Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Businesses Government The Internet Politics

Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy 109

Posted by Zonk
from the that's-the-sound-of-the-other-shoe dept.
RadioFan writes "The settlement between webcasters and SoundExchange is starting to come apart at the seams, because everyone is realizing that SoundExchange wants to force DRM on Net Radio. DiMA, one of the largest Net Radio lobbyists, has fired back at Sound Exchange, calling them out for leveraging high royalty fees to push through DRM requirements that they failed to obtain in Congress via broadcast flag and anti-recording legislation. Was this whole thing a ruse to get DRM on net radio?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    i will continue to listen to old time radio and other sources
    where i do not need ever consider these lobbyists and thier ilk.

    pop music must die.
    • You do realize that "pop" music is an abbreviated form of "popular" music? - meaning that whatever genre or style of music is popular at the time constitutes "pop". Ergo, pop music cannot die, except possibly under the extremely small but non-zero probability that at some point in the future, all genres of music will just happen to be equally popular for some length of time, in which case pop music would cease to exist for as long as that condition exists.

  • by raydobbs (99133) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:02PM (#19918795) Homepage Journal
    Doesn't the crushing, recursive fee schedule pretty much wipe out all the players? I mean, forcing DRM on something that won't be exposed to the public (for fear of never-ending, revolving bankruptcy) seems utterly pointless. I mean, it could be the desire to stomp out the few remaining embers using any method possible...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The digital savvy people in the music business have hit upon a "new model" to replace their failing one. Subscriptions. They like this even better than the old model because it promises a more predictable and regular revenue stream. And they're going to try and steamroll anyone or anything that could threaten this new model (meet the new boss, same as the old boss). The biggest threat is net radio.
      • by jez9999 (618189)
        That sounds pretty similar to Microsoft's subscription software business model. I hate the idea of these new 'cash cow' models that big business is coming up with, and can only hope people reject them forcefully.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:03PM (#19918801) Journal

    The source also tells me that DRM is the only plausible "tool" at the disposal of webcasters to accomplish SoundExchange's goal of working to stop music "streamripping."
    I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.' I mean, even if you closed the loop all the way down to my soundcard, it would still have to come out as sound in some quality or another. Once it's in that analog form, I just pipe it into another input device on the same or different machine and begin recording. I've used TotalRecorder to just copy the buffer of my sound card to a file and have captured many NPR shows that I could not find otherwise to purchase.

    How in the hell could DRM prevent this?

    But, then again, look at what I'm criticizing! I challenge anyone to list one technology or product that DRM has successfully 'worked' on (in that it prevents piracy). This is laughable and brings the phrase "defective by design" to whole new levels I never thought possible. Not only will it be defective, use cycles and memory on your machine but it will probably make the quality worse. Bravo, DRM, bravo.

    Nothing I've found on this lays out the implementation so here's my prediction. SoundExchange wants the minimum offer/DRM model in place. Then they can prove it's possible to still streamrip. Then where does that put the web radio sites? At the mercy of SoundExchange, of course, because they implemented something that didn't satisfy a contract.
    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:09PM (#19918877) Homepage Journal

      I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.' I mean, even if you closed the loop all the way down to my soundcard, it would still have to come out as sound in some quality or another. Once it's in that analog form, I just pipe it into another input device on the same or different machine and begin recording. I've used TotalRecorder to just copy the buffer of my sound card to a file and have captured many NPR shows that I could not find otherwise to purchase.


      And similar tools exist on Linux to capture the ALSA buffers. There's absolutely no way to prevent 'streamripping' with any DRM. The broadcast has to be decoded at the time of play -- there's no way around it. For that matter, these same techniques work with any DRM.

      The bottom line here is that DRM schemes are inherently broken and can't be fixed. So let's just get rid of all DRM and be done with it, 'k Mafiaa?

      • by orclevegam (940336) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:38PM (#19919135) Journal

        The bottom line here is that DRM schemes are inherently broken and can't be fixed. So let's just get rid of all DRM and be done with it, 'k Mafiaa?

        Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)
          I understand.

          The problem is that DRM is a technological "solution" to a sociological "problem". Usually, that sort of fix doesn't work out so well.
        • by suv4x4 (956391)
          Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?

          I wish. If the government made everything that couldn't actually work illegal or unpatentable, it'd implode upon itself.
        • by Nullav (1053766)

          Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?
          The USPTO has no problems with inventions [google.com] that break the laws of physics.
      • by Gerzel (240421) *
        Yes, but that alsa requires non-approved hardware. Or didn't you notice many of Vista's DRM-in-mind system requirements to keep "premium" content safe?

        What they want is a cash cow. Something where if a user complies the user pays a lot of money to them. If the user does not comply and has no money the user goes ignored if the user does not comply (or with tight enough demands even if the user does) then they have an airtight case pre-made, just fill in the blank and confiscate any equipment said user mig
        • Yes, but that alsa requires non-approved hardware. Or didn't you notice many of Vista's DRM-in-mind system requirements to keep "premium" content safe?

          Ever heard of running an OS under virtualization? There's nothing to prevent Vista from under VMware, QEMU, XEN, Parallels, etc. As long as the emulator makes Vista 'think' it has DRM-capable hardware, then you'll have no problems capturing anything coming out of the sound card when running under a non-DRM-restricting OS.

        • Just try this - put an altoids tin somewhere in near plain sight, a visine (or other eyedropper) on the dash, and then get pulled over...

          I can practically guarentee that they'll ask to "search" your vehicle.

          On the topic of DRM, I can't think of any particular reason that it should work. Heck, the closest thing anyone could possibly get to "real" DRM is if they did something like Terminal Man...
      • And similar tools exist on Linux to capture the ALSA buffers. There's absolutely no way to prevent 'streamripping' with any DRM. The broadcast has to be decoded at the time of play -- there's no way around it. For that matter, these same techniques work with any DRM.

        The bottom line here is that DRM schemes are inherently broken and can't be fixed. So let's just get rid of all DRM and be done with it, 'k Mafiaa?

        DRM schemes are not "inherently broken" -- they work just fine for the majority of their t

        • by plover (150551) *
          Yes, lots of people are incapable of leaving their DRM bubble. The MAFIAA is happy to keep them safely crippled -- that's a lot of "lost sales avoided", according to their way of thinking.

          But don't forget that DRM also suffers from the "broke once, broken everywhere" problem. If only one smart person figures out how to break DRM, he or she can publish his or her findings. A few others will use those findings to develop a tool. Many people will then use the tool to rip and republish the media in other

          • by bane2571 (1024309)

            Ultimately, even if Joe Sixpack thinks JHymn is just a song about Lil' Baby Jeebus, he's still capable of typing "download brittany spears song" into Google and clicking on whatever shows up. The only reason he doesn't succeed very often is the diligence of the mafioso lawyers at sending Cease and Desist notices.
            Nah, the only reason he doesn't succeed these days is the deluge for made for Google ad pages and porn sites that he gets on that search.
    • Exactly. Streamripping is a fundamental possibility in any kind of broadcast media. If it can reach my ears, I can build a device to record it.

      I just don't understand why they care so much about online streams; they're often lower quality than common radio signals. Why aren't they clamoring to stop people from streamripping ordinary radio stations? Are they secretly devising DRM'd radios with encrypted ratio broadcasts? If they aren't applying the same tactics to analog broadcasts, the whole endeavor is poi
      • by MBraynard (653724) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:28PM (#19919077) Journal
        The quality of online is at least as good if not better and is getting better than analog over-the-air radio. That's the crux of this. They see the way things are going. They see that wireless clouds are proliferating and that terrestrial radio may disappear as people carry around wireless internet radio devices. If they could stop you from recording off of HD radio, they would. If you can get your singles off the radio/internet radio, you don't need to buy it, and these guys are in the business of selling the music that they create.
        • They see the way things are going. They see that wireless clouds are proliferating and that terrestrial radio may disappear as people carry around wireless internet radio devices. If they could stop you from recording off of HD radio, they would.
          Did you just accuse them of looking further than the ends of their collective noses? Are you sure you're posting to the right site?
        • by StikyPad (445176)
          If you can get your singles off the radio/internet radio, you don't need to buy it

          Surely you're not insinuating that the other songs on the albums aren't worth listening to?!?

          *Smacks face like McCauley Culkin*
        • To be completely fair, over-the-air radio deserves to disappear. It's pretty horrid nowadays. Most airwave radio is little more than a gear in the corporate machine which tries and take artists on large record labels, and turn them into hit-machines. The end result is a nauseatingly awful playlist that rotates through the same dozen or so artists over and over again.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by fallungus (810282)
            Commercial over-the-air radio deserves to disappear, but there are still quite a few non-commercial stations on the left of the dial [wusb.fm] which haven't sold out to NPR, still serve the community, and feature diverse playlists which feature many new independent and local artists that you will never hear on commercial radio. These non-commercial stations are depending on net broadcasting to reach a wider audience, since their transmitters are generally low-powered.
            • by MBraynard (653724)
              REcently the FCC has allowed for licsnsing of non-profits getting low-power stations for very low fees. It's kinda nice.

              There is also a HUGE amount of over-the-air terrestrial radio that is booming - on the AM dial - thanks largely to Rush Limbaugh.

              And there is always WFMU in Jersey City - listener supported, not low power, and not NPR.

        • by weber (36246)
          What good would DRM (if it worked) do against people getting music for free? If you don't want to pay, you go to The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] or similar places and get it (in CD quality). Why would you bother ripping a stream?!? I guess this would just make the casual "streamripper" searching for another way to avoid paying for music discover the plethora of the p2p universe.
          • by MBraynard (653724)
            Because they anticipate disuading people from accessing p2p through lawsuits and through legislative solutions that will make it more difficult to access this material. They will probably have TPB shut down at some point. It's not like they aren't working on all fronts.
      • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:30PM (#19919083) Homepage Journal

        I just don't understand why they care so much about online streams;
        Because net radio is a threat to their business model, and because it's the future of radio.
      • by cianduffy (742890)
        Analogue? Thats barely a risk... They're not stopping me dumping the direct, anywhere from 128 to 320k Musicam streams of radio stations I want to listen to direct off digital satellite or DAB here, not really can they - I have hours of Paul van Dyk sets recorded at 320 from Radio Fritz, for instance. Until they can DRM that, the 32 (notice the factor of ten...)k webstream isn't really worth caring about, surely?
    • by Ngarrang (1023425)
      How to stop stream-ripping? Install Vista.
    • by Otter (3800)
      I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.'

      Pandora and Live365 both stop streamripping as any reasonable person understands it. Obviously blocking any possible "recording" isn't possible and it's FUD to suggest that that's what at issue.

      • by mystran (545374)
        Yeah well, one even nowadays sees schemes like flashplayers used to stream normal mp3s over normal http connection, used to prevent people from saving the mp3s involved. Same with videos too. I'd say against normal person it's probably pretty effective. :)
        • by Hucko (998827)
          It is possible they aren't playing anything ppl want. I worked out how, and have never had reason to use any form of ripping. I believe I am not alone in knowing but never using nefarious mechanisms.
    • by JohnnyGTO (102952)
      Goverment put the v-chip in tv's. Whats to stop them from convincing congress that all analog equipment sold in the future must have a filter that blocks recording? It wouldn't stop someone with a little know how to circumvent but once the sheeple are used to not being able to record things how hard would it be to just ban analog equipment? How long would it take 5 maybe 10 years?
      • "Whats to stop them from convincing congress that all analog equipment sold in the future must have a filter that blocks recording?"

        Well, you supply your own answer in the very next sentence-
        "It wouldn't stop someone with a little know how to circumvent"
        • by JohnnyGTO (102952)
          Right but how many of the sheeple will hack a piece of equipment, its very unlikely. Then when everyone is use to not being able to record analog for DRMed sounds/video the government aka RIAA steps in and says "You don't need analog at ALL."
      • I think the analog step that is being referred to is the step from speakers (audio source) to ears. That will always be captureable as long as that step is not digital. One option would be to remove the eardrums from everyone and then install some kind of digital receptor that translates the digital DRM'ed signal directly to the auditory nerve (or the optical nerve in case of video/images). Somehow, I think that all this will take a bit more than "5 maybe 10 years".

        With "proper" DRM in the receptor/trans
        • by JohnnyGTO (102952)
          Remember when HBO only came in as an analog signal and you needed a box to view it? Well take a similar step in a different direction, play the analog out the speakers but place in it a signal that locks out new analog recording devices. No need for auditory surgery if you train the masses correctly. Does this make us the little deviants?
    • Indeed, and that argument applies more to streaming audio than non-streaming audio because even though the analog hole always exists, with non-streaming audio it's a pain in the ass to exploit because you're forced to record at one second per second, (whereas with digital copying you can often go much faster) but with streaming audio one second per second is a constraint forced on you by the nature of the technology itself.
    • If you're wrapping the whole stream in encrypted DRM-crap, and you're using a low-level buffer grab to save the audio, then stream rippers will lose out on the metadata embedded in streams. This means that you won't be able to separate a stream into individual songs, which would really suck for Joe User. It's fine if you're listening to mixed sets, but I personally like separate mp3 files for each song.

      And before anyone suggests it, there is no way to blindly separate a stream accurately into individual s

      • by sumdumass (711423)
        You can break most songs or streams into sets easily. The level of the song changes between songs and the amount of silence changes between tracks. Early rippers would do this and apply the meta data to it after wards. Of course it isn't perfect and you would have to name each one individually by hand after checking to see if the entire song was there, but at the cost of ten CDs to get ten songs you actually like, it would be worth it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      You've hit on why DRM is just a blip. It's going to die off of natural causes, sooner or more sooner. At the very worst, it will become so de-fanged as to not matter beyond some use like parental controls for your toddler.
    • by suv4x4 (956391)
      I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.'

      Consider DRM which works only with cooperating drivers that disable recording during play of protected content. Yes you still have the analog hole, but it's no longer *convenient* to record shows. Requires another machine/device and less than stellar quality.
    • by Gordo_1 (256312) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:28PM (#19922037)

      I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.' I mean, even if you closed the loop all the way down to my soundcard, it would still have to come out as sound in some quality or another. Once it's in that analog form, I just pipe it into another input device on the same or different machine and begin recording. I've used TotalRecorder to just copy the buffer of my sound card to a file and have captured many NPR shows that I could not find otherwise to purchase.

      How in the hell could DRM prevent this?
      Actually, it doesn't have to. The industry can enforce Draconian licenses to prevent streamripping. Check out Pandora Radio [pandora.com]. Essentially, they are an Internet radio station that respresent the future of what Net radio is likely to become. They give you some freedom to hear the genre of music you like, but zero control over exactly what you will hear at any given time -- making streamripping to obtain certain songs extremely tedious and out of reach for all but the most dedicated pirates.

      They accomplish this through these restrictions:
      1. They stop you from specifically being able to play a particular song or artist. Instead they'll create a station that you can customize based on genre, that will from time to time randomly play a song from the artist you chose.
      2. You can't programatically find out what's playing. The radio player itself is flash-based, no handy Shoutcast stream tags here.
      3. Even if you and a friend listen to the same custom station at the same time, both will be randomly playing through a different part of that station's universe --> no predictability.
      4. You have limited ability to skip songs (something like 7 per hour).
      5. You can't go back and listen to a song that's already played (fully or partially).
      6. You can't restart a song that's just started playing.
      7. You can't tell what going to play next.

      Aside from these restrictions, it's actually a pretty cool idea and I listen to Pandora from time to time, but the music license effectively makes it so that there's simply no viable way to record the songs you want unless you're willing to sit there for hours, manually chopping up and labeling audio.
  • Does it matter (Score:5, Interesting)

    by funkatron (912521) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:08PM (#19918857)
    Surely the obvious solution is for the net radio stations to move their server out of SoundExchange's reach. I hear hosting in Russia isn't too expensive these days.
    • by funkatron (912521)
      "server" should be "servers" and I should proof-read.
    • by Anomalyst (742352)
      Or maybe make arrangements with Aruba to host the servers pay them under similar rules of the current system.
    • by sumdumass (711423)
      I don't remember the case but I remember someone getting busted for doing just that. They were being accused of copyright infringement and pirating and move the servers off shore where the laws didn't apply and that was used as evidence of malice or intent or something of the sorts at his trial.

      I wish I could remember who and where it happened to. but ti wasn't more then a few years ago that it happened.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Grishnakh (216268)
        Well it was pretty dumb of them to not also move offshore. If you're going to move your servers offshore to avoid US laws, you might as well move yourself over there too. I don't think the guys running The Pirate Bay would still be operating if they lived in the US while their servers were located in Sweden.

        Not that I'm thinking of moving there, but how is Russia for immigration anyway? You'd have to learn the language of course, but other than that it seems like a fairly decent place to live. It's not
        • by Don_dumb (927108)

          Not that I'm thinking of moving there, but how is Russia for immigration anyway? You'd have to learn the language of course, but other than that it seems like a fairly decent place to live. It's not like you'll have your head sawed off or be blown up by suicide bombers, like in other parts of the world. And it doesn't seem like they're terribly restrictive with freedom, from what little I've heard, unlike places like China.

          Wouldn't it be ironic if people started moving to Russia in search of freedom?

          No, it would be stupid.
          Russia has real problems with organised crime (lots of it in the Kermlin), political and journalistic critics of the government end up dead (even if they are not in Russia). "Russia's population is actually decreasing because of catastrophic health problems" (Jared Diamond's words not mine). A quick look at this Human Rights Watch [hrw.org] report is not exactly heartwarming.

          As for the "no terrorism" claim, note that the overwhelming group in Chechnya [wikipedia.org] are Sunni Muslims (the Afgan Taliban gove

          • by Grishnakh (216268)
            Hmm... that doesn't sound so great. But I will say I knew about the terrorist problems in Chechnya, so I wouldn't want to move there, but I don't equate that with the rest of Russia just like I don't equate Iraq with the rest of the USA even though Iraq is under US control just like Chechnya is under Russian control. Normal Russian citizens living in Moscow or wherever don't have the same problems.

            Maybe in a couple of decades things will be better there. But I shudder to think of what the USA will be lik
            • by Don_dumb (927108)

              Normal Russian citizens living in Moscow or wherever don't have the same problems.

              You can't have clicked on all the links otherwise you would have noticed that the link "and in this one" links to the MOSCOW theatre hostage crisis [wikipedia.org] - it is always the capitals that are in most danger.

              But I shudder to think of what the USA will be like in a couple of decades if things continue as they are now. Hopefully Americans will finally grow a brain at the voting booth.

              You're definitely right there, just remember that because things are better in the US than most of the world now, is no reason to get complacent and let those standards go simply because "no where else does this".

              • by Grishnakh (216268)
                You can't have clicked on all the links otherwise you would have noticed that the link "and in this one" links to the MOSCOW theatre hostage crisis - it is always the capitals that are in most danger.

                You're right, sorry about that. That's a good point about capitals.

                How about Ukraine, or some other eastern European countries? Do they have the same level of internet/copyright freedom Russia has (i.e. being able to put up just about any website you want without worrying about corporations or government hara
                • by Don_dumb (927108)
                  To be honest, I don't know much about the Ukraine without research but I am sure there are some good states in Eastern Europe now (perhaps the Baltic states, the Czech Republic). AFAIK the only downside to places such as Sweden are (apart from the cold, not to my tastes) the high prices of goods (and beer) and anyone who doesn't like being taxed probably wouldn't like it (but the taxes do support a very good welfare state so I am happy with that), but I think Sweden is a pretty attractive place which I woul
  • Rippers (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:08PM (#19918873)
    Noticed this reaction [stationripper.com] from one ripping software company. Used the software before, works petty good... and I agree with a lot being said on this about the latest in this mess.
    • by zeet (70981)
      I like this line the best:

      And trying to restrict people from being able to time-shit radio is also pointless.

      Never heard of that particular practice. Perhaps it goes with this product [atechflash.com].
  • Motives are simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by multisync (218450) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:11PM (#19918903) Journal
    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.
    • by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:44PM (#19919179)
      I would think that if they try to force independent artists into using DRM via any of these methods they're looking to get slapped with a class-action lawsuit for something like restraint of trade. An independent artist that is willing to provide free music in order to get gigs, sell other music, or to develop a following, may not want its use hampered by DRM or to be refused by net radio stations for not having it, and that such restrictions would unfairly impair such an artist's ability to make money from his/her creations. IANAL, but if they actually have the gall to try to block non-DRM independent music from net radio, or levy a charge from net stations purportedly on behalf of the independent that the independent does not want, someone is opening themselves up to some new lawsuit possibilities here...
      • by multisync (218450)
        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.
        • Most of the time the record companies are the copyright holders. Only the top musicians can negotiate to own the rights to their songs with major labels. (Generally speaking. There are exceptions.)
          • by multisync (218450)
            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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)
      That's why the terrestrial stations don't pay this "performance royalty." They're the "good guys."

      You may not have noticed, but the performance royalty groups are trying to go after terrestrial radio stations now too. It's possible that they never liked radio's "free ride".

      Link [hollywoodreporter.com]
      • by multisync (218450)
        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.
      • by multisync (218450)
        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.
    • 100% correct. The record industry doesn't want the current system, where they control artist exposure through payola, to change. They have absolutely no interest in anything that might help artists get exposure based on public opinion.
  • by Southpaw018 (793465) * on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:19PM (#19918989) Journal
    I listen to a local Clear Channel station online while at work. The week of July 4th, the stream suddenly stopped playing in Winamp. They had implemented a DRM scheme that requires you to play it through their web player (WMP10).

