Audio Broadcast Flag Introduced in Congress 200
Declan McCullagh writes "We found out in mid-2004 that the RIAA was lobbying the FCC for an audio version of the broadcast flag. But because a federal appeals court slapped down the FCC's video version last year, the RIAA needs to seek formal authorization from Congress. That process finally began today when the audio flag bill was introduced. It would hand the FCC the power to set standards and regulate digital and satellite radio receivers, and RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business." The text of the bill is available online."
One word (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit
Re:One word (Score:3, Insightful)
This couldn't be more wrong. What artist wants to have the spread of their music choked off? The music they put their blood, sweat, and tears into? It's not like they're gonna make any more money by having their music "digitally protected" on the radio, either, so where's the advantage? Don't most music "pirates" get their music from ripping CDs, anyways? I can't say I've ever known anyone that pirated music by recording it off the radio and then distributing it.
Re:One word (Score:2)
So, the negative end of the 'good' scale.
Re:One word (Score:5, Interesting)
You reading this RIAA? Fuck you. We are not encouraged to pay for music by these actions. In trying to stop piracy, you are in fact encouraging it. Get your act together, because if you want to stay in business, you need to think "entertainment business" not "CD business". Stop gouging the bejesus out of us and we won't have to download it questionably. Piracy gets easier every day, but listening to legally purchased music gets harder by the day. Maybe if you can make it so it's not a pain in the ass to listen to our purchased music when it's so much easier (and cheaper) to download it and put it on any player we want, we'll start paying again. Why is iTunes hugely successful when CD sales are plummeting? It's easy and it's at a much more reasonable price. So cut your fucking losses and deal with it, not screw over your actual customers.
Re:One word (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One word (Score:2)
I can just imagine that letter now...
Dear RIAA and Congresscritters,
...
Yours Truly,
Re:One word (Score:2)
Re:One word (Score:2)
They're not reading this. :) You're preaching to the choir, we KNOW it's bad. Now we've got to convince everyone else.
Re:One word (Score:3, Informative)
As a matter of fact, a member of the RIAA (Universal Music) has acknowledged [theregister.co.uk] that they do read /. articles on p2p. And they're not happy at what they see.
If the RIAA wants it (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple rule of thumb, if the RIAA is for something, I am automatically against it.
I really am curious (Score:4, Insightful)
Its about time to put Fair Use into law I think, now if only I could find legislators I trust to do that well...
Re:I really am curious (Score:5, Funny)
You totally misspelled "buy" there, Axe. You wrote it so that it looks alot like "find".
Re:I really am curious (Score:2)
Re:I really am curious (Score:2)
Erm... I'm pretty sure that on that side of the pond, fair use already is law... The fact that the recording industry doesn't seem to know that is their problem.
Re:If the RIAA wants it (Score:2)
Bad for consumers and business (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's bad for businesses, because when DRM goes wrong [and it almost always is wrong] then the maker gets slapped for it. Sony BMG is learning that the hard way. Music playing businesses, such as waiting offices, or ones that use music on their hold system might find themselves paying more too. The RIAA is not going to stop at screwing consumers, it will make sure businesses give them more money too.
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2)
That said, the "balance" the RIAA seeks is a see saw with them on the end that's touching the ground.
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:5, Informative)
I for one don't use iTunes and prefer to rip the USED CDs I buy instead. Screw 'em!
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2)
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2)
+1
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2)
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2)
Why gouge once when you can gouge year after year?
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2)
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2)
FairPlay goes bad all the time. Why just two days ago an MP3 Player owner contacted me and asked why they couldn't get ACC files they created with ITunes to work on their player. Turns out of course that ACC isn't supported on that player, and if the files have FairPlay built into them, then good luck converting to any other format [besides the lossy problem]. They have to start again from scratch ripping using CDex which I also showed has CDdb that means they don't have to type in artists and track names.
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2)
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:5, Informative)
Not as written. That's why it's good to RTFA *before* posting...
(2) shall not make obsolete any devices already manufactured and distributed in the marketplace before the implementation of such regulations
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:4, Interesting)
So after the implementation of such regulations they can be made obsolete?
You gotta love ambiguity in the language used to craft law.
Seriously, you are legally mandated to love the ambiguity. You don't want to know the penalties for not loving the ambiguity.
Seriously, the penalties are a matter of national security and you do not want to know them. The penalties for knowing them are worse than the aforementioned penalties themselves, so you really don't want to know any of them.
