

Webcasting and the DMCA 184
nknouf writes: "A recent article on Salon talks about how college radio stations that webcast could face fee increases from $623/year to $10,000 to $20,000 per year. What's more interesting is information that Congress is considering a bill called the Music On-Line Competition Act, co-sponsored by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. The bill aims to "break the hammerlock the recording industry has over music distribution." My favorite quote, from Rep. Cannon: Napster is "one of the coolest inventions of modern times.""
Damn Cool! (Score:1)
I sincerly hope this signals the beginning of the end...
The FBI has Sheryl Crow Golden Shower Pics! (Score:1)
The FBI isn't against left-learning and liberal thinking.
The FBI certainly contins some alternatively oriented employees.
The FBI is made up of international (born maybe), highly trained/skilled people.
Conspiracy is fine, but lets not get away from ourselves. There is no them.
HR 2724 link (Score:4, Informative)
HR 2724 [theorator.com].
Links to the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Digimedia.org pdf [digmedia.org]
house.gov pdf [house.gov]
A summary of the bill here [house.gov] at house.gov
And the google cached version here [google.com]
There if you can Slashdot all of those, we deserve a collective cookie.
The link is already broken. (Score:3, Informative)
OK I did a search and found a PDF copy of the bill HERE [house.gov]. Also found a site [rice.edu] to organize support for the bill, it has a form to send your representative an email. Since Cannon is mine, I guess I'm already OK on that one. However, I have been pretty unhappy on his stance on several issues in the past, hopefully he won't drop the ball on this one under the intense politial pressure of the RIAA.
working link (Score:1)
Great work guys (Score:1, Redundant)
But it's only fair. (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, consider the following scenario: radio stations N and L, located in New York and L.A., are owned by the same person. N webcasts their content (for free, under the old regulations), and L rebroadcasts it. Why wouldn't L get to rebroadcast it for free, considering that everybody in L.A. already has access to it? ASCAP is there for a reason: the more you distribute the music, the higher the price, because: the more you distribute the music, the more you can charge your advertisers.
There is a time and a place to bash the RIAA but let's choose our battles a little more wisely, okay?
Bill
On the other hand... (Score:5, Interesting)
The other thing to consider is how many of the artists a station is playing are really going to get a piece of that ASCAP pie. If all you're playing is experiminetal stuff, why should ASCAP get anything from you? How about a pool composed of exactly the artists played, that seems a lot more fair.
Re:But it's only fair. (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market is not a conscious entity. If ever there was an underlying philosophy to the US in general, it's this odd idea that The Market is somehow this all-knowing, all-seeing entity that does What Is Best For Everyone. I don't have the proper background to expound expertly, but it seems to me that relying on The Market to decide everything inevitably benefits those who benefit most from capitalism -- the rich. Ok, so having the government decide what is best for everyone doesn't have a great record in history. For one thing, its motive is profit, nothing more. Is profit really the best measure of a society?
Closer to this example, it bears pointing out that the recording industry has a monopoly on music distribution anyway, and they prices they charge and the restrictions they impose are not those of a natural system. When the artists themselves are restrained from distributing their music how they see fit, is the Great Free Market really fulfilling its function?
Re:But it's only fair. (Score:2)
Re:But it's only fair. (Score:1)
I think that a lot of what you said was right, but there are somethings that you're missing. One is that the american economic system is not a free market. The RIAA has the power it does simply because it has passed the nessecary laws that restrict the market to thier own advantage. If this was a free market, thier monopoly could not exist because of the multitutes of alternatives that have come into being. However, the RIAA has labeled this alternatives as "illegal" instead of "competition" and therefore can sustain its monopoly. Yes there was a lot of copyright theft taking place on napster, but it was also a legitamate alternative distribution method. In effect, they have increased the barriers of entry, which are essentially the cost of duplication, to price out most competition.
Re:But it's only fair. (Score:1)
Whether or not this is a winnable battle, I don't know, but it is very important for all online music listeners.
I like to code to somaFM. (Guess the URL!) I doubt if they would survive if this continues.
Re:But it's only fair. (Score:2, Interesting)
Fair my ass... (Score:1, Informative)
Under long-standing U.S. copyright law, broadcasters pay a coalition of songwriters' groups to air music over the Internet and the airwaves. But until the DMCA, performers and record companies did not have the rights to royalties when stations played their music. As part of the 1998 law, Congress allowed performers and record companies to start collecting fees on songs sent over the web, said Joel Willer, a mass communications professor at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. There are still no performer fees for regular airwave broadcasts.
If airwave broadcasters don't have to pay, why should webcasters? How many people do you know are converting their audio stream to mp3s?
The RIAA wants as much as they can grab with both hands, and if we could pass some decent campaign finance reform, maybe some of the corporate suck-ups in Washington would have the balls to stand up to them.
Re:But it's only fair. (Score:1)
Yes, these stations could make "the conscious decision to just stop webcasting," but who would benefit then? All we'd be left with is an Internet filled with the same Clear Channel and Infinity stations that have glutted the airwaves with crap. And there's no reason for them to webcast, because they all sound pretty much alike anyway. (Which, incidentally, is why your N and L example makes no sense.)
This is precisely the time and place to bash the RIAA. I hope this time they get their heads handed to them.
Free market? Hah! (Score:1)
The second you introduce intellectual property laws into the mix, you no longer have a completely free market in any useful sense of the word. IP laws create some of the most artificial and arbitrary situations one could think of in economics.
Course I don't believe in the old maxim that "free market will solve all problems" anyway -- but the point is that if one doesn't even have a free market to begin with, then all cries that we should just leave business alone are moot.
Re:But it's only fair. (Score:2, Interesting)
College radio stations must stay. (Score:3, Informative)
Poor record companies - no one sympathizes with their "dilemma". The Internet has revolutionized music and it's about time they realized that the more they make access to music difficult, the less people want to buy their music, and the more people will find other ways to get it.
Some of the more interesting music I've heard has been on college radio. Treat an academic institution's radio station like an enterprise is beyond disgusting. The best part of college stations is that their playlists are often less strict, and much of what gets played wouldn't fit into the "mainstream", or even a format, for that matter. It's way better than having a radio station pump their "Heavy rotation" down my throat.
WSOU (Score:2)
Re:WSOU (Score:1)
bye karma (Score:1, Insightful)
2001-12-14 16:50:32 dmca and college radio stations (articles,news) (rejected)
This is like the 3rd or 4th damn time this has happened to me. In the beginning I submitted stories because I loved the site and what they'd done with it and wanted to help them. And then that feeling faded away, and I submitted stories because I cared about helping make sure that important news was seen by all the like-minded people who come here. Now I wonder what I even bother anymore at all, cause they'll just reject whatever I submit anyways.
From the interesting stories I have submitted and had shot down, I realize there must be so many great stories out there just waiting to be told, and the only thing holding us back is that we have no way of getting them to the audience because the powers that be decide that Bozo the wonder toaster powered by Linux is more interesting than people getting arrested for the first time in the world for using File Sharing clients (in Japan, look it up) or anti-cancer molecules which self-reproduce. Pisses me off.
I wish there were someway I could read through the submissions directly, and cut those worthless editors, with their inane, poorly-written comments, right out of the process since I could really give a damn about those little biased blurbs they throw on the end of each post. What would be really great would be to see the same moderation applied to comments applied to articles, or to see each rejection or acceptance by an editor labeled with a numerical value that he decides, and we can choose the level at which we want to browse articles, just like we can do with comments. Of course, for them to implement either of these might require them to take time out of their busy schedule of randomly picking marbles out of hat while blindfolded to choose which stories they post........
Re:bye karma (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:bye karma (Score:1, Offtopic)
Ah well.