    So...I'd say it's already here.
    • by multisync (218450) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:22PM (#19919033) Journal
      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Reziac (43301) *
      And all that would do here is prevent me from listening to their station. NO radio station is so important that I will radically change MY way of doing stuff to accomodate THEM. My choice is naked WinAmp, and if they don't offer a stream that works with it, oh well... there's other music out there to discover. Listening to the radio, by whatever means, is supposed to *enhance* my day, not piss me off.

      Not showing artist/title is annoying, but I can put up with it... but it actively prevents me from pursuing
    • by Grishnakh (216268)
      I listen to a local Clear Channel station online while at work. The week of July 4th, the stream suddenly stopped playing in Winamp. They had implemented a DRM scheme that requires you to play it through their web player (WMP10).

      Sounds like a good move to me. After all, if it's a ClearChannel station, it must not be worth listening to.
      • Sounds like a good move to me. After all, if it's a ClearChannel station, it must not be worth listening to.

        After all this garbage...I've gotten to the point where I only listen to non-US stations. Not only do I get out of my comfort zone...get to hear what others are hearing out the country & don't have to worry about this DRM BS.

        Plus...music is music...so the same songs I would hear in the US...if a station were to play them at all...sounds the same. The same formats we used to listen to year
    • by SuseLover (996311)
      Hmmm. I just went here, http://www.clearchannelmusic.com/hdradio/ [clearchannelmusic.com] and listened to it with mplayer in firefox on my Linux system without any trouble. I can probably capture it wget if I tried.

      No DRM there, yet.
  • Jr whfg rapelcg rirelguvat jvgu Ebg13? Vg orapuznexf snibhenoyl va grezf bs frphevgl jvgu fhpu vaqhfgel fgnaqneqf nf PFF naq JZN, obgu bs juvpu ner oebxra.
    • by griffjon (14945) <GriffJon&gmail,com> on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:46PM (#19919197) Homepage Journal
      That comment reads (in ROT13):

      We just encrypt everything with Rot13? It benchmarks favourably in terms of security with such industry standards as CSS and WMA, both of which are broken.

      I reply - even better, we have the DMCA already on the books; so legally ROT13 is just as secure as any other protection mechanism, if you break it, you can be sued. This is the case, I propose DRM move to Double-ROT13. ROT13 is an old method, and like DES moving to TripleDES (3DES), ROT13 should update to 2ROT13 for increased security AND performance - even better, it works out of the box on existing players - zero compatibility problems, no need to worry about whiny users with old or new technology.
  • Don't at least a significant percentage of these radio stations rely on advertising revenue? Putting DRM will invariably lead to loss of some percentage of the audience.
  • by rastoboy29 (807168) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @04:57PM (#19919331) Homepage
    Yes. Next.
  • New comment system hicups?

    Its barely worth clicking on the comments links when they take over a minute to load up. Not to mention 1 minute plus if you want to view some thread or individual comment.

  • One thing that the RIAA likes to forget about is a little court case that allowed "time shifting."

    Time shifting is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer. Typically, this refers to TV programming but can also refer to radio shows via podcasts. Time Shifting [wikipedia.org]

    What tools would you use to "time shift" a webcast but a stream-ripper? Therefore, eliminating the stream-rippers effectively rewrites the law.

    Give it time. Even if th

    • it won't be long until someone sues because they can't exercise their rights under the law

      Yeah, because it as really pushed all those lawsuits concerning DVD backup and format shifting. Oh, right...it hasn't. Thing is, not enough people know enough to care, and so few streaming media outlets provide enough quallity to matter. The general population doesn't care, and the audio geeks don't want it (96kb streams, that is). Not that it would matter, they would just buy a patch to the law for audio. They've alre
  • So, bear with me here.. music is bits right?

    So I am thinking, the independent musicians of the world need something like a EULA, something that would get around the "$ound Exchange" compulsory license.

    Is it possible? Would it have to be wrapped in a 'software program'?

  • Internet Radio (and Radio) broadcasters should just STOP playing music that's owned (or controlled) by the RIAA. Let all those other performers and artists that have just been dying for air time to get their 15 minutes of fame. There's bound to be some other good music out there that the RIAA-scum-sucking-dirt-bags don't have their vampire-teeth stuck into.

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...