.
But putting that aside for a moment, I wonder about what sort of expectation of privacy people have when they are out in public. I'm not directing this specifically at you, but now that I'm posting on the subject, it raises questions about why people object to this, and whether they give the same consideration to their privacy in other areas of their life.
There is another story posted today about proposed licensing requirements for photographers in New York city. In most of the comments I read, people were very quick to say "I'll take pictures of whatever I damn well please in public spaces," yet judging by the comments in this thread, people seem to want to their privacy respected when they are out in public. And I think there is a contradiction there. I have zero expectation of privacy in public spaces, and reserve the right to photograph anyone (including cops) or anything that I can see from a public space. And I suppose if I want that right, I have to accept that other individuals - as well as cops and corporations - may photograph me or my property while I am moving about in public.
To take this slightly off topic, the article we are discussing now mentioned that this license plate scanning is also happening in British Columbia, where I live. Another thing that is happening here is that all new bridges and roadways will be financed partially through tolls, meaning citizens will likely be required to have either a barcode or some kind of pass displayed on their vehicles so it can be scanned and their payment can be processed. There may be an option to pay cash instead, but I doubt it. A proposed new bridge (which will be subject to tolls) is being built specifically to relieve some of the ridiculous traffic congestion we are experiencing in this area. It wouldn't serve much purpose if drivers using it had to stop to pay the toll in cash. In fact, I wouldn't even give them the option.
Most people will happily display their pass and allow the exact time they used the bridge to be recorded, stored, cross-referenced with other databases, sold and shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if our provincial government stays true to form and contracts the administration of the tolls to a U.S. firm. From what I have observed, people voluntarily give up their privacy all the time. They give their phone number to the clerk every time they make a purchase at a store; they use customer "loyalty cards" to save a few dollars on their grocery bills, enabling the store to gather and sell data on their buying habits; they enter contests that require them to provide their names, addresses and phone numbers; participate in surveys; set the "out of office assistant" of their email client to inform anyone who sends them a message that they are away on vacation (and there is a good chance their house is empty and ripe for a burglary); put private information, sometimes detailing illegal behavior like under-age drinking, on their MySpace and Facebook pages.
That is exactly the problem with Linux. It's always almost ready dor the desktop
I don't understand why you see a "problem with Linux." Success for Linux isn't measured in "market share" or whether the Chinese government (a shining example of rational decision making if there ever was one) decides to standardize on pirated copies of Windows. It's very existence is it's "success." The fact that I have a choice to run a stable, powerful, free OS that just lets me get work done is it's success.
People who let the chair-throwers at Microsoft dictate the terms of what would be "success" for Linux are just playing in to their hands. We don't have to worry about bad decisions being made to appease shareholders, or unnecessary, expensive updates being forced down our throats. Don't like what Red Hat is doing? Try another distro. The ability to make such a choice is the success that free software represents.
Regardless of whether Microsoft continues to grow and dominate or dies from it's inability to actually create useful, innovative software that - given other choices - people would actually want to use, there will be hackers banging out free software for all the reasons hackers have done so in the past. And users who value choice will benefit from the efforts of those hackers. Those who prefer to stick with the status quo will choose to do that.
And that choice is success for Linux, and GNU and free software in general.
the western world will wonder why they are paying an arm/leg for crap software
That was my first thought. I wonder if pointing out that Microsoft is not vigorously enforcing their license in other markets could be used as a defense against the BSA.
As an aside, have you considered using DVDs? They're cheaper per GB and are not covered by the private copying levy.
I use DVDs as well, but have read warnings to be wary of them, as they are a far less mature medium. I back up my data on hard drives, CDs and DVDs to hedge my bets against losing data over the long haul. It's a scary proposition to think you could find a Maxtor HD has failed (I have had six Maxtor drives fail over the last year in various Optiplex systems at the company I work for), and the DVDs you were using as a fail safe have failed you as well. Think 20 or 30 years down the road.
Also, the point of this article is that the Big Media companies are lobbying to extend the tax to ipods, hard drives and computers in general. I doubt DVDs will be exempt in the long run.
Maybe I should switch to tape. It has the longest track record as far as reliability, and it is doubful the **aa groups will go after that, unless like me you believe the whole point of this exercise is to provide a cash infusion to a dying industry.
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
1997, c. 24, s. 50.
