Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy 109
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?"
Net Radio? What net radio? (Score:4, Insightful)
How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Motives are simple (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Already done for Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Was this whole thing a ruse to get DRM on net radi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Net Radio? What net radio? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already done for Clear Channel (Score:3, Insightful)
Not showing artist/title is annoying, but I can put up with it... but it actively prevents me from pursuing any that I like well enough to buy, too.
Talk about cutting their own throats....
Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that DRM is a technological "solution" to a sociological "problem". Usually, that sort of fix doesn't work out so well.
Re:Does it matter (Score:3, Insightful)
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?