Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Senate Bill May Ban Streaming MP3s 503

Posted by Zonk
from the i-like-the-streaming dept.
Silverhammer writes "According to the EFF, a new Senate bill (S. 2644) sponsored by Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Graham (R-SC) would effectively ban streaming MP3 for licensed music by requireing 'casters to use the most restrictive streaming format available (e.g., Windows Media or Real) rather than simply the most restrictive features of a chosen streaming format (e.g., Shoutcast or streaming MP3)." From the article: "The PERFORM Act would ... requir[e] webcasters to use DRM that restricts the recording of webcasts. That means no more MP3 streams if you rely on the statutory license. Under the bill, the statutory license would only be available to a webcaster if: [114(d)(2)(C)(vi)] the transmitting entity takes no affirmative steps to authorize, enable, cause or induce the making of a copy or phonorecord by or for the transmission recipient and uses technology that is reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making of copies or phonorecords embodying the transmission in whole or in part, except for reasonable recording as defined in this subsection."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Bill May Ban Streaming MP3s

Comments Filter:
  • Not like it matters (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Thaelon (250687) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:00PM (#15215353)
    This is nonenforcable.

    I predict it to be about as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. I'm surprised we haven't yet had a war on piracy.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:03PM (#15215376)
      I think "Selectively Enforcable" would be a more appropriate term.
    • by bloko (888358) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:04PM (#15215390) Homepage
      But the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are just a front and are used for other things like the war on privacy.
      • by collectivescott (885118) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:52PM (#15215833)
        Don't you mean the war on drug users and suspicious arabs?

        Because let's face it, when all the money in the world fails to make a difference, you're approaching the problem the wrong way.

        Thought: are Americans more or less likely to die at the hands of terrorists after our invasion of Iraq? With over 2,000 dead, and thousands more left injured, the current situation is basically a complete disaster. And angering millions in the Arab world makes us a bigger target. Face it, you can't scare people who are willing to die, period.

        Thought: should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not? Because certainly a compelling case could be made to prohibit alcohol because of drunken driving, violence, accidents, and abuse potential. More so than marijuana, even. But alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a failure because it didn't curb demand, yet created crime to fuel an underground market, just like with the war on drugs today. But for prohibition to be repealed, people had to talk openly about the problem. Hard to do that with drugs, because the government misrepresents the facts to demonize drugs.

        Obligatory: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, 15 minute video: http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm [leap.cc]

        America needs a change of direction, and honesty in politics.
        • by c_forq (924234)
          are Americans more or less likely to die at the hands of terrorists after our invasion of Iraq?
          As far as I know not a single American has died on American soil as a result of a terrorist attack since our invasion. In fact I don't know of any Americans that have died due to terrorists outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

          should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not?
          In most contexts being drunk is illegal. It is illegal to be drunk in public, to be drunk in the drivers seat of a car, and even to be
          • by Random Destruction (866027) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:44PM (#15216221)
            As far as I know not a single American has died on American soil as a result of a terrorist attack since our invasion. In fact I don't know of any Americans that have died due to terrorists outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

            As far as I know global temperature has been climbing since pirate populations [wikipedia.org] have been declining. In fact I know that global temperatures are rising. It must be the pirates.

            • by AoT (107216) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @07:13PM (#15216867) Homepage Journal
              You know, I'm tired of this old less pirates == more global warming crap. There are not less pirates now. There may be less eye-patches, but South East Asia and Africa have a *huge* pirate population. So if it isn't the pirates, what is it?

              Ninjas.

              Yes, I know, you're a bit sceptical. But really. Do ninjas use cars? Do ninjas use hairspray?

              NO!

              Everyone blames global warming on the US; let's put the blame where it really belongs: JAPAN!

              When was the last time Japan produced a significant number of ninjas? That's right, you can't tell me, because they haven't produced a real ninja in *YEARS*!

