The RIAA's Push for an Audio Broadcast Flag 374
aaronsorkin writes "The Recording Industry Association of America has discovered that digital radio broadcasts can be copied and redistributed over the Internet, and so it is pushing the FCC to adopt an audio broadcast flag, which would likely prevent users from sending copyrighted radio programs over the Internet. But it could also hamstring other legitimate uses by preventing a digital radio program from leaving the device on which it was recorded. The FCC has initiated a notice of inquiry (pdf), typically a step leading to formal rule-making. The public may submit comments to the FCC between June 16 and July 16. A lobbyist friend sent me copies of the private correspondence on the subject between RIAA president Cary Sherman and Consumer Electronics Association president Gary Shapiro, and Cryptome just posted them here (pdf) and here (pdf). Yes, they're legit. Mindjack just posted an article I wrote on the subject titled, 'Will Digital Radio Be Napsterized?'"
Remember DAT? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NX? (Score:2, Informative)
Little Slow, here's a mirror (Score:3, Informative)
They're just now figuring this out? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Informative)
So fair use in terms of copying to your computer, etc. doesn't apply as you haven't purchased anything.
That is simply not true. Traditionally, consumers have had the right to "time shift" or "media shift" copyrighted works. "Time shifting" is what allows you to legally record a T.V. show (either with a VHS tape or a PVR) for later viewing. The inclusion of a broadcast flag takes away this right. Yes, time-shifting can be used for copyright infringement, but that does not change the fact that the RIAA et. al are attempting to deprive consumers of their fair use rights.
The EFF has more information on this here [eff.org].
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:5, Informative)
This is undoubtedly what the long term future holds. However, for the next 50 years, if you don't buy their stuff outright, they'll just get a law passed under which the government collects money from you on their behalf. You will pay the RIAA whether you want to or not.
Re:covered under normal broadcast flag? (Score:2, Informative)
I found a website that talks about it. http://www.fact-index.com/d/di/digital_audio_broa
RIAA has always been at it! Remember the tape tax? (Score:2, Informative)
The college administration put up the RIAA flyers on the proposed tape tax and to lobby against DAT. At the time, CD's were becoming mainstream and the idea of burning CD's were a concept, not reality.
At the time, I bought CD's and one of the first things I did was make audio tape recordings from the CD's on casette metal tape (Type IV). The RIAA not only wanted you to buy the CD but if wanted it on casette, they wanted you to buy the pre-recorded tapes which were made on the cheapest tape possible (Type I - ferric oxide) which happened to dirty up tape heads pretty quickly. The metal tape sounded better and it did not dirty up your tape heads. I did not bother with Chromium (Type II) tapes. I now make duplicates of the CD's I buy to take with me on road trips. The originals stay at home. I recently made a copy of the Traveling Wilbury's CD from a guy I work with since it is out of print. The RIAA may not be happy with that but there is no opportunity to buy the CD.
The RIAA is ridiculous. You may not lose much audio quality if you have to go from digital to audio and back to digital if they implement this. It is bad enough the FCC caved in to the MPAA on the b-cast flag for digital TV. The MPAA also raised hell about VCR's when they came out.
Don't forget that one of the AOL/Time-Warner executives called people thieves who fast forwarded through the commercial ads. The name if I remember was Jamie Kellner.
Re:Fair enough (Score:4, Informative)
If they broadcast it, I can exercise fair use rights.
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Informative)
Hard to bypass (Score:3, Informative)
Sure its not practical, but they can move towards the goal.
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:3, Informative)
Then again, I am following the sheep to this summer's Ozzfest [ozzfest.com]. But with a re-united Judas Priest, I couldn't resist. Oh, well, I guess, small steps.
Re:Remember DAT? (Score:3, Informative)
And look at how well it worked at preventing piracy.... The market chose an unencumbered format.
Re:easy to bypass (Score:5, Informative)
This is compounded by the fact that radio signals (as someone above pointed out) go through a process called "dynamic range compression", which basically makes the soft bits louder and the loud bits softer. This does a couple of things: 1) it makes setting recording levels for FM recording a snap, since it's all close to the same amplitude, 2) it makes sound card fidelity even less important, since you don't have a huge dynamic range to deal with*, 3) it screws up the quality anyway, so who cares if your card puts a -50 dB noise signal in there?
(Comment about dynamic range compression: I suppose boosting soft bits of the audio helps to raise the signal-to-noise ratio for weak FM signals--otherwise very soft passages would get lost in static. Even with range compression the local classical station has issues with this.However, wouldn't it be trivial to do the range compression, then broadcast the dynamic shift on a sideband channel? Then the FM receiver could reconstruct the original dynamic from the (compressed) signal and the sideband dynamic indication. That would be the best of both worlds... and would be backwards-compatible since older FM receivers would just get the compressed signal, same as they do now.)
You're not going to get audiophile-quality sound off an FM broadcast. This isn't the fault of the recording equipment, the radio receiver, or the FM transmission process; it's what they do to the signal before it hits the transmitter. This is a good thing for this purpose though, since it means even crappy hardware doesn't mess up the recording!
*Some of the most challenging signals to record accurately are those with both very loud and very soft periods. The recording gain has to be set low enough to accomodate the loud passages. Then, the combination of the low gain with the low intrinsic volume of the soft bits makes for a very low signal--which, on bad hardware, can be comparable to the noise floor. But we don't care about this on the radio, since it's *all* loud.
I can't believe that no one's noticed this yet... (Score:3, Informative)
Unless I'm mistaken, this means that the flag will not apply to Shoutcast radio stations or others that are internet-only. This sounds like it applies to XM, Sirius, and other forms of digital radio, but NOT what's streamed to your computer.
Then again, I could be misinterpreting that part of the article...
...but the means will be illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Here: Content Protection Status Report [senate.gov]
Implementation of a "broadcast flag" is listed as Goal One. Goal two is
Of course there are easy technical ways to bypass any such schemes if you can get your hands on uncrippled A/D hardware. Your student or journalist is welcome to take advantage of them if they are willing to risk going to prison.
Re:Introductions... (Score:3, Informative)
When the FCC enforces an audio broadcast flag, and all software has to respect it there will be free speech issues.
No, there won't be.
Fair use is a free speech issue...
No, it's not. Not in this context.
This is technical legislation that affects the product itself. This is no different than putting a chip in a car that doesn't let you resell or give away the vehicle. It's stupid, but then, you'd have to be a stupid person to buy it. Maybe it's a consumer rights issue and it might also be an abuse of a monopolistic position (assuming that no non-monopoly would ever get away with such crap), but there are no free speech issues involved in damaging your own product. As long as people are clearly made aware it's there before they buy it (right to know what you're buying), it's up to the consumer to determine whether or not they want to purchase it. As a buyer, I would look at such media as an inferior product, and I would not purchase it.
Back to the "fair use" tripe: no, it's not a fair use issues. If Cary Sherman came over and kicked you in the nuts for making a parody of a song, it's a fair use problem (and aggravated assault, but that's a different issue). If Cary Sherman doesn't let you redistribute exact copies of the original song + parody via technology breakage on the data, well, too bad. Why are you buying faulty products? Also, nothing is stopping you from recreating it yourself in parody. Nothing says that the content provider is OBLIGATED to provide you with an exact copy for the purposes of reuse or parody or anything else.
It's a broken product, plain and simple. There is not freedom of speech issue, and reactionay statements to that effect just make dissenters of this policy look like babbling fools. I'd really appreciate it if people on Slashdot would pull their heads out of their asses now and then and try to repsond to this sort of thing in a rational, sane manner, because nobdoy is going to listen to this den of lunatics as long as the hive mind moderation continues to reward this sort of nonsensical response and behavior with facetime at +5, Whatever (I'm aware the original poster didn't get modded up).
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:3, Informative)
While you're right to a point, I put together a little shorthand guide to the best of free Indie downloads and paid Indie CDs here:
http://fatchuck.com/z1.html [fatchuck.com]
FWIW, it's a quick hack, but it'll have to suffice until something better comes along.
Chuck
Re:For quite some time I believe. (Score:1, Informative)
In fact, the record labels are the ones getting the short end of the stick, since they own the sound-recording copyrights, but don't get paid when their copyrights are used by other businesses (such as radio stations and bars).
When dealing with a digital audio transmission, the record labels come into the picture, since the copyright act states that the owner of a sound recording copyright has the exclusive right to transmit digitally, thus digital radio stations much pay licensing fees.
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have any links to prove this (and no slashdot opinions don't count)?
How about Part 8 [justice.gc.ca] of the Canadian Copyright Act? Plenty of legal speak in it, but the part that matters here is this section:
80. (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. (emphasis mine)
The section after that sets up the levy on CDRs, tapes, etc. If you want it explained in something other than lawyer-speak, try this FAQ [neil.eton.ca].