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?'"
Another useless "feature" (Score:3, Insightful)
Foolish. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Since when does (Score:5, Insightful)
Until then, Radio content is still regulated by the FCC - an equally biased organization nonetheless...
easy to bypass (Score:5, Insightful)
Introductions... (Score:4, Insightful)
Flag (Score:5, Insightful)
FUCK RADIO (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I doubt digital terrestrial radio will take off, same way that digital terrestrial television has not taken off - the few people watching terrestrial DTV are those with HD sets.
If an industry doesn't see fit to give me my legal rights, then I won't use their product, and I will do my damndest to make sure other people don't use their product either.
I resent being told that I can't do something because I *might* use it for illegal purposes. Even if what I'm actually *planning* to do is fully legal.
And, just like virtually every other protection system out there, it WILL be broken. The only one I know of that HASN'T been broken publically is digital cable - and I feel it's been broken, but just not revealed to the public yet.
Re:FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you that they need to lighten up a bit, but based on history they will not. Remember the whole 'crisis' over video recorders way back in the day? A more contemporary example is the TiVO controversy, with many broadcast networks saying that TiVO will end their business model and cable will be the only option for TV, which is simply untrue. New technology often spurs fear because people fear what certain things _might_ be used for. Just like a gun, it _might_ be used for illegal purposes, but it might not as well. But what _might_ happen is not a good excuse for stifling technological development
RIAA wants a pay, not play button (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like this may be a lot harder for the RIAA than mp3 issues to me.
Re:Since when does (Score:5, Insightful)
*sigh* they still don't get one simple fact (Score:5, Insightful)
the one way that breaks ALL digital protection systems, and still leaves the content with decent audio, is to go through an analog phase. record from the output of your sound card into another computer via the analog lines, you only lose one analog generation (negligable given how lossy mp3 encoding was on the original content), and get a perfectly rippable copy on the other side with no history of any DRM preserved whatsoever.
so you DRM bastards: KNOCK IT OFF!
All DRM does is make the stupid feel empowered, the common person feel condescended to, and the pirates feel bored as to how easy it was to crack it...
Re:FCC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
So now, it's apparently a crime to be a purist, and want direct access to high quality media? Sure, maybe the analog version might be good enough for you, but if you're a purist, then it's not.
Once again RIAA shows us its inability (Score:3, Insightful)
Once again RIAA shows us that is simply can't adapt themselves to the new reality of information sharing.
Internet isn't just a new media, or a new commercial channel. It's also a new and improved way to communicate. For those who want me to be even more clear, it's a new way to share and exchange information.
The fact is that internet users will, for itself, share information among each other. That's what a communication tool meant to do. And there's nothing RIAA can do that'll will avoid 95% of the world population (US residents are 5% only) sharing information, musing included.
RIAA must do just like any other group or company around the world when a new technology tries to ruin its buissines, adapt.
Not adapting itself to the new technological reality, RIAA is opening huge chances of new visionaries company or groups to be successful, being the first in the market and getting ahead even before RIAA can think in any action to avoid it.
The revolution is in its way. All we can do (including RIAA) is adapt ourselves to it. It's useless to try to stop a train without destroying it.
Thank God for the BBC (Score:2, Insightful)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_r
Re:Since when does (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:4, Insightful)
Too many sheep.
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:1, Insightful)
When folk music is popular again.
That's the problem, most people don't have a scene that they can get to. So, we're basically left with a bunch of NEA funded shit that wouldn't see a penny if people didn't have to worry about the Tax Fairy sneaking it away to them.
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that the record industry is trying to take away a right we have and have had more or less since broadcasts came about, the right to make a copy of the broadcast for "personal use". THis is fair use as described in copyright law, you just don't have the right to distribute that copy.
Re:Introductions... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is very easy to bitch and moan here - in fact it seems to be the fuel that keeps this site going - but those of you that aren't actually making an effort to stop things like this DESERVE the broadcast flag.
mod me up, down, sideways, whatever. just don't bitch about it unless you do something to stop it.
The day the music died. (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, I don't see the point in this. I don't support illegal copying (except for personal use, or making your friend a copy of a CD you own) but this is just plain silly. They're just prolonging the fashionable thing to do at the moment (download music off the internet).
Just edit the 'bit 'out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure the common guy wont be able to do this, but it seems the common guy is just screwed these days anyway.
Re:Fair enough (Score:4, Insightful)
People forget quickly, if it's not specifically illegal, then it's legal. Just because there's no written law that says 'fair use allows access to 100% accurate signals', doesn't mean that there is somehow a difference.
I reiterate - IF IT'S NOT EXPRESSLY ILLEGAL, THEN IT IS FULLY 100% LEGAL.
Re:Since when does (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the drivers behind the revival of live music at bars, coffee cafes, and theme restaurants (new orleans jazz, progressive, classic rock, etc.) is the abysmal creativity in writing and talent in performing of the current "MTV clones".
Seriously, does anyone think political talk would have taken over radio if it had real musical competition? Has anyone noticed that the talk radio operations are plowing their money back into the markets in the form of '60s, '70s, and '80s classic stations (and they're making money hand over fist at it?).
One reason we put a full stage in our church cafe was so local musicians would have a good venue to play with good pas, speakers, and soundboard in place. Our bass player's band opened on tour for The Eagles and it turns out we actually went to the same Jimi Hendrix concerts in the '60s, he's got a great ear for talent.
The simple fact is that there is a LOT of excellent music being written "out in the wild" by local artists. They just don't fit the anorexic/belly button baring/cussing, screaming, beating up your girl formula so they won't get the attention they deserve.
Forget your radio, go downtown to the irish pub and toss a good tip in for the band. The RIAA won't get a cent of it.
Re:Introductions... (Score:2, Insightful)
Such as? I'm always seeing people bitching about people bitching about things, but do any of you actually HAVE ANY IDEAS about what we can do to stop it?
Write to our elected representatives? Sure, great. Please tell me where to find out who my elected representative on the FCC is. Hmm... I don't remember any elections...
Vote in elections? I do that already, and it doesn't change anything. None of the candidates who know a thing about technical issues has ever had a hope of winning any election I've ever voted in, be it congress, president, or even captain of the local bowls club.
What other options do I have, other than taking a shotgun down to the RIAA headquarters? Pray enlighten me, O proactive one.
Is fair use for the rich only? (Score:3, Insightful)
No one is saying taxpayers have to fund poor starving students, even if that is not what you are implying. But when roadblocks to fair use only apply to those who don't spend extra money, it becomes unfair use.
The whole idea of fair use available only to those with enough money is disgusting.
Re:Fair enough (Score:4, Insightful)
If bypassing that protection on the digital source is made illegal by another law (say, the DMCA or something similar to it), then it's no longer quite as clear.
Essentially, you're saying that you can have all the fair use rights in the world, but they don't have to help you out. And I'm with you there, except when they're intentionally trying to block you out.
The future is digital, not analog. A lot of broadcast mediums nowadays are pure digital. XM Radio, HDTV, etc, etc. There's no analog signal to tap into.
If you are *unable* to exercise those rights, then you don't have those rights. And I'm not talking unable because of being poor or because of not having the proper equipment. I'm talking about being unable to exercise your fair use rights because the equipment and technology that would allow you to do so has been made illegal to sell, own, create, think of. That just ain't right.
Re:Remember DAT? (Score:3, Insightful)
You found the point, I think...
"Wonder how much potential revenue they missed out on w/ that fiasco?"
Who are you asking? If you ask the RIAA-types, they'll say that they saved massive amounts of money because it reduced the rampant piracy that DAT would obviously have.
If you ask anyone with a brain, well, that's a differant answer...
Watermarking and control of the hardware... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once that framework is built into place, newer tech that can survive these conversions gets introduced, and it's easier to push it into the marketplace, because the law says that this sort of thing must be included in consumer hardware. Eventually, you don't have any hardware that will actually record that analog source. It'll all detect the watermark, and refuse to record. Oh, there will be workarounds, but this sort of knowledge is already forbidden for you to pass around, by the DMCA. That's right, it's illegal for you to tell somebody how to bypass a protection mechanism, be it by code or by word of mouth or by t-shirt. The DMCA makes no distinction between these methods.
And that's their vision of the future. Total control of all media. It's just that simple, really. You want to make a copy for your car? You can't. You want to watch the program later than they air it? Sorry, the broadcaster of the show has decided that you might skip the ads if you did that, so your recorder won't record it. And if you post anywhere telling other people how to fix these "problems" with the equipment they bought, armed guards show up at your residence and take you away and put you in a padded cell and stare at you thru a small window for the rest of your life, because you're an informational terrorist.
Pretty bleak, but unfortunately I don't think it's all that much of a stretch of the imagination anymore.
Re:Since when does (Score:2, Insightful)
That in itself is a major problem. The FCC shouldn't be in the content regulation business. Their only business should involve the tech and rules for that tech for the benefit of all, not just their little friends. This whole "evil bit" thing is just to force people to go through them(RI/MPAA) to make their product. It's there lock out or exclude people who won't sign a contract, giving up all their "rights". "Piracy" is a red herring to get the public to go along, and it's working!
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask our friends in Canada about that.
Re:easy to bypass (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, it also means the radio becomes a pain to listen to also.
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
* that it is okay to copy the analog signals.
Re:FUCK RADIO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (Score:5, Insightful)
You have two options: buy their stuff, but don't complain, or don't buy their stuff, and try and support alternative markets...
It has probably been five years since I bought a CD for myself, yet I continue to rent movies on a regular basis... While the RIAA has been busy "fighting" the demons of piracy, I've been losing interest in their material.
A few years ago I heard a friend of mine (and his band) sing a rendition of a popular song. What impressed me most was that this guy was in his early 20's, and he sounded exactly like the CD. The rest of his family is into music; he's been raised with it his entire life. Though he wasn't a music major, he had developed a talent which far exceed a lot of the trash that gets put on CD's today.
And he's just one. In college, I did sound mixing for some of the music majors I knew, and even the "B" student music majors could make most of the pop-40 singers sound like amateurs. There's a lot of talent out there - good talent - and the majority of it is never heard. In fact, the smarter ones stay away from the RIAA because they've figured out that the draconian terms of an RIAA-member recording contract leave the musician with no room to actually earn a decent living.
But after hearing a few of my friends perform, my tastes in music have changed. I've been exposed to real music - music with feeling, purpose, and beauty. I can't go back to listening to pop-40, because it sounds so assinine by comparison.
The RIAA fails to understand that people are beginning to realize that listening to any RIAA music comes with a lawsuit risk. How am I supposed to relax and have a good time listening to music if I'm worried that a convenience copy could land me in court? How can I kick back and relax if I have to think about "licensing issues" every time I play a song or rip a CD?
The RIAA isn't losing sales because of Napster, or Gnutella, or file-sharing software. They are losing sales because those of us who really appreciate music find it appalling that a musician (or his representative) would sue a fan. This completely destroys a person's ability to enjoy music. It doesn't matter even if I am completely legit - the fact that I'm listening to the voice of someone with a mean streak spoils any listening pleasure I might otherwise have had.
And strangely, now that we've gotten off the CD-sales bandwagon and discovered that listening to real people making real music is more enjoyable, we aren't going back. We're spending more money than ever on music - cover charges, concert tickets, etc... but the RIAA is getting less and less of it.
And that's why the RIAA is mad. People are spending more money than ever on music, and they feel like they've been cut out of the deal. Truth is, they made money selling what never belonged to them in the first place, and now they're mad because they are losing their ability to exploit the talent of others for their own financial gain.
Does anybody besides me get the impression that... (Score:4, Insightful)
- it's never going to get better.
- it's never going to stop getting worse.
- the rate of getting worse is never going to stop increasing.
Re:Song of the piracy apologist (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact is, the very notion that songs, stories, ideas, images, and all the other ephemeralities restricted by "copyright" were for the bulk of human history passed along and shared only by active infringement by those who carried these works along for us later. Without copying we would have no folk songs, no scriptures, a great deal fewer plays, stories, paintings, buildings, inventions. Our cultural traditions would have lasted only as long as the material on which the first author ever fixed them-- in most cases less than 100 years.
Do you anti-copiers ever decry the vast body of commerce that exists in making copies of "public domain" works? Of course not. Ripping off the past is a hobby for the media cartel. Look at Disney with "The Little Mermaid", "Cinderella", "Snow White", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Fantasia", etc. Look at movie releases like "Troy" and "Romeo & Juliet". Look at how often Beethoven, Bach, Tchaikovsky, and countless others have their works "stolen" and reused in contexts they could never have dreamed of. The same for Michelangelo, DaVinci, Monet, Manet. Where is your outrage at this?
Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA is asking for protections greater than they recieve for analog radio.
The problem is that none of the justifications they claim for extended protections apply here.
The earlier justification was that "digital copies allow infinite generations of lossless copies to be made."
If someone is recording from the analog radio, they make a digital copy of a lossy transmission. At that point, they can make an infinite number of copies.
If someone is recording from digital radio, they can make an infinite number of copies of a lossily (probably MP3) encoded stream. Exact same thing.
Furthermore, because of the nature of streaming data networks, it can be more efficient to use retransmission -- to send one stream of audio to a single host in Sweden that then rebroadcasts ten streams to other Swedish hosts. This is superior than directly sending to eleven Swedish hosts. This would prohibit network structures of such a variety.
I can't even figure out why the RIAA managed to impose per-stream fees on Internet radio. That's *absurd*. Normal radio has a smaller transmission cost (i.e. not linear in the number of listeners), and has potential audiences several orders of magnitude larger than Internet radio. Why Internet radio stations can't enjoy small, flat rate fees for playing music is beyond me.
I'm so frusterated with the RIAA. If there was a single vote that could remove all their lobbying, I'd vote for it in a second. But instead, it's a long, unending, slow grind against people that have the potential to make scads more money by swaying a couple of votes.
Getting rich off the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Then use the fact that a large minority of people do it and continue to do it despite its illegality to raise the penalities for breaking this law very high. Again the majority of people will go along with this because they don't engage in this particular activity.
Use the high penalities to encourage a system of bounty hunters who get to share in the enormous fines that are brought against the many people (a large minority works best) who are found disobeying this law when they snitch their neighbors to the authorities for disobeying this law. Make sure the activity that is made illegal is common and accepted by a large minority of people. The best size of this minority is about 15 percent of the population; a larger percentage and you run the risk of a successful revolt and a smaller percentage doesn't bring in enough money to make the whole business worthwhile.
Then just sit back and let the money pile in from legal fees and fines.
In the USA, the stategy worked great on Black people (African-Americans) until the 1960's. It worked great on gays and other sexual minorities until the late 1970's. It still brings in hundreds of millions of dollars from the marijuana community every year to the police and the lawyers.
Now it about to be applied to the recorded music-lover community, starting with random students and working up from there to the general middle-class.
Just one more permanent American extortion money-making scheme. As soon as one passes, another takes its place. Americans talk a lot of trash about freedom, but when it comes to using the law to extort money from minorities, be they racial, sexual, life-style, and now digital media minorities, the dollar always comes first.