Levy on Blank Audio Recording Media
82. (1) Every person who, for the purpose of trade, manufactures a blank audio recording medium in Canada or imports a blank audio recording medium into Canada
(a) is liable, subject to subsection (2) and section 86, to pay a levy to the collecting body on selling or otherwise disposing of those blank audio recording media in Canada;
I hate to fall back on a cliche, but IANAL, so I may be reading this wrong, but it seems to me that if the "levy" is subject to subsection (2), and subsection (2) only applies if you are
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
then we revert back to subsection (1), which says
private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement
and, therefore, the tax should not be applied.
Right of Remuneration
81. (1) Subject to and in accordance with this Part, eligible authors, eligible performers and eligible makers have a right to receive remuneration from manufacturers and importers of blank audio recording media in respect of the reproduction for private use of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording;
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording; or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied.
So eligible performers, authors and makers only have a right to remuneration subject to and in accordance with these sections, in other words if the act of reproducing was done for the purpose of distributing.
For the record, section 86 states:
(1) No levy is payable under this Part where the manufacturer or importer of a blank audio recording medium sells or otherwise disposes of it to a society, association or corporation that represents persons with a perceptual disability.
That's real helpful to those of us who produce a lot of our own media but do not suffer from perceptual disabilities.
I would still like to see some evidence to support your claim that "the vast majority of Canadians were breaking a law."
If you can point me to the section of the Copyright Act that draws a connection between the blank media tax and the right of Canadians to make personal copies of the music they have purchased, I would be interested in reading it.
I apologize for the harsh language I used (specifically "parroting the media cartels assertation") but I am really sick of hearing this argument, and I am really sick of paying the tax.
I am all for artists being compensated. I am an artist myself.
I am all for copyright, provided it is for a reasonable period of time, and provided the copyright holders hold up their end of the contract they are making with the public at large: that their work be transferred to the Public Domain after a reasonable period of time in exchange for the protection the public at large extends to them. If they do not wish to live up to the terms of this contract they are making with the public, I wish very much that they should assume full responsibility for protecting the investment they make in their work without the assistance of the general public.
In other words, they can invest the time and resources to protect their works from unauthorized distribution by way of lawsuits or DRM, or they can avail themselves to a limited, government-sanction monopoly, but not both.
As for your assertion that "the vast majority of Canadians were breaking a law." again, I would be interested in any hard evidence you have to support that statement.
I am an amateur photographer, musician and filmmaker. In my professional life, I am responsible for systems management and support for a large, multi-national company. Everything I do in my personal and professional life results in the creation of large amounts of data, all of which needs to be backed up using multiple, redundant forms of media.
When I buy a spindle of 50 CDs for 10 or 15 Canadian dollars, to back up the hundreds of photos, or gigabites of video or music I may produce on any given day, the price I pay at the checkout is DOUBLE that, as I am forced to pay 21 cents per disc to these clowns at the CPCC, despite the fact that the what I am actually using these discs for has nothing to do with their shitty music.
How nice for them.
Perhaps I could apply for an exemption and jump through hoops to be reimbursed my hard-earned dollars so I can continue to pursue my interests and ply my trade without sending a gratuity to the music mafia. I honestly don't know.
And now they want to extend this tax to ipods, hard drives and computers in general. Produce some data, pay a tax. A similar thing happened to our neighbors to the south a couple hundred years ago.
It's time Canadians stopped buying into the fiction that there is a connection between our right to make fair use of the media we own and the the tax we pay to the music industry for our blank media. Despite what the media cartel would have you believe, we are completely within our rights to make personal copies of the music we buy without paying this tax, not because of it.
It is a tax because it is collected regardless of whether the services are rendered or not. Everybody pays it, even those who do not download content off p2p sites. Those who use their blank media for other purposes pay this tax just for the privilege of backing up their data.
In the end, it doesn't matter what you call it. If you are forced to pay it, levy, tax, extortion... it's all the same.
Thank you for a very lucid and well put response to those who rationalize the blank media tax by parroting the media cartels' assertion that it is the reason Canadians are allowed to make fair use (fairplay) of their media. I use a great deal of blank media in the creation of my own "content" and resent like hell paying this tax. I'll be bookmarking your comment so I can direct people to it in the future.
Sorry, I didn't notice your link. I hadn't seen that article, and I don't know how successful the groups involved will be in their quest to get FM stations to pay these royalties. I only had time to skim the article, but I would be very surprised if the proposed rates would be based on the number of listeners, as the rates proposed by the Copyright Board are.
Thanks for the information. I will look in to it further.
Keep in mind also that we are talking about the copyright on the performance which, as you pointed out, is usually held by the record company. The copyright on the song itself (the publishing rights) may be held by the artist or another party. Royalties are collected on behalf of the copyright holder of the song itself by either BMI or ASCAAP. These royalties, unlike the "performance royalty," are paid by terrestrial stations and internet stations alike. They are also based on the revenue the station earns. The "performance royalties" are paid by internet station only, and are based on the number of listeners. So a station with no revenue source pays the same rates as the Clear Channel station.
I don't know who you are referring to when you say "performance royalty groups." The group who lobbied for and was granted these royalties in 1996 was the RIAA, who represents the holders of the copyright on the performances in question. I have heard nothing of these rates being paid by terrestrial stations. Perhaps you could provide a bit more detail.
How is that different than the Zune, for example, applying DRM to music files you "squirt" at other users, with no regard to the wishes of the actual copyright holder?
These "performance royalties" are collected for all songs played, regardless of their origin and the wishes of the artist. Any artist may apply to SoundExchange to receive the royalties collected on their behalf, less a "handling fee." It is not optional.
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.
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.
One reason people may "stream-rip" is to time shift, so they don't have to listen to commercials, idiot radio "personalities" and - for that matter - crappy music while driving.
At home and at work I listen to RadioParadise. While I'm on the road, I listen to my (bought-and-paid-for) music collection on my portable player, much of which was purchased after I discovered the artist while listening to (drum roll) Internet radio.
Although I haven't bothered to do so myself, I'm sure there are people who enjoy listening to streams from their favorite station while away from an Internet connection.
Of course, doing things this way helps expose independent and obscure artists to potential fans (and paying customers) which is something the major labels don't want, so I understand why they are fighting Internet radio at every step. They control the Terrestrial stations through payola and such. They are trying to use these performance royalty rates to extend their control to independent stations like RP.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus a grainy, poorly-lit, black-and-white surveillance video that'll end up on America's Most Wanted.
Not to mention CEOs.
I'm reminded of Ralph Macchio asking Mr. Miyagi what kind of belt he had in the Karate Kid. Mr. Miyagi's answer:
"Canvas. JC Penny. Three ninety-eight. You like?"
Well wait a second. The article said the organizers at DefCon found out about the Dateline mole when their own mole at NBC tipped them off. So yeah, she misrepresented herself and sidestepped signing an agreement that she wouldn't do what she intended to do, but from the sounds of it the DefCon guys are doing the same thing. So it's not just "the media" who believe they are above the law, but hackers, CEOs, heads of state, cops and regular citizens routinely behave like they can do whatever they like provided it serves their purposes in the end.
If she had succeeded in getting people to admit to illegal behavior - which I doubt would have happened but you never know when a moderately attractive blonde gives a geek the time of day - then it's their own damn fault for shooting their mouth off. Just like NBC has nobody but itself to blame for looking like idiots after this episode.
And the owners of those documents - the citizens of the state of Mass. - are supposed to just use your corporate copy of Office 4.0 to read their documents?
Wow. Just, wow.
They do.
The difference as I see it is that the photo-radar and red light cameras are only triggered when a person is speeding or running a red light. Of course, their mechanisms can be faulty, and I am not necessarily arguing in favour of these measures, but there is a big difference between setting a machine to record the license plate of any vehicle that exceeds the speed limit, or enters an intersection after a light has turned red, and police agencies recording the license plate of all vehicles in a given location at a specific time.
But putting that aside for a moment, I wonder about what sort of expectation of privacy people have when they are out in public. I'm not directing this specifically at you, but now that I'm posting on the subject, it raises questions about why people object to this, and whether they give the same consideration to their privacy in other areas of their life.
There is another story posted today about proposed licensing requirements for photographers in New York city. In most of the comments I read, people were very quick to say "I'll take pictures of whatever I damn well please in public spaces," yet judging by the comments in this thread, people seem to want to their privacy respected when they are out in public. And I think there is a contradiction there. I have zero expectation of privacy in public spaces, and reserve the right to photograph anyone (including cops) or anything that I can see from a public space. And I suppose if I want that right, I have to accept that other individuals - as well as cops and corporations - may photograph me or my property while I am moving about in public.
To take this slightly off topic, the article we are discussing now mentioned that this license plate scanning is also happening in British Columbia, where I live. Another thing that is happening here is that all new bridges and roadways will be financed partially through tolls, meaning citizens will likely be required to have either a barcode or some kind of pass displayed on their vehicles so it can be scanned and their payment can be processed. There may be an option to pay cash instead, but I doubt it. A proposed new bridge (which will be subject to tolls) is being built specifically to relieve some of the ridiculous traffic congestion we are experiencing in this area. It wouldn't serve much purpose if drivers using it had to stop to pay the toll in cash. In fact, I wouldn't even give them the option.