              So, Japan, I'm calling you out. Fuck the Kyoto treaty, we need the Ninjyoto treaty.

              Step the fuck up Japan!
          • But I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm glad you follow the sentiment, but don't be afraid to accept the reality. Some people may not have their facts straight, but what I speak is truth.

            Regarding Iraq: They are Americans dying as a result of our government policy, which was the point. That they were aware of the risk they were taking does not make their deaths any less tragic, or "count less" as you seem to imply.

            You can't honestly compare marijuana prohibition with alcohol regulation With alcohol, you a
    • by Lead Butthead (321013) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:04PM (#15215391) Journal
      This is nonenforcable.

      Think harder. It'll be another law in the book that can be used to harass people when "deemed necessary." Keep in mind that prosecutors loves to say things like "suspect is believed to be in violation of (insert a number) of federal/state statues."
      • by LunaticTippy (872397) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:11PM (#15215449)
        It'll make a lot of US-based mp3/shoutcast stations die. There'll still be offshore alternatives.

        I'm willing to record in realtime off the soundcard for something I really want that is only available via secure streaming. Right now there is one thing in that category (joe frank) but I can do it for more.

        Reminds me of the old days, recording dr. demento on my mono tape deck from a nearby transistor am radio.

        Damn congress, stop trying to legislate me back to the 70s!

        • by Allison Geode (598914) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:41PM (#15216193)
          and after the gov gets rid of network neutrality, they'll demand their benefactors at the telcos block all foreign content that is deemed to be unsavory.. so that their **AA benefactors will be pleased. and then everyone will give our politicians even more money.

    • by kfg (145172) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:06PM (#15215404)
      I'm surprised we haven't yet had a war on piracy.

      It's not a war, it's a "police action."

      And it's one, two three, what are we fightin' for?
      Don't ask me I don't give damn
      We hate mp3s and spam

      KFG
    • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:07PM (#15215413)
      It's most certainly enforceable against entities operating within the law in the first place. Broadcasters like DI.fm who are licensed would have to drop MP3 and unencrypted WMA streams for DRM/encrypted WMA streams, which would no doubt drive up their operating costs immensely due to the computational power of encrypting streams(encrypting each user's stream with a different key, anyone?). This isn't just an attempt to limit freedoms, but it could very well put legal broadcasters out of business.
      • Or they will set up streaming servers outside of the US, not buy a license and do whatever the hell they want? The DJ's have their licenses anyways
      • Broadcasters like DI.fm who are licensed would have to drop MP3 and unencrypted WMA streams for DRM/encrypted WMA streams, which would no doubt drive up their operating costs

        not to mention cut out non-Windows owning audience members. Unless they also legislate that MS has to open up WMA DRM. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        Own a Mac? No streaming radio for you!!

    • by malraid (592373) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:18PM (#15215511)
      Piracy has only one reason to exist: to fund terrorism. But it's not like *I* said it. Alberto Gonzales said it: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_displ ay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001477589 [hollywoodreporter.com].

      So I guess it can be put under the umbrella of war on terror.
      • by lgw (121541) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:35PM (#15215668) Journal
        Alberto Gonzales's logic could not be more clear:

        1. Teenager spends no money to acquire song.
        2. ???
        3. Terrorists profit!

        It has been well established through precedent that this counts as a valid argument on Slashdot, so I don't see why people question the statement.
        • Considering that we know that there are mafia and other shady connections behind much of the spyware that runs on Windows computers, and that such money funds illegal activities, terrorism, and what not, it seems that the real way to stop funding terrorism would be to outlaw Windows.

          That was a joke... Come on... somebody laugh.

        • by Urusai (865560) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:54PM (#15216299)
          Gonzales is the same clown who thinks torture and wiretaps are all perfectly legal. He must have skipped the class on the Constitution at law school. He probably cheated on his Ethics final, too.
    • by kalirion (728907) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:38PM (#15216178)
      I predict it to be about as successful as the war on drugