Senate Bill May Ban Streaming MP3s 503
Silverhammer writes "According to the EFF, a new Senate bill (S. 2644) sponsored by Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Graham (R-SC) would effectively ban streaming MP3 for licensed music by requireing 'casters to use the most restrictive streaming format available (e.g., Windows Media or Real) rather than simply the most restrictive features of a chosen streaming format (e.g., Shoutcast or streaming MP3)." From the article: "The PERFORM Act would ... requir[e] webcasters to use DRM that restricts the recording of webcasts. That means no more MP3 streams if you rely on the statutory license. Under the bill, the statutory license would only be available to a webcaster if: [114(d)(2)(C)(vi)] 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."
Not like it matters (Score:4, Interesting)
I predict it to be about as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. I'm surprised we haven't yet had a war on piracy.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Because let's face it, when all the money in the world fails to make a difference, you're approaching the problem the wrong way.
Thought: are Americans more or less likely to die at the hands of terrorists after our invasion of Iraq? With over 2,000 dead, and thousands more left injured, the current situation is basically a complete disaster. And angering millions in the Arab world makes us a bigger target. Face it, you can't scare people who are willing to die, period.
Thought: should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not? Because certainly a compelling case could be made to prohibit alcohol because of drunken driving, violence, accidents, and abuse potential. More so than marijuana, even. But alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a failure because it didn't curb demand, yet created crime to fuel an underground market, just like with the war on drugs today. But for prohibition to be repealed, people had to talk openly about the problem. Hard to do that with drugs, because the government misrepresents the facts to demonize drugs.
Obligatory: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, 15 minute video: http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm [leap.cc]
America needs a change of direction, and honesty in politics.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I know not a single American has died on American soil as a result of a terrorist attack since our invasion. In fact I don't know of any Americans that have died due to terrorists outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.
should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not?
In most contexts being drunk is illegal. It is illegal to be drunk in public, to be drunk in the drivers seat of a car, and even to be
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know global temperature has been climbing since pirate populations [wikipedia.org] have been declining. In fact I know that global temperatures are rising. It must be the pirates.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Funny)
Ninjas.
Yes, I know, you're a bit sceptical. But really. Do ninjas use cars? Do ninjas use hairspray?
NO!
Everyone blames global warming on the US; let's put the blame where it really belongs: JAPAN!
When was the last time Japan produced a significant number of ninjas? That's right, you can't tell me, because they haven't produced a real ninja in *YEARS*!
So, Japan, I'm calling you out. Fuck the Kyoto treaty, we need the Ninjyoto treaty.
Step the fuck up Japan!
Re:Not like it matters (Score:3, Informative)
Regarding Iraq: They are Americans dying as a result of our government policy, which was the point. That they were aware of the risk they were taking does not make their deaths any less tragic, or "count less" as you seem to imply.
You can't honestly compare marijuana prohibition with alcohol regulation With alcohol, you a
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Think harder. It'll be another law in the book that can be used to harass people when "deemed necessary." Keep in mind that prosecutors loves to say things like "suspect is believed to be in violation of (insert a number) of federal/state statues."
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to record in realtime off the soundcard for something I really want that is only available via secure streaming. Right now there is one thing in that category (joe frank) but I can do it for more.
Reminds me of the old days, recording dr. demento on my mono tape deck from a nearby transistor am radio.
Damn congress, stop trying to legislate me back to the 70s!
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
And according to the language of the bill would be perfectly legal as long as you record manually for personal, private usage.
This one isn't really super restrictive on the end user, since as many people have pointed out you can just record what's coming through the soundcard. It is, however, VERY restrictive for satellite and internet based "radio" stations. If you are a physical radio station operator you already pay a license fee to the music industry to broadcast their music, but according to this bill you would also have to pay a fee to broadcast that same music in digital format.
Like many of the posters here I am opposed to this one in principle, but can think of numerous LEGAL ways I could still make copies for my own personal use.
Secure Audio Path (Score:4, Informative)
Just use Total Recorder
Total Recorder is a shim driver. Shim drivers don't work if your streaming station requires the Secure Audio Path, which works only on audio output drivers that have been signed by Microsoft as conforming to Windows Media Digital Restrictions Management rules. Drivers must turn off all cleartext digital outputs as a condition of getting signed; all unsigned drivers get silence. But ye still cannae stop the analog hole.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop being a baby and write a damn letter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Cut the oppressed masses bullshit. I bet you aren't even trying. You want an insight? You are a defeatist baby.
Do you know what? There isn't a bill like this that has ever been passed that couldn't have been defeated by each member of congress getting maybe a hundred hand written letters. Not form letters or emails, fricken hand written notes a page and a half a page long. Thats it. Maybe less. People don't know, don't show it or don't care. That's why bills like this get passed.
Just remember, to your local member of the house or senate, 1 handwritten letter equals at least 3,000 votes. People are so apathetic that it's probably about right too. It's even more effective for technical stuff like this because it's off the radar screen. No polls, no nothing. Just public reaction. Most congresspeople would have their minds changed if they were forced to face up to the fact that something as esoteric as this was pissing off so many voters. Even if they aren't just clueless, and are actually in the pockets of their contributors, it has to slide in under the radar if it's something unpopular. YOU JUST DON'T SIT THERE AND LET IT HAPPEN. It doesn't take much to let them know everyone knows what's up. Sadly, not even this happens.
Remember kids, congresspeople want keep their jobs, and all that matters is votes- otherwise why worry about campaign contributions? They get too much static after dealing with taxes, Iraq, entitlement programs, Jack Abramhoff and everything else to loose thousands of votes over a silly DRM bill that only 127 people in the media industry actually want.
Think about it- why are campaign contributions so important? 30 second TV ads. But here's the secret: they aren't really that effective. Not because people are savvy and ultra-informed of course, but because the population that is actually on the fence enough isn't very big. Still, this can often swing a close election. But then again, in that situation a couple thousand mad music lovers can too.
So, in short, anyone who complains about everything being fixed is part of the problem. The same atmosphere of apathy that amplifies the influence of corporate america also amplifies the influence of those who care enough to actually make their voices heard.
So stop your pathetic whining, get out an envelope, a stamp and a piece of paper and write a fricken letter. Try to sound informed, i.e. actually find out the name and number of the bill and have some idea about what's in it. Finally, make it known that you vote and you aren't going to let innovation and creativity be stifled and killed by the rotting dinasour carcass that is the media industry.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not like it matters (Score:4, Informative)
It's so sweet to see that some people still naively believe in the hoax of democracy and think that they elect the leaders and therefor the new good time will start
It doesn't matter what's the name of the player that is sitting on the chair, it matters what is behind him. in united states it's either bad guys who have been paid off by the industry or the other bad guys who have done exactly the same. you can change the name on the chairs every day if you want to, but nothing will change (too little too late).
You already tried it out, some people voted arnold to become the head of california
And even if through some miracle you could get an independent candidate up there, then most of the time he has to continue or fix up the mess of the previous man at the job. Without the help from a big strong (offpaid) party, he/she doesn't have the time to go to the toilet and therefor the stuff that you elected for, you still won't get
Democracy died a long time ago, at least on that side of the atlantic ocean.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Funny)
It's not a war, it's a "police action."
And it's one, two three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give damn
We hate mp3s and spam
KFG
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not like it matters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not like it matters (Score:3, Interesting)
not to mention cut out non-Windows owning audience members. Unless they also legislate that MS has to open up WMA DRM. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Own a Mac? No streaming radio for you!!
Re:Not like it matters (Score:4, Informative)
So I guess it can be put under the umbrella of war on terror.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Funny)
1. Teenager spends no money to acquire song.
2. ???
3. Terrorists profit!
It has been well established through precedent that this counts as a valid argument on Slashdot, so I don't see why people question the statement.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:3, Funny)
That was a joke... Come on... somebody laugh.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
The war of drugs may be a failure, but how many thousands of people are being imprisoned every year for nothing more than marijuana possession? Just because the war fails doesn't mean that tons of people who've never hurt anyone won't have their lives destroyed by it.
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
*puke*
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
I always get a kick when people complain about gridlock in Congress. Things like this remind me why gridlock is a good thing. The more they argue with each other, the fewer of our freedoms they can trample.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
What I wouldn't give for someone in Congress to represent the people, instead of just screwing us constantly. I'm waiting for them to just ban listening to music altogether.
Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure that this bill originated among the "special interests" that make proprietary streaming music formats. It will take the "special interests" of those who want to hold onto the freedom to stream media in whatever format is best, to convince them otherwise.
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:2)
I find it much easier to call us a Republic
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:2)
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:2)
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:3, Funny)
Either that, or they're your typical slashdot idiot who learned all of life's important lessons from Civ 2.
Democracy isn't always very democratic (Score:5, Insightful)
Geographically, power in the US Congress is not evenly divided. Bills begin in committees; committee members (and especially chairs) have considerable ability to quash or modify bills. Amendments to bills are difficult to remove. Especially in some committees, a single Congressman can effectively hold an entire house of Congress to the special interests of his or her constituents.
A substantial rewrite of the rules of Congress might help, but they're not happening any time soon (because the present rules always benefit the party in power). So some "special interests" will continue to have more power than their voting numbers suggest, and so the term "special interest" will continue to have a pejorative connotation.
Re:Democracy isn't always very democratic (Score:3, Interesting)
Starting, IMO, with "normalizing" congressional numbers back to the representative level they were in the Nineteenth Century--that is, there ought to be about 1,200 Representatives by now.
That's what they want you to think. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not inherently a value judgement, though it often is as special interests often work at the expense of the majority's rights. The civil rights movement is a good counter-example of a special interest working for rights that do not negatively impact the majority's rights.
Consumer rights is not a special interest. It is clearly the public interest since we are all consumers.
I will say, that I've never been more disgusted with Dianne Feinstein right now. She's clearly putting the interests of her campaign funders above the interest of the public. I think she brings shame to the Democrats in an election year where the theme of the power of lobbying interests is a central strength for the party. Then again, Hollywood and the recording industry have been a big bribers of the Democrats long before they because bipartisan bribers.
Re:That's what they want you to think. (Score:5, Insightful)
letting her know that I am concerned about the issue. I downloaded
and printed out the bill and will probably send her another one
once I figure out what it means.
One might argue that writing your congress people accomplishes nothing.
But so does griping about it on
You can let them know how you feel about it.
You can vote for or against them.
You can make campaign donations for or against them.
One person might not make a difference, but more than one person is concerned about this type of law.
You know the congress hears what the lobbyists clients think.
Have they heard what you think?
Re:That's what they want you to think. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, ya think?
But isn't that what she's always done? Between her and Schumer, it's a wonder that we have any rights left at all.
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:5, Interesting)
Paraphrasing Orwell, "Everyone is a special interest. It's just that some are more special than others." Unfortunately for the man on the street, how special you are seems to equate directly with how much cash you have to throw at lobbyists.
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:4, Informative)
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P110762.asp [msn.com]
Guarenteed that all top oil execs are making tens of millions of dollars right now, once you throw in stock options, benefits, bonuses, and pensions. Meanwhile, it costs over 40 dollars to fill up your gas tank. Not that oil is unique, its just a good example. Which leads us to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stratificat
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:5, Informative)
I understand your point. I can even logically follow along and agree with your arguement.
But somehow, the CEO still ends up with the new yacht [hamptonroads.com], and the pensions go unfunded [newsmax.com]...
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:3, Informative)
And I know that in the last decade these number have gotten more skued, not less. Even if you argue that there are not Carnage's or Rockafellers operating right n
This is a GOOD thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is yet another reason for artists not to sign with the RIAA and its cronies. This will drive a more consumer oriented driven alternative to this crap. It's just a matter of time... som long as they keep doing stuff like this.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:This is a GOOD thing. (Score:2)
This law sucks - it will just make it more easy for the RIAA/MPAA to say "look those evil pirates broke ANOTHER one of your laws, now you should ban all streaming media including buying music online...dammit they have to buy our price fixed cds...err i mean our reasonably priced cds"
What we need is for our gov't to start w
Meanwhile, in Canada.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The story is covered HERE [theglobeandmail.com]
Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't happen - the Mac community will never allow it... iPods 95% of the market, etc etc...
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bah! (Score:2)
Senator "But 95% of MP3 holders use iPods and they demand streaming music"
RIAA CEO "Mr Senator, please accept $10,000 as a donation to your next election".
Senator "Oh, but the people really don't know what's best. We need to stop the evil pirates. That is why they voted me into office"
RIAA CEO "Oh and speaking of, maybe we can help the process by banning all streaming media"
Senator "but why?"
RIAA C
like foie gras (Score:2, Interesting)
don't they have better and more important issues to work out instead of "PERFORM"-ing for their lobbying bedroom buddies?
heck...Canadian Artists are against DRM. link: http://www.musiccreators.ca/ [musiccreators.ca]
in fact, govt should stay out of it....and it should be between the webcasters and the artists to hammer out a deal.
Re:like foie gras (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:like foie gras (Score:2)
In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick to f'ing death of an *extremely* miniscule population(the content-owners) twisting our politicians into knots like voodoo dolls. I'm not sure who to blame more, the politicians or the media companies... They should be sent to Gitmo(I'm completely not even joking, either).
This protectionism is harmful to the citizens of our country. It will provide marginal reductions in piracy, but will completely obliterate the distribution channel for music where the artists want their music to be free. Is it truly necessary to destroy the freedom of 99% of the people so that a few already-rich people can attempt to squeeze that last penny from people?
vote out the incombents! (Score:2)
DOWN WITH CARRIER POLITICIANS!
Re:vote out the incombents! (Score:5, Funny)
WTF! They spend fucking tax dollars on this shit?! (Score:3, Funny)
jesus i fucking hate california and the dumbasses who are in it, i need to move outa here back to the east coast, oh wait more dumbasses there too, midwest, fuck more dumbasses there too. Canada?! double dumbasses there! eh
Re:WTF! They spend fucking tax dollars on this shi (Score:3, Interesting)
They have a perfect clue of how much money they did pocket from the RIAA just before trying to get that stupid stuff in.
Re:WTF! They spend fucking tax dollars on this shi (Score:2)
Are you sure? [musiccreators.ca]
Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
In the words of Louis Black: "This is Congress doing the people's work. The people's stupid, stupid work.
mplayer (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:mplayer (Score:3, Informative)
Vote these n00bs out, plzthx. (Score:2)
Re:Vote these n00bs out, plzthx. (Score:4, Insightful)
Darn (Score:2)
This is to keep people from using a stream to supply mp3 for download? We need a whole new law to protect the 2 albums that aren't available on BT somewhere?
If someone is receiving this stream legitimately and they change to another format, they can't sanitize it and share it anyway if thats what they were gonna do? Those other formats aren't that secure are they?
*ahem* *cough* .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:*ahem* *cough* .... (Score:5, Funny)
America Government by and for the Corporations... (Score:2, Interesting)
The dishonorable Sentator John "I am a Jackass" Kerry pro
Re:America Government by and for the Corporations. (Score:2)
Where do I fit into all this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Our audio is broadcasted using ACCP, because the sound quality is fantastic. Let's say for a minute though, we decided to broadcast back into vp3 video and mp3 audio (so linux/macs could watch)
Is this really copyright infringement? Or are we semi protected by parody exemptions? Nearly %100 of karaoke music is reproduced backing tracks, made by the karaoke companies in their studios. Add in that 1/2 these folks couldn't carry a tune to save their lives, it's actually pretty funny and amusing to watch.
I'm only slightly worried, Feinstien sounds like she doesn't know WTF she's talking about. Add to that i've got AOL behind me, and she can kiss my ass. Seriously though, i'm riding a grey line of copyright here, anyone have any insights or thoughts?
--toq
Re:Where do I fit into all this? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are broadcasting these people's performances without getting them to sign a release you can probably be sued by any/all of them for violating their performers rights.
You aren't legally allowed to do what youre doing without the explicit permission of the performers.
Basically, it sounds to me like you, and AOL are committing criminal acts under the lett
Re:Where do I fit into all this? (Score:3, Insightful)
The PERFORM act makes this your fault, and your problem to fix (by using DRM).
So no music videos on non-DRM Cable TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So no music videos on non-DRM Cable TV? (Score:5, Funny)
And... (Score:2, Insightful)
WTS: 1x[US Congressman] (Score:4, Funny)
This is not necessarily a bad thing (Score:2)
death toll for podcasting? (Score:2, Interesting)
'Your Rights Online"? What rights anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to spout "Call your Congressional representative" because that dosen't any good. The solution is to register to vote and vote OUT anyone in D.C. that' over 40 years old (or don't own an iPod).