Most people will happily display their pass and allow the exact time they used the bridge to be recorded, stored, cross-referenced with other databases, sold and shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if our provincial government stays true to form and contracts the administration of the tolls to a U.S. firm. From what I have observed, people voluntarily give up their privacy all the time. They give their phone number to the clerk every time they make a purchase at a store; they use customer "loyalty cards" to save a few dollars on their grocery bills, enabling the store to gather and sell data on their buying habits; they enter contests that require them to provide their names, addresses and phone numbers; participate in surveys; set the "out of office assistant" of their email client to inform anyone who sends them a message that they are away on vacation (and there is a good chance their house is empty and ripe for a burglary); put private information, sometimes detailing illegal behavior like under-age drinking, on their MySpace and Facebook pages.
Again, I am not suggesting that you do
And, from your earlier post:
It's Canucks, damn it! One "n."
Turn in your maple syrup.
I don't understand why you see a "problem with Linux." Success for Linux isn't measured in "market share" or whether the Chinese government (a shining example of rational decision making if there ever was one) decides to standardize on pirated copies of Windows. It's very existence is it's "success." The fact that I have a choice to run a stable, powerful, free OS that just lets me get work done is it's success.
People who let the chair-throwers at Microsoft dictate the terms of what would be "success" for Linux are just playing in to their hands. We don't have to worry about bad decisions being made to appease shareholders, or unnecessary, expensive updates being forced down our throats. Don't like what Red Hat is doing? Try another distro. The ability to make such a choice is the success that free software represents.
Regardless of whether Microsoft continues to grow and dominate or dies from it's inability to actually create useful, innovative software that - given other choices - people would actually want to use, there will be hackers banging out free software for all the reasons hackers have done so in the past. And users who value choice will benefit from the efforts of those hackers. Those who prefer to stick with the status quo will choose to do that.
And that choice is success for Linux, and GNU and free software in general.
That was my first thought. I wonder if pointing out that Microsoft is not vigorously enforcing their license in other markets could be used as a defense against the BSA.
I use DVDs as well, but have read warnings to be wary of them, as they are a far less mature medium. I back up my data on hard drives, CDs and DVDs to hedge my bets against losing data over the long haul. It's a scary proposition to think you could find a Maxtor HD has failed (I have had six Maxtor drives fail over the last year in various Optiplex systems at the company I work for), and the DVDs you were using as a fail safe have failed you as well. Think 20 or 30 years down the road.
Also, the point of this article is that the Big Media companies are lobbying to extend the tax to ipods, hard drives and computers in general. I doubt DVDs will be exempt in the long run.
Maybe I should switch to tape. It has the longest track record as far as reliability, and it is doubful the **aa groups will go after that, unless like me you believe the whole point of this exercise is to provide a cash infusion to a dying industry.
Thanks for the suggestion, just the same.
I hate to fall back on a cliche, but IANAL, so I may be reading this wrong, but it seems to me that if the "levy" is subject to subsection (2), and subsection (2) only applies if you are
then we revert back to subsection (1), which says and, therefore, the tax should not be applied.
So eligible performers, authors and makers only have a right to remuneration subject to and in accordance with these sections, in other words if the act of reproducing was done for the purpose of distributing.
For the record, section 86 states:
That's real helpful to those of us who produce a lot of our own media but do not suffer from perceptual disabilities.
I would still like to see some evidence to support your claim that "the vast majority of Canadians were breaking a law."
If you can point me to the section of the Copyright Act that draws a connection between the blank media tax and the right of Canadians to make personal copies of the music they have purchased, I would be interested in reading it.
I apologize for the harsh language I used (specifically "parroting the media cartels assertation") but I am really sick of hearing this argument, and I am really sick of paying the tax.
I am all for artists being compensated. I am an artist myself.
I am all for copyright, provided it is for a reasonable period of time, and provided the copyright holders hold up their end of the contract they are making with the public at large: that their work be transferred to the Public Domain after a reasonable period of time in exchange for the protection the public at large extends to them. If they do not wish to live up to the terms of this contract they are making with the public, I wish very much that they should assume full responsibility for protecting the investment they make in their work without the assistance of the general public.
