Senate Bill May Ban Streaming MP3s

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

[Thaelon (250687)]

This is nonenforcable.

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

[by Anonymous Coward]

I think "Selectively Enforcable" would be a more appropriate term.

Re:Not like it matters

[bloko (888358)]

But the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are just a front and are used for other things like the war on privacy.

Re:Not like it matters

[collectivescott (885118)]

Don't you mean the war on drug users and suspicious arabs?

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

[Random Destruction (866027)]

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.

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

[AoT (107216)]

You know, I'm tired of this old less pirates == more global warming crap. There are not less pirates now. There may be less eye-patches, but South East Asia and Africa have a *huge* pirate population. So if it isn't the pirates, what is it?

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

[Lead Butthead (321013)]

This is nonenforcable.

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

[LunaticTippy (872397)]

It'll make a lot of US-based mp3/shoutcast stations die. There'll still be offshore alternatives.

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

[Allison Geode (598914)]

and after the gov gets rid of network neutrality, they'll demand their benefactors at the telcos block all foreign content that is deemed to be unsavory.. so that their **AA benefactors will be pleased. and then everyone will give our politicians even more money.

Re:Not like it matters

[digitalgiblet (530309)]

"Just use Total Recorder, it "intercepts" the audio sent to your soundcard, and allows you to record it!"

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

[tepples (727027)]

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

[ScottLindner (954299)]

The problem isn't the senators. It's the industries that *own* them.

Stop being a baby and write a damn letter.

[some damn guy (564195)]

"The problem isn't the senators. It's the industries that *own* them"

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

[Original Replica (908688)]

Since we only ever get two candidate choices, most lobbies just buy both. When I can vote for "None of the Above" and get a new election with new candidates, then we might actually get leaders worth following.

Re:Not like it matters

[moro_666 (414422)]

It's the people that vote for them

  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 guess what, nothing changed (except some ashaming pr events). The parties could aswell put rubber puppets onto the chairs, the effect will remain the same.

  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

[kfg (145172)]

I'm surprised we haven't yet had a war on piracy.

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

[rsmith-mac (639075)]

It's most certainly enforceable against entities operating within the law in the first place. Broadcasters like DI.fm who are licensed would have to drop MP3 and unencrypted WMA streams for DRM/encrypted WMA streams, which would no doubt drive up their operating costs immensely due to the computational power of encrypting streams(encrypting each user's stream with a different key, anyone?). This isn't just an attempt to limit freedoms, but it could very well put legal broadcasters out of business.

Re:Not like it matters

[malraid (592373)]

Piracy has only one reason to exist: to fund terrorism. But it's not like *I* said it. Alberto Gonzales said it: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_displ ay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001477589 [hollywoodreporter.com].

So I guess it can be put under the umbrella of war on terror.

Re:Not like it matters

[lgw (121541)]

Alberto Gonzales's logic could not be more clear:

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

[Urusai (865560)]

Gonzales is the same clown who thinks torture and wiretaps are all perfectly legal. He must have skipped the class on the Constitution at law school. He probably cheated on his Ethics final, too.

Re:Not like it matters

[kalirion (728907)]

I predict it to be about as successful as the war on drugs

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!

[halivar (535827)]

A spirit of bipartisanship bridges the right and left in harmonious accord!

*puke*

Re:Finally!

[corbettw (214229)]

A spirit of bipartisanship bridges the right and left in harmonious accord!

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!

[timon (46050)]

I'm reminded of Frank Herbert's stories about the Department of Sabotage - created to thwart the rest of the government so that rights and just plain common sense isn't trampled by the process.

Re:Finally!

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

I'm sure glad they solved all the fricking important problems before they decided on going after streaming mp3s, because, really, when I think of all the things going wrong in the world today, streaming fricking mp3s are the absolute bottom of the list.

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

[Illbay (700081)]

The fact is that people who scream about "special interests" seem not to consider that in a representative democracy like ours, EVERYONE is a "special interest."

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.

Democracy isn't always very democratic

[jfengel (409917)]

When people say "special interests", they usually mean a relatively small set of people with a disproportionate amount of power for one reason or another. Sometimes it's because they have a whole lot of money to be used in campaign donations. Sometimes it's a group that one party or another feels beholden to (the religious right, Latinos, nationalists, labor) for ideological reasons, even where that group isn't necessarily a majority (or even the majority of the majority), where solidarity outweighs the group's overall interest.

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.

That's what they want you to think.

[Valdrax (32670)]

There is in fact a difference between a "special interest" and the "public interest." A "special interest" works to get what good for their minority slice of society, whereas the "public interest" seeks to benefit the majority's interests.

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.

[KenSeymour (81018)]

Senator Feinstein is one of my senators. I have sent her an email
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:Well, that's democracy for ya

[Mindwarp (15738)]

The fact is that people who scream about "special interests" seem not to consider that in a representative democracy like ours, EVERYONE is a "special interest."

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

[collectivescott (885118)]

Are you serious? Stock dividends are pitiful compared to what they once were. The real money is in prediction of hype. The market sustains itself by drawing more money in, not returning it. The money isn't going to your grandma unless she picks the next microsoft or dell. Instead, the money is going into the hands of a relatively small group. The group is just a little larger now.

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_stratificati on [wikipedia.org]

Re:Well, that's democracy for ya

[CreatureComfort (741652)]

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]...

This is a GOOD thing.

[gasmonso (929871)]

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]

Bah!

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

e.g., Windows Media or Real

This won't happen - the Mac community will never allow it... iPods 95% of the market, etc etc... ;-)

Good news!

[Lord_Slepnir (585350)]

This is actually good news. Now I only have to worry about cracking one or two formats, instead of a whole bunch of them!

In the words of Louis Black: "This is Congress doing the people's work. The people's stupid, stupid work.

*ahem* *cough* ....

[bizitch (546406)]

... analog hole *ahem* ...

Re:*ahem* *cough* ....

[Opportunist (166417)]

Personally I'd enjoy plugging another hole in some politicians...

So no music videos on non-DRM Cable TV?

[ikekrull (59661)]

I wonder if theyre going to throw the TV station and MTV executives in jail, and the people who record the digitally streamed videos on their TiVos for violating this law because they include major label music without DRM?

Re:So no music videos on non-DRM Cable TV?

[zeroduck (691015)]

Not a problem. MTV doesn't play music anymore.

WTS: 1x[US Congressman]

[Guysmiley777 (880063)]

50g per vote PST

'Your Rights Online"? What rights anymore?

[robyannetta (820243)]

This is yet another example of our freely elected Congressional system being circumvented only by the most powerful (fat pocketed) lobbyist (bribery agent) of the **AA.

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?

[panda (10044)]

You make the very common mistake of assuming that they are "freely elected" in the first place.

Radio Free America

[Opportunist (166417)]

Coming to you, from a country that has better problems than doing the bidding of the music industry.

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?

Satellite Radio

[Dachannien (617929)]

Everyone here's going OMG I can't stream mp3s on teh intarweb anymore, but the real reason for this legislation is to stifle satellite radio technology - specifically, the devices they are producing that allow a person to record the songs they hear on XM or Sirius (you know, same as terrestrial radio, where our right to record is actually ensconced in statute). But the RIAA, rather than comparing satellite and terrestrial radio, is comparing satellite radio to Internet streaming (and, by extension, Internet-based piracy).

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 /. article to the text of the bill as printed in the Congressional Record, and go to the next page. The RIAA's stance is plainly outlined there.

I called Senator Feinstein's office about this

[jfern (115937)]

Here are her numbers:

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

[alucinor (849600)]

Maybe some pseudo-DRM that ~prevents~ people from ~not~ sharing could be added to Ogg.

It could be the "copyleft" of DRM. Haha, just kidding.

Re:Use Ogg

[ichigo 2.0 (900288)]

And how does this solve the problem?

Re:Vote these n00bs out, plzthx.

[RexRhino (769423)]

No, because if you are Democrat, you aren't going to vote for a Republican in order to vote against the blacklisted politician. And if you are a Republican, you are not going to vote for a Democrat. Either way you will make some excuse why it is OK to vote for the pro-DRM candidate ("Well, I gotta vote for Fienstien or otherwise the Republicans will win, and we can't let that!").

Re:vote out the incombents!

[TheAngryMob (49125)]

That's right! DO NOT re-elect Senator USS Nimitz!

Re:In other news

[digitalunity (19107)]

How is this off-topic?

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?