Re:bye karma (Score:1, Offtopic)
new horizons (Score:3, Interesting)
or you could try to help build other sites like RadioFreeNation.net or GlobalFreePress.com, or AlternateNews.com, or SmirkingChimp.com, etc etc etc
The point being is that maybe one percent of people reading will even post a comment, and a lot less will submit a story. so when there are hundreds of submissions, there is a plenty good chance that someone will post it before you. It is again a scalibilty issue
Then you have to see if one of the editors will like your write-up or not. Or if it confuses them, or does it entertain them enough, etc.
You're clearly doing something wrong, pal (Score:1, Funny)
A lifetime of trolling has honed my writing skills to a fine edge. In fact, I believe that at any given time I could get a story posted on the front page withing 12 hours of deciding to try. So, quit whining and learn to write.
Oh, it also helps if you don't submit the same fucking things everybody else is submitting.
Re:bye karma (Score:2)
That would be Usenet. Get a newsreader, head on back.
Re:bye karma (Score:1)
(OT)Want to mod articles? Wait for Kuro5hin (Score:1)
But if we could browse articles at rejection levels, or we could browse articles through article moderation, like I suggested, these wouldn't even be issues
In that case, you would love a Scoop site such as Adequacy [adequacy.org] or Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] (which WILL be back up by Monday).
College Radio? A partial answer... (Score:5, Interesting)
...is to recognize the nature of their audience and the utility of the Open Audio License [eff.org]. All of the colleges I am aware of have a significant population of aspiring musicians eager to be heard, as well as many young, fresh minds open to listening to something other than what "Mom and Dad" listened to at home. So you have willing producers and open consumers, and the Open Audio License allows the college radio stations a way without fees to bring them together.
In such an environment, a college radio station should actively promote the Open Audio License and encourage student musicians to release their work under it -- and then give it plenty of airplay (it costs them nothing). Open Audio might not work well in some markets (i.e., those where listeners expect to be given what the music industry convinces them to listen to via advertising), but I can imagine no market more prime than college radio.
Music On-Line Competition Act (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a "Music Competition Act." On-line, off-line, on-air, whatever: the problem is that the music mafia -- let's start calling them by their true name -- have their greasy, pudgy fingers wrapped around the throat of every artist, choking the life out of them.
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels? It's because they want ownership of the music they create, control over the production process, and aren't willing to whore themselves out to the mob any longer.
The only ones who stick with the bigname labels seem to be the ones that are just manufactured puppet bands: the boy/girl bands that pump out mindless pap for the gullible teenage market. Without a mobster's hand up their ass, making them perform their puppet moves, these glam-bands wouldn't be able to make a living wage, so they're forced to stick with their masters.
But there are legitimate artists who have been strung up by the puppeteers. Binding contracts that guarantee their whoredom for many years, loss of ownership of image and name, mounting debt because the mafia loaned them the money to become successful and demand payment back.
We need a Music Competition Act that cuts the hands off the music mafia. It's currently not plausible, if not completely impossible, to break into the music market without sponsorship of the mafiasio. Let's change that. Let's make it so that artists don't have to whore themselves to make a buck.
Contradiction (Score:2, Insightful)
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels
Which is it?
IMO, it's closer to the former; there may be plenty of independent studios and labels producing excellent music but something is preventing them from getting wider exposure. It isn't lack of quality, so is it unfair competition from the bignames?
Re:Contradiction (Score:2)
Well, let's be honest; there is a tremendous amount of really bad music in the independent music scene. The vast majority of independent bands aren't signed not because the music companies "don't get it" or "can't appreciate great music", but because they aren't that good.
As for competition, yes, that's why most bands don't get any exposure. But it's not because the record industries are preventing it somehow. How many people do you know in a band? How many want to do it for a living? Now multiply that by a hundred thousand, and that's how many bands there are fighting to be heard in this country. Even the smallest record store will have thousands of different musicians across a broad variety of genres; the market is just oversaturated to an extent that doesn't exist in any other industry.