In other words, they can invest the time and resources to protect their works from unauthorized distribution by way of lawsuits or DRM, or they can avail themselves to a limited, government-sanction monopoly, but not both.
As for your assertion that "the vast majority of Canadians were breaking a law." again, I would be interested in any hard evidence you have to support that statement.
Exactly.
I am an amateur photographer, musician and filmmaker. In my professional life, I am responsible for systems management and support for a large, multi-national company. Everything I do in my personal and professional life results in the creation of large amounts of data, all of which needs to be backed up using multiple, redundant forms of media.
When I buy a spindle of 50 CDs for 10 or 15 Canadian dollars, to back up the hundreds of photos, or gigabites of video or music I may produce on any given day, the price I pay at the checkout is DOUBLE that, as I am forced to pay 21 cents per disc to these clowns at the CPCC, despite the fact that the what I am actually using these discs for has nothing to do with their shitty music.
How nice for them.
Perhaps I could apply for an exemption and jump through hoops to be reimbursed my hard-earned dollars so I can continue to pursue my interests and ply my trade without sending a gratuity to the music mafia. I honestly don't know.
And now they want to extend this tax to ipods, hard drives and computers in general. Produce some data, pay a tax. A similar thing happened to our neighbors to the south a couple hundred years ago.
It's time Canadians stopped buying into the fiction that there is a connection between our right to make fair use of the media we own and the the tax we pay to the music industry for our blank media. Despite what the media cartel would have you believe, we are completely within our rights to make personal copies of the music we buy without paying this tax, not because of it.
It is a tax because it is collected regardless of whether the services are rendered or not. Everybody pays it, even those who do not download content off p2p sites. Those who use their blank media for other purposes pay this tax just for the privilege of backing up their data.
... it's all the same.
In the end, it doesn't matter what you call it. If you are forced to pay it, levy, tax, extortion
Thank you for a very lucid and well put response to those who rationalize the blank media tax by parroting the media cartels' assertion that it is the reason Canadians are allowed to make fair use (fairplay) of their media. I use a great deal of blank media in the creation of my own "content" and resent like hell paying this tax. I'll be bookmarking your comment so I can direct people to it in the future.
Sorry, I didn't notice your link. I hadn't seen that article, and I don't know how successful the groups involved will be in their quest to get FM stations to pay these royalties. I only had time to skim the article, but I would be very surprised if the proposed rates would be based on the number of listeners, as the rates proposed by the Copyright Board are.
Thanks for the information. I will look in to it further.
Keep in mind also that we are talking about the copyright on the performance which, as you pointed out, is usually held by the record company. The copyright on the song itself (the publishing rights) may be held by the artist or another party. Royalties are collected on behalf of the copyright holder of the song itself by either BMI or ASCAAP. These royalties, unlike the "performance royalty," are paid by terrestrial stations and internet stations alike. They are also based on the revenue the station earns. The "performance royalties" are paid by internet station only, and are based on the number of listeners. So a station with no revenue source pays the same rates as the Clear Channel station.
I don't know who you are referring to when you say "performance royalty groups." The group who lobbied for and was granted these royalties in 1996 was the RIAA, who represents the holders of the copyright on the performances in question. I have heard nothing of these rates being paid by terrestrial stations. Perhaps you could provide a bit more detail.
How is that different than the Zune, for example, applying DRM to music files you "squirt" at other users, with no regard to the wishes of the actual copyright holder?
These "performance royalties" are collected for all songs played, regardless of their origin and the wishes of the artist. Any artist may apply to SoundExchange to receive the royalties collected on their behalf, less a "handling fee." It is not optional.
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.
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.
One reason people may "stream-rip" is to time shift, so they don't have to listen to commercials, idiot radio "personalities" and - for that matter - crappy music while driving.
At home and at work I listen to RadioParadise. While I'm on the road, I listen to my (bought-and-paid-for) music collection on my portable player, much of which was purchased after I discovered the artist while listening to (drum roll) Internet radio.
Although I haven't bothered to do so myself, I'm sure there are people who enjoy listening to streams from their favorite station while away from an Internet connection.
Of course, doing things this way helps expose independent and obscure artists to potential fans (and paying customers) which is something the major labels don't want, so I understand why they are fighting Internet radio at every step. They control the Terrestrial stations through payola and such. They are trying to use these performance royalty rates to extend their control to independent stations like RP.
Unfortunately, they've only been made to pay the defendant's legal fees so far. Maybe one day the **aa "theives" (sic) will get jail time as well.
Very true, but it's not really necessary to cross the border.