So what the RIAA is saying is: (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, Sony is hardly learning "The Hard Way." The vast majority of users don't even know about the rootkit fiasco, and are buying Sony CDs left and right with no intention of stopping.
The root kit was a blip on Sony's screen, and as far as they;re concerned it's over. Sony doesn't care what a bunch of geeks like us think, just the masses who buy Pop Music CDs.
Re:So what the RIAA is saying is: (Score:2)
http://www.sonysuit.com/ [sonysuit.com]
Re:So what the RIAA is saying is: (Score:2)
Hah! you can pry my bottle of Bass from my cold dead fingers. Uh, make that dead-drunk.
*double take*
*triple take*
ya reckon Bass might have somethin' to do with why RIAA is acting like an intoxicated bully lately?
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on the business. If your business is selling equipment that kowtows to the broadcast flag or your business depends on making the legal RIGHTS of your customers' a logistical nightmare then it's great for business.
It's bad for consumers because they are going to have to replace otherwise working radio equipment, right?
That didn't stop Congress from *forcing* digital TV adoption and even going so far as to say that they will pay for "low income hou
Re:Bad for consumers and business (Score:2, Interesting)
That doesn't matter. All that matters is who's writing the checks, and who controls the media.
In both cases, the entities in question probably want this legislation. That means they'll get it.
This will be passed into law despite any opposition, even if it means adding it as a rider to some other all-important bill.
A third of the way there (Score:2, Funny)
Well one out of three ain't bad, right?
They really think they have the right... (Score:5, Insightful)
"a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business."
This is by far the most infuriating thing I've read all day. They just think it's their right to control everything related to music. The RIAA thinks that they should be able to control what is listened to by fans of music, period. As a musician, I swear I will not ever sign a contract with anyone related to these bean-countering destroyers of culture, and if that means I can never make money, so be it. I just hope the Internet makes these people obsolete and impoverished sooner than later.
Re:They really think they have the right... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not normally one to complain, but this morning I was walking down the street and humming some top 40 hits to myself, when out of nowhere some old guy in a suit leaped out and hit me in the face with a shovel.
Re:They really think they have the right... (Score:4, Funny)
Do you realise the kind of music that gets into the top 40 these days? If you were humming that in front of me in the street, I'd hit you in the face with a shovel!
Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded! (Score:2)
Yeah, the RIAA.
RIAA license terms are hard to live with. (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope you'll not only share a link to where your music can be found but you'll keep your sensibilities about music and the RIAA when talking to radio stations. I work at a community radio station (WEFT 90.1 FM [weft.org]) which plays a great deal of music licensed by the RIAA. Hardly what I'd call alternative, but mine isn't the only opinion in the place.
Recently we had a light discussion about what it would take to do webstreaming. For those of you who don't know, the RIAA licenses tracks of their clients and the terms of the license [cpb.org] are rather vague and somewhat hard to shift to if one is used to being able to broadcast almost anything.
WORT recently announced a new and improved webcast [wort-fm.org]. Their announcement is interesting because it starts by lying claiming that they'll webcast "all of its programming!" (see page 13 of the PDF newsletter). When you read further you see that WORT plans to comply with RIAA licensing restrictions by not webcasting some of its programming (presumably either shows or tracks that can't be webcast at that moment). Like I said, it's not easy to webcast if you insist on doing what you can to avoid losing a copyright infringement lawsuit while playing RIAA-licensed stuff. If you've grown used to the over-the-air rules, which don't restrict you in the way RIAA's webcasting restrictions do, you've got a tough row to hoe. The RIAA's online restrictions say things such as you can't play the same featured artist more than 4 times in a 3-hour period, nor can you play more than 3 tracks from the same CD/tape/record in a 3-hour period.
I was curious how much adjustment WEFT would have to make to take on webcasting RIAA tracks. So I looked at some of WEFT's playlists and compared them to RIAA webcasting restrictions. Suffice to say, WEFTies don't yet realize how many shows they'll have to change. I forsee much unpleasant discussion about this topic as we wrestle with exchanging increased listenership for playlist freedom and the hassles that go along with assembling an RIAA-compliant playlist.
/.ers will read this and think that this is a natural application for a database. And if you're thinking this way, you're right but there's more to it than that. WEFT has roughly 40,000 CDs in its library and lots of CDs coming in every week. Finding the financing for the hardware to host the database on alone is a daunting task, finding the volunteer commitment needed to make the database workable for everyone (not just the techies) is another tall order. I'm up for it, but I know a lot more about writing software than I do about writing grant requests, and I estimate we'll need many thousands of dollars to do this in a way that won't fall over when the power dies or a couple of hard drives go bad.