What a minute (Score:4, Funny)
What, have teens started voting or something?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What a minute (Score:1)
Translation, please. (Score:1)
Re:Translation, please. (Score:1)
2) You can broadcast samples of works over the web
Re:Translation, please. (Score:1)
Re:Translation, please. (Score:1)
Re:Translation, please. (Score:2)
The RIAA is cutting off their nose...... (Score:1)
Re:The RIAA is cutting off their nose...... (Score:1)
If the RIAA had their way, there would be no independent radio.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Suck my cock, RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Suck my cock, RIAA (Score:1)
Once non RIAA music gets played on MTV or VH-1 _then_ can the strangle hold be broken.
They must've known slashdot was going to link toit (Score:2)
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
Re:They must've known slashdot was going to link t (Score:2)
Go to the main legislative search page [loc.gov] and put "HR2724" in the search box.
Better Salon Link (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/12/13/colle ge_webcast/print.html [salon.com]
And it is a bit easier to read as well.
Re:Better Salon Link (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Better Salon Link (Score:1)
If they go out of business, then they go out of business. Maybe they shouldn't've relied so heavily on such a lousy way of making money.
I don't have to subsidize stupid business plans with annoying implementations. Who says I do?
RIAA is putting down "non-signed" bands... (Score:5, Insightful)
As I came to find out, the radio station recently (Like 2 weeks before hand) was forced to shut down their web-stream (a shoutcast server) because the RIAA had threatened to sue them unless the station paid the RIAA some obscene amount of cash (around 500K) to comply with this new charge thanks to the DMCA.
So let's think about this for a second -- My band (unsigned) cannot be heard by our fans because the RIAA thinks they should be getting money from music streams over the internet, in turn, my band playing (not signed to an RIAA partnered label).
What pisses me off the most is comments about the artist deserving the cash, yadda yadda yadda, so the RIAA somehow deserves this cash. That's a bunch of horseshit. I'm obviously not receiving any of this cash for my records being played on the radio, nor my live performances on a station.
In case you didn't know, the RIAA's been screwing the independent musician for DECADES. Take recording for an example: most independent musicians use small 4-track cassette based recorders to put record their music to sell at shows, give to stations, etc. But did you know, ALL blank cassette tapes have a RIAA tax attached to them? So when I buy a blank tape, not to copy a RIAA CD, but to record myself, I give the RIAA around 10%-30% of what I paid for the tape! To record *MY* music. Now they want to start taxing CD-R's, and hardrives. Go to hell guys.
Listen, I'm pleading with all of you -- if this stuff makes you angry, don't just boycott RIAA bands, support non-signed/non-RIAA bands! You don't even have to buy stuff, just go to shows, download free mp3's, anything -- just give the underdogs a chance. It's the last thing the RIAA wants. It's not about controlling their copyrighted materials, it's about controlling music -- who hears it, and what they hear.
They already get royalites for blank audio CD's (Score:2)
Re:They already get royalites for blank audio CD's (Score:1)
BUT they don't work in audio CD recorders. (Score:1)
Re:They already get royalites for blank audio CD's (Score:2)
*Sigh* They do in Canada. OTOH, at least we don't have a DMCA...
Re:RIAA is putting down "non-signed" bands... (Score:2)
Now, what I can't figure out about all of this is how the RIAA has _any_ say in this whatsoever. The sub-$1000 fees mentioned in the Salon article are paid to ASCAP and BMI, the major groups which represent music composers. A college or community radio station only pays these reduced royalties to ASCAP and BMI for a 'performance license' to broadcast a composition. The RIAA has no say whatsoever in what you broadcast, and don't get any money from the station. How they're able to suddenly extort cash simply because you're streaming audio over the net as well is beyond me.
Jamie Zawinski on Webcasting (Score:5, Interesting)
Jamie Zawinski [jwz.org] wrote a most informative rant on the labyrinthine regulations and pitfalls [dnalounge.com] that potentially face anyone wishing to Webcast. As he owns and operates the DNA Lounge [dnalounge.com] nightclub in San Francisco, which does its own share of Webcasting, the man has definitely done his homework. Definitely worth a read.