Any Slashdot readers willing to run for public office on the newly made-up 'Open Source Party' ticket? You know the one: Demands the return of personal freedoms, supports the repeal of the DMCA and requires public office to use open standards for public documents?
Oh, sorry. I was in Fantasyland for a second there. I live in the U.S.A.
Re:'Your Rights Online"? What rights anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:'Your Rights Online"? What rights anymore? (Score:3, Informative)
"The Green Party in the European Parliament has invited Hartmut Pilch, head of the Foundation for Free Information Infrastructure, and Richard Stallman from the Free Software Foundation to speak at a hearing at the European Parliament entitled: "Is software patentability necessary?" The Greens hold only around 10 percent of the seats in the Parliament, but they can still influence the debate and propose a
Profit! (Score:3, Funny)
2. Thanks to this law everyone has to use your format! Charge obscene amounts of money in royalties.
3. Profit!
Oops, forgot to ??? the second step, don't you dare steal my idea! And no, didn't RTFA.
Stupid act names (Score:2)
Radio Free America (Score:5, Funny)
Just a hunch: Could it be that a national law ain't worth jack in an international medium? So it's illegal in the US? Move to Mexico. Make it illegal there? Move to the EU. Make it illegal in the EU? Move to Russia. Make it illegal in Russia? Who cares?
It's not possible. (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, it says you have to use this fantasy technology if it is "reasonably available, technologically feasible" and I say that any competent technician will tell you it's neither. This is like passing a law requiring that it may not rain on wednesdays: it's meaningless.
Blowing Smoke (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, anyone who thinks more than 1 minute about this realizes that the government can't dictate which products should be used in a market.
Legislating which containers for content are lawful and which aren't is a bit silly. Seems akin to "If your DVD box doesn't have a lock on it, the you are in violation. DVD boxes without locks are illegal."
Perhaps are some point, our corporate society will realize that the digital domain is just too full of holes and backdoors to keep contained. They will keep trying, but technology is now evolving faster than they can keep up.
Please keep the names of these folks in mind when voting, folks. Money moves bills, but votes move them out (no promises about replacements).
Satellite Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, they're making moves against HD radio as well, as Senator Ferguson (R-NJ) has introduced legislation that would revoke the same rights granted to citizens as they apply to HD radio.
Just click on the link in the
Can I at least still get songs stuck in my head? (Score:3, Funny)
I called Senator Feinstein's office about this (Score:5, Informative)
DC: 202-224-3841
SF: 415-393-0707
LA: 310-914-7300
SD: 619-231-9712
Fresno: 559-485-7430
Or you can e-mail her here:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.htm [senate.gov]
Re:Use Ogg (Score:5, Funny)
It could be the "copyleft" of DRM. Haha, just kidding.
Re:Use Ogg (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Use Ogg (Score:3, Funny)
nobody has any ogg players so it's automatically the most restrictive.
Re:Use Ogg (Score:3, Informative)
Question...would this stop me from streaming music over RDP from my house to work?
Re:Use Ogg (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Use Ogg (Score:3, Funny)
what if you added some "DRM" to Ogg to satisfy this?
Of course, it might not be very *good* DRM... something on the order of ROT-13?
Does the bill specify a particular DRM technique, or criteria it must satisfy? If not...
Re:Use Ogg (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who is the plaintiff? (Score:3, Insightful)
The US Department of Justice. And they better damn well enforce it in ever instance, otherwise the law could be seen as violating the Constitution's Equal Protection guarantee.
How does this bill define a new crime? (Score:3, Informative)
T[he plaintiff in the case of a digital transmission to the public without DRM would be t]he US Department of Justice.
This bill (page 1 [gpo.gov] and page 2 [gpo.gov]) makes no amendment to Title 18, United States Code, which defines crimes. It changes only Title 17, which defines copyrights. Specifically, this bill narrows section 114, which primarily makes exemptions to the exclusive rights under section 106. Therefore, in the case of a licensor and licensee who have agreed to a license under the exclusive rights of sect
Re:No competition (Score:2)