Still other /.ers might think differently and conclude that we should just stop playing RIAA tracks, or WEFT should severly cut down on the RIAA tracks we play. Again, I'm up for that—I host a public-affairs program called "Digital Citizen" every other Wednesday from 8-10PM where I play only stuff my listeners can share. I focus on copyright law, patent law, and Free Software (as in the Free Software movement) issues. The only RIAA licensed tracks I play are fair-use snippets, so these webcasting rules don't apply to me. Other public-affairs shows (like News from Neptune [newsfromneptune.com]) don't play RIAA tracks at all. The majority of shows on WEFT are music shows and it remains to be seen how receptive they will be to giving up 90% or more of what's in WEFT's library.
So now you're slightly more familiar with the restrictions from the radio end of things, even on community radio which is ostensibly more accessible to the public and less likely to play the mainstream RIAA-licensed stuff you can hear everywhere else.
Re:They really think they have the right... (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of otherwise great labels are affiliated with the RIAA. Depressingly, Blue Note is. Do you claim that Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Ornette Coleman aren't real "musicians"?
Was Jimi Hendrix not a "musician"? How about Iggy Pop? The members of Can? Or the Velvet Underground? Is Tom Waits a "musician"?
If you don't think so, you're ignoring some of the best music ever recorded.
Re:They really think they have the right... (Score:2)
They still sell those old albums, you know. So giving up RIAA artists means giving up 40 years of great music.
Yes, they do still sell them...right down the street at the local music shops' used bin. No need to give up listening to great artists, nor give the RIAA more money.
I'll also postulate another semi-controversial solution, allofmp3.com.
Before I get flamed, I'm a musician myself with a CD for sale, and I have no worries about places like mp3.com even if we were fortunate enough to beco
Re:They really think they have the right... (Score:2)
Oops, that should have been "allofmp3.com"
I previewed, honest! Gotta tell the G/F that decaf is off the grocery list.
Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suck) (Score:4, Informative)
(2) shall not make obsolete any devices already manufactured and distributed in the marketplace before the implementation of such regulations; and
(3) shall not be inconsistent with the customary use of broadcast content by consumers to the
extent such use is consistent with the purposes of this act and other applicable law.
Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (Score:3, Insightful)
And you think they won't reallocate the FM and AM bands to something else like they plan to do with analog TV?
Nope, they won't be moving the bands (Score:2)
"Ibiquity --owning radio on the industries own dime."
They are the ones at the root of this digital effort. The system is called IBOC. Look it up as HD Radio and read the Ibiquity PR.
Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (Score:2)
Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (Score:3, Interesting)
Howard Worldwide (Score:5, Funny)
Coming soon, Howard Stern on HAM radio.
Re:Howard Worldwide (Score:3, Funny)
The FCC won't be kosher with that!
Re:Howard Worldwide (Score:2)
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Actually, Stalin would have his opponents declare that the Gulag was good for them. I think the RIAA could take a lesson from this and a) have consumers publicly state that the broadcast flag is good for them and has led to a "drastically improved listening experience", b) have some people voluntarily turn in their non-compliant hardware (or turn themselves in as filesharers), or c) surrender to the French [slashdot.org].
Re:In other news (Score:2)
You forgot that DRM helps you manage your access to music, silly! :-)
Good for the fans? How? (Score:3, Interesting)
How is content restriction ever good for the fans?
Are they thinking it'll make content owners happier and therefore produce more stuff, then making fans happier? I don't get it.
Re:Good for the fans? How? (Score:5, Funny)
Curiously absent (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business."
Curiously absent is "good for the artists and musicians we represent".
Madness (Score:2)
No, lad. You want to transmit an audio signal, you accept that I'm gonna do whatever I damn well like when I recieve it. Is it just me, or does anyone else think the RIAA is becoming a bit "precious"?
"good for the fans" (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, it's good for everyone all around isn't it?
Alarmist (Score:3, Informative)
Intelligent Design (Score:5, Insightful)
Necessary? I don't think it's necessary. It'll help, but at what cost to the consumer? And not the Slashdot freeloaders, the honest people who don't pirate anything. Actually, that would include most of Slashdot, none of us ever pirate, we just try before we buy. That's right, isn't it? I'm new here, I don't know the official way we dress up our excuses yet.
"With exciting new digital audio devices on the market today and more on the horizon, Congress needs to streamline the deployment of digital services and protect the intellectual property rights of creators," said Ferguson, who is a member of the House of Representatives' Internet subcommittee. Rep. Mary Bono, a California Republican, is one of the four other co-sponsors.
Well, she's absolutely right here on one count. Congress does need to protect the intellectual property rights of creators, because they are currently under massive assault in a legal system that is a decade behind the technology that it regulates. However, as a Republican, Ms. Bono ought to understand that regulating business is rarely the answer to these problems. Or, in this case, regulating consumers. Even worse. What happened to small government staying out of our lives, Ms. Bono? I'm among those that put the Republicans in power during the Clinton administration and you and your ilk have gradually betrayed our trust. Further, it is also the job of Congress to ensure that our rights as consumers are protected, and for all his enthusiasm, I don't think Darth Nader is up to the job. For one, he's not in the legislature. You are, Ms. Bono.
That's because a federal appeals court last year unceremoniously rejected a similar set of regulations from the FCC, saying the agency did not have authority to mandate a broadcast flag for digital video.
Further proof that over a long enough trajectory the legal system almost always gets it right.
At a breakfast roundtable with reporters on Thursday, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said some sort of legislation is necessary to prevent Americans from saving high-quality music from digital broadcasts, assembling a "personal music library" of their own, and redistributing "recorded songs over the Internet or on removable media."
We already have legislation that forbids this. They don't want legislation, they want mandated hardware controls to enforce it. I have no objections to streamlining the law to get it caught up with technology and limit the impact of piracy on the RIAA's bottom line. I do have a serious problem with legal mandates that enforce technological limits on legal behavior.
Devices like the Sirius S50, the RIAA worries, can record satellite radio broadcasts but aren't required to include digital rights management limitations.
Nor should they be. Sirius bought broadcast rights from ASCAP or whoever broadcast rights group does digital radio, just like everybody else does. The industry has its money from Sirius et al. The only barrier to mass copyright infringement is unreadable devices. As Roger Ebert pointed out long ago, anybody who is a hair above marginally technically competant can create high-quality reproductions of almost any playable media using cheap technology, and store the output in any formot. Onto p2p it goes. The broadcast flag is a big expensive pain in the ass that will not address the problem to their satisfaction, and they'll be back demanding MORE legislation in 5 years when their E/P ratio is too high. The broadcast flag is the first step on a long road of incremenetal freedom reduction that winds gradually out of sight into uncharted territory. Actually, it's not so uncharted. We know wha
A few points (Score:2)
First off the RIAA is not the same as the music publishing industry. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licenses songs from the publisher for broadcast and live performances, NOT recordings. Mechanical reproductions are licensed from the publisher through the Harry Fox Agency to be cut or recorded.
Secondly, the Congress does not need to actively protect IP by enacting new laws. The ones we have work just fine. It is the court's job to protect the IP of the involved parties. In the US copyright law is a civil matt
Congress needs to introduce other bill too... (Score:2)
How about a Commercial Flag? (Score:4, Funny)
What I want to see introduced is a 'Commercial' flag. This was my PVR could
more effectively autoskip commericials!
Re:How about a Commercial Flag? (Score:2)
as well as not letting you mute the audio while a commercial is playing.
After all, you don't want to be a "thief" do you?
Pearls Before Swine (Score:2)
Lawmakers are being asked to legislate the new industry to protect the status quo of the old industry players, the rights of consumers, the cultural heritage of their respe
The United States has... (Score:3, Funny)
This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Any legal scholor out there? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Any legal scholor out there? (Score:2)
Digital Radio is an old news (Score:2, Informative)
Robert
No cable/satellite, no radio, no problem (Score:2)
Pirating radio? (Score:2)
Re:Pirating radio? (Score:2)
It's not the RIAA, it's the congressmen. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, don't waste time moaning about the RIAA. This is their business, you should expect nothing less from them. They want to extract the most money possible from as many people as possible.
The people that need to be held responsible are:
Main Sponsor: Mike Ferguson (R) New Jersey
Co-Sponsor: Mary Bono (R) California
Those are the only two listed in the article, the other co-sponsors are not listed. But, in previous actions, it has been endorsed by:
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Greg Walden (R-OR)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
The TV version of the broadcast flag was quickly withdrawn after it was clear that American citizens were overwhelmingly against it. It's a bit surprising that these rep's are sticking their necks out on this issue.
We need to let them know this is a bad idea, and let their constituents know that their representatives are pushing this stuff despite their disapproval.
Follow the Money (Score:2, Informative)
TIME WARNER POLITICAL ACTION CMTE 2/26/2004 $1000
TIME WARNER POLITICAL ACTION CMTE 6/24/2004 $2000
TIME WARNER POLITICAL ACTION CMTE 9/23/2004 $1000
Though a little peculiar Mike Ferguson gave $1000 back to Time Warner on 03/16/2005.
You cant.. (Score:2)
Big Business LIKES Big Government (Score:2)
When the government is large and far reaching, it then has the power to legislate and regulate in favor of big business to help squash competition from small business.
Government here in the US should be minimal (at best) as set forth by the Constitution and the DoI. If the government doesn't have the power to regulate things in which it should not, then it doesn't have the ability to be biased to the largest campaign supporters.
What I want to know is ... (Score:2)
Re:Moronic (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Moronic (Score:2)
Re:Moronic (Score:2)
Re:Moronic (Score:3, Informative)
XM's web streaming, otoh, ugh, that's barely listenable at best. Haven't heard Sirius's yet so I can't compare that.
Re:Moronic (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm afraid it's not even close (Score:2)
It most assuredly is not. It's not even close. The only station with half-way decent quality is the Classical Music station (Symphony). The sound on Sirius ranges from okay to just awful. XM strikes me as a bit better, but certainly nothing to boast about.
I love my Sirius, but that's because of content, not fidelity.
Re:Moronic (Score:2)
Re:Moronic (Score:2)
In general, I'd put XM's quality either light above or equal to that of FM, with Sirius around the quality of a low end FM station. XM tends to sacrifice the low frequencies in favor of the highs. I guess if you're into bass driven music you might not like it, but for th
Re:Moronic (Score:2)
That's because their DJ's can't handle proper usage of a mixer and constantly overmodulate.
FM has its fair share of inherent quality loss.
Analog is still better than digital.
Re:so what (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so what (Score:2)
This country needs a reboot.
Re:As usual, (Score:2)
That phrase unauthorized copying pops-up several times in the text of the bill. There is however no definition of what constitutes "unauthorized copy". Absent that definition, it would seem difficult to evaluate what we're getting here.
Re:As usual, (Score:2, Informative)
Airwaves are a public resource. The public resource has been licensed by the FCC in different manners and monies gained in different amounts for different activities. Spectrum that is for a single private individual's use only is VERY expensive and is generally not receivable without special equipment. Spectrum that is for everyone and anyo
Re:As usual, (Score:2)
That's not right. Radio and TV stations have licensed the spectrum for their exclusive use over a certain area. That's why pirate broadcasters who piggyback on commercially-licensed frequencies are breaking the law.
Fair use doctrine says you have the right to tape. (Score:3, Informative)
Who's a dolt? Fair use doctrine does indeed allow time shifting (recording for later playback). It was validated by SCOTUS in the early 80's Betamax case, and hasn't been overturned by any subsequent decisions. If you don't believe me, here's the EFF's take on it [eff.org].
So I guess that makes you a dolt too, spouting off about that which you know so little. It's people like you who are willing to just take whatever bread crumbs they toss us that are allowing them to get
Re:Family Guy (Score:2)
So, this apparently could hold true for radio? RIAA agents with guns...yipee.
Look on the bright side: The RIAA loves to behave like jackbooted thugs, but if you shoot one while he's serving a no-knock raid on your house, you won't go to jail.
Re:As usual, (Score:4, Informative)
As long as it's for yourself and you don't distribute that material.
the broadcast flag prevents such things. hell they want to make tivo illegal unless it's sanctioned.
I will listen to music or watch TV the way I want to not how I am told to by others.
Re:As usual, (Score:2, Informative)
You my dear poster are definitley a TROLL. RIAA employee?
The problem with the brodcast flag and other DRM (Digital Restictions Management) is that they WILL eventually be used to manipulate the media to ensure that the message is only what the powers that be want it to be whether it is in the music or the image.
Re:You're the dolt, fuckwad (Score:2)
So much self-righteousness, but did YOU actually read the case? I challenge you to find the language t
Re:You're the dolt, fuckwad (Score:2)
Again, if you are so well versed in the law, I ask you simply for a legal citation that supports that proposition. I maintain that, in fact, what the Court held in the Betamax case was that there was no basis for a civil action under the terms of the statutes then in effect. It was NOT h
Re:now i'm worried (Score:2)
Re:Another reg that will be defeated by technology (Score:2)