Schwab
Re:Jamie Zawinski on Webcasting (Score:1)
What is DaDa?
Here's what some of the artists themselves said:
* "DaDa is beautiful like the night, who cradles the young day in her arms." - Hans Arp
* "DADA speaks with you, it is everything, it envelopes everything, it belongs to every religion, can be neither victory or defeat, it lives in space and not in time." - Francis Picabia
* "Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police." - Richard Huelsenbeck
Music Online Competition Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Your Congressperson and Senators need your vote MORE than they need the RIAA cash. Washington is about maintaining power, without the votes there is no cash, no lunches, no trips, no chance to make a difference. Make it clear to your congressperson that you support MOCA and as a consitutant of his you expect him to vote accordingly, not that of special interest groups such as the RIAA.
The text of the Music Online Competition Act can be Found Here [boycott-riaa.com]. The MOCA is a even handed piece of legislation the strives to fix some of the roadblocks brought about by the DMCA, but faces a uphill battle. Congress is reading their e-mail these days, write, specify the topic in the subject line Music Online Competition Act, and as much as it pains you be nice. You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
Re:Music Online Competition Act (Score:1)
They cartainly aren't opening their mail
What would happen.. (Score:1)
Plus most college radio stations are already working on what preety much amounts to a shoe string budget. Combine this with the low power transmiters most of them have(which means sometimes webcasting is the only way to get it if you don't live on campus) this could be a deathblow.
This is a perfect example of why... (Score:5, Insightful)
EXEMPTION.--Section 110(7) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking "(7)" and inserting "(7)(A)"
(2) by striking "by a vending establishment" and inserting "or of a sound recording by digital audio transmission, by or in a physical vending establishment"...
How is a congressman supposed to review this? Do you expect them to look up the context around every change? Legislators have many patches (excuse me, bills) to review, so you should help them out by using a --context or --unified switch in your diff command.
If your bill is unreadable, the reviewer is less likely to catch bugs, accidental loopholes, or unintentional stray changes from another bill you were working on in the same tree. Of course, if the bill contains "accidental" loopholes and "unintentional" stray changes (note scare quotes), I suppose it makes sense to try obfuscate your bill, but don't whine when the reviewer says "please attach a unified diff".
Diff visualization (Score:1)
How is a congressman supposed to review this? Do you expect them to look up the context around every change? Legislators have many patches (excuse me, bills) to review, so you should help them out by using a --context or --unified switch in your diff command.
Ever heard of a diff visualization tool? Those tools take a tree and a patch and line up the before and after versions side-by-side, highlighting the differences. How do you know your congresscritter isn't using one?
Re:This is a perfect example of why... (Score:1)
Visualizing the complete law is not the hard part; determining the outcome is.
Jet grind radioooooooo! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.beosradio.com/tunetracker/
The version 2 is in devellopment and should be released soon.
Peer-to-Peer webcasting? (Score:4, Interesting)
In particular, I'm thinking of a system where anyone can broadcast audio (or even video) streams semi-anonymously. Listening nodes automatically forward the stream packets to each other, meaning that only the nodes directly adjacent to the source know who/where it is, and only those nodes use any of its bandwidth.
Such a system could be as scalable as "real" radio, since the bandwidth available increases with the number of people listening, and it could be lawyer-resistant enough that the RIAA couldn't stop it (similar to how they haven't been able to stop mp3 file trading).
Time to start coding I guess
Re:Peer-to-Peer webcasting? (Score:1)
Let me explain the idea:
Given that many dj's have a repertoire of songs they play usually, and play them many times, what about caching the mp3s in your harddrive, and only get the dj's voice and mixing instructions from the webcast, only saving the mp3s the first time you listen to them.
This would save a lot of bandwith, _and_ you end up with all the music you have been listening to cached on your hard drive.
And it has got one more advantage. If you already have all the songs, you are getting only the dj's voice and _no_ music is exchanged, so no royalties can be asked for!
Re:Peer-to-Peer webcasting? (Score:1)
Re:Peer-to-Peer webcasting? (Score:1)
How would you identify MP3's on your computer as matching the mixing instructions? ID3? Hah. I have somewhere in the vicinity of 1200 MP3s, and hardly any of them have correctly completed ID3 info (missing fields, incorrect information, etc). What about ID3v1 vs. ID3v2? Etc etc etc. It sounds good in theory, I'm not knocking your idea, but I can't see a very easy way to make it practical. Most likely you'd just end up with a bunch of MP3 duplicates, wasting bandwidth and hard drive space.
Also, some people (like me) are picky about the bitrate of thier mp3's. I can't stand anything less than 192 kbps. Some folk might have higher tolerances. The only way you'd be able to serve content and appease the people would be to have very high quality MP3's on your server (320 kbps?), and cut down the bitrate for those who are willing to sacrifice quality for speed. I haven't used shoutcast or its bretheren much, so I don't know if this issue has already been worked out or not. It just seems to me that compressing (so to speak) the bitrate for speedy downloading would sure be processor intensive for the server.
Huge (Score:1)
Case against Dmitry Sklyarov dropped (Score:1, Redundant)
It's on The Register [theregister.co.uk]
Last Thursday (Score:1)
New Laws to Protect Old Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
(2) for the owner of a phonorecord lawfully acquired by digital phonorecord delivery, or a copy lawfully acquired by digital transmission of a literary work embodied in that phonorecord, to make another phonorecord or copy of such works, if such new phonorecord or copy is for archival purposes only and that all archival phonorecords or copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the phonorecord or copy should cease to be rightful.
Does anyone else find it disturbing that we have to pass more laws to protect established rights like fair use? Shouldn't fair use be able to defend itself? As a programmer, I believe in writing the minimal efficient code to achieve the objective. Why don't lawyers feel the same way?
IMHO: because more laws means you need to pay more lawyers to understand your rights and duties. They're preserving and expanding the clan.
Re:New Laws to Protect Old Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Law is really not all that complicated -- it's just that there's TONS of it. There need to be.
Heck, I'm a law student, so let me ask you a question as a programmer: why don't we have OSes that can fit in a kilobyte of memory and be clear and plainly understandable, while not sacrificing any of the features or ease of use we want? Or are we stuck with it just having to be larger than that in order to get what we want out of it?
Re:New Laws to Protect Old Rights (Score:1)
Good info, I was not aware that fair use did not cover archival copies. Thank you.
why don't we have OSes that can fit in a kilobyte of memory and be clear and plainly understandable, while not sacrificing any of the features or ease of use we want?
Computer programs are written to be executed on computer processors. Laws are written to be executed in human powered courts. Computer processors cannot make intelligent interpretations of intent, so programs must exactly specify their full intent in advance. Laws are supposed to be guides whose intent is interpreted at runtime by the society in which they exist.
The attempt to fully anticipate a computer users needs is difficult and rarely approaches 100% success. It is also unfortunately necessary, as most of us cannot reasonably afford a human secretary (the role typically filled by a computer). Computer programmers would love to leave exception handling to intelligent interpreters. This is the reason that the field of artificial intelligence is so heavily researched.
Law has courts to handle exceptions. Those courts are comprised of legal experts and in some cases societal representatives (peers). Therefore, laws do not need to be as explicit as computer programs.
I wrote this rather quickly and hope it is sufficiently clear. If not, feel free to contact me on bob at traxel dot com and I will explain in more detail.
Re:New Laws to Protect Old Rights (Score:1)
Nevertheless, if Congress has some specific intent in mind, they need to include that in their law, or at least make the legislative intent known in the Congressional Record. For example, the courts have found that mp3.com's music locker service was illegal because even if users can make their own mp3s, that doesn't allow other people to make the mp3s for them.
If some Congressmen see this ruling, and say, that's not the idea at all, it's up to them to clarify their position for the benefit of the courts. Sort of a GIGO principle.
Additionally, the courts are capable of arriving at inconsistant rulings, they're not really composed of technical experts (can you imagine hammering out zoning regulations and building codes solely in court?) and they are capable of, and often do, arrive at conclusions that aren't considered acceptable. (e.g. the common law prohibits survial tort claims)
Both sides can be plenty boneheaded, and there's a real danger in over-legislating and constraining the courts. But in something like copyright, there are relatively few judicial exceptions carved out. Typically this lies with Congress.
Believe me, people are very capable of acting like computer programs, and looking at the letter of a law, and not the spirit. When you've got something at stake, you just adopt the best argument you can, really. If one happens to be the correct one, it helps to know. Judges can't read the minds of Congress.
Big deal.... (Score:3, Interesting)
An artist on a truly indie label or an artist with self-released material receives no compensation for radio play anyway (and much of college radio consists of this type of material).
The most ironic aspect of all is that we EASILY have the technology to track and pay the actual performers for either broadcast or webcast WITHOUT pooling the money the way the present system operates. We can arguably track even the number of LISTENERS of webcasts.
Perhaps this scenario will further a movement to create truly independent mechanisms for distributing and compensating artists/labels for material... that an alternative system will develop (that isn't ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, etc...). I doubt major label artists would feel much pain by NOT being included in college radio.
Rick Boucher (Score:2)
Why the RIAA and DiMA has a problem with this bill (Score:1)
Ten or twenty years from now, when some new method of music transfer becomes popular, the RIAA is going to have to get new legislation passed before they can get thier claws on it. Their opposition to this bill is effectively saying "Come on, just give us the control NOW, ok?"
Webcasting vs. SW transmission (Score:1)
I've listened to more than a couple of canned webcasts from npr.org. Even with a high-bandwidth connection (DSL with 512K down), during the middle of the day on a summer weekend or near midnight in the middle of the week, I still got a lot of dropouts and pauses.
In the end, the result was little different from tuning into live BBC broadcasts on one of my HF receivers. Worse, in fact, because I found that I couldn't really do much else with my bandwidth while the stream was downloading (in all fairness, I get the same effect when I'm downloading big files).
I guess what I'm asking is: Would anyone really miss webcasting if it got reduced in scope, or even went away altogether? If the college stations mentioned still want to reach a larger audience, is there not some way for them to, perhaps, share the existing HF broadcast frequencies with our overseas neighbors?
Just a thought. Might not even be worth much, but I thought I'd ramble a bit...
Re:Webcasting vs. SW transmission (Score:2)
Well, I have DSL with 1024K down, and I can listen to streams quite effectively: although I usually have to pick something rather a bit smaller than the size of my pipe would suggest, due to router distance. For example, I usually listen to Tag's Trance somewhere around 128K or so.
I would be very upset if I had to give it up. Fortunately, all the college radio stations I listen to are Canadian, but if Tag's Trance went offline I would be unamused.
Re:Webcasting vs. SW transmission (Score:2)
IPv6. Bug your ISP for it today.
backup music purchased and use MP3 device? (Score:1)
Specifically subsection d and e, it is making explicitly legal to use MP3 playback devices, and to make a backup copy of any music you purchase. This sounds like intelligent legislation. Did SETI find something?
So can I finally sell downloads? (Score:1)
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal government authorized under the Federal Constitution. It creates legislation and can, either in cooperation with, or independently from, the President, pass it into law. The Constitution enumerates a number of powers to be granted to the Congress. One power is the ability to create copyright laws.
Note that they're not REQUIRED to do so! Congress could abolish copyright tomorrow, and it would be perfectly within their authority.
Furthermore, within a few broad Constitutional limits that would not be applicable in a scenario where Napster et al are legalized, Congress can set up copyright laws however it likes.
The first Copyright Act, passed in 1790 by the First Congress only granted copyrights to books and maps that met certain criteria. (e.g. the copyright had to be applied for and approved, had to be held by an American, etc. IIRC) Do you claim that they were acting illegally by creating this law? If so, what law could a law-making body be breaking?
If Congress legalized Napster and its ilk, they wouldn't be advocating the violation of federal law, but encouraging people to exercise their free rights. Free and frank debate about the worth of our laws is the only way to improve them. Nothing wrong with doing a reality check and seeing that people aren't happy with the status quo.
Our government's pretty damn well good, all things considered. It's been stable for a few hundred years whilst remaining rather free, and that's definately an achievement.
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:1)
I don't think that even the strictest constructionist goes that far. Congress' power to repeal its own laws by passing another, superceeding and nullifying law, is not usually questioned.
Besides, you're wrong about the greater good, anyway; even if Congress couldn't extend copyright, works that didn't have their term extended, but which instead received their copyright after the extension will still get it. And according to you, everything afterwards will have it. Everything in the future being so inaccessable strikes me as a bit worse than a relatively small amount of stuff in the past being accessible.
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:1)
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:1)
But copyrights in the US have never had moral authority. The entire purpose of them, as the Constitution demonstrates, is to promote the progress of the arts. What's 'right' doesn't enter into such a utilitarian scheme. Moreover, there's perfectly good arguments in all directions, morally, even that copyrights shouldn't exist at all. Copyrights are not an inherent human right, you know.
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:2)
Um, the Constitution? Congress has a law-making authority constrained by the Constitution. That bit of law cannot be overridden by a vote of Congress. (It can be amended by such, but that's not the same thing: the amendment process is spelled out in the document and, when followed, leads to new law under the Constitution.)
My other quip would have been, the laws of mathematics. Remember the state legislature that considered mandating a value of 3 for pi?
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:1)
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:1)
I don't think we need to teach civics anymore.
The Constitution is just fancy toilet paper now. Just say "necessary and proper clause" or "regulate interstate commerce" and Congress has a de facto blank check to pass any law it damn well pleases, regardless of the Constitution's limited government doctrine.
If civics is necessary, an honest civics class in modern america would be one sentence: "The government is your master and can do what it likes. As a consolation for being a kept citizen, you get to pick who holds the whip every two or four years."
Students will then have the rest of the day to watch "Friends" or "WWF".
Watch the movie "THX 1138 [imdb.com]" (George Lucas's first film, btw, before he became a whore, also staring Robert Duvall)
The government in the movie says: Buy more, and be happy Or just listen to Bush recently [cnn.com]: I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy.
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:1)
Actually, what cannot be overstated is that a great many (informed) members of society (not all of whom are
More and more people are starting to figure out that we are moving in the direction of a "pay per play" regime and they simply do not like that. People are simply sick and tired of being squeezed for all they are worth and then some.
So all I can say is count on more and more violations of the DCMA being committed in the future. I guess they will have to start releasing some of the drug users in jail to make room for all the coyright violators.
Re:"To uphold and protect" indeed (Score:1)
it is a republic.
Re:Republicrats (Score:2)
hmmm...
Godwin's Law (Score:2)
Re:Do my eyes fail me? (Score:2, Interesting)
IP is not "property" and isn't subject to "theft" (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdorks can agree with any politician as on as they support the theft of intellectual property
The U.S. Constitution recognizes it not as a birthright but as a tool "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8) "Copyright" is a misnomer; it really should be "copyprivilege". The law doesn't recognize intellectual "property" as property at all, especially considering how it treats transfer of exclusive rights. Copying another's work isn't termed "theft" but merely "infringement" on a government-granted privilege [everything2.com]. Besides, with enough storage space, I could generate and store every melody in the book [everything2.com] or at least a melody confusingly similar to every melody in the book (thus killing practical trademark law).
"Depriving" of an "opportunity" is theft? (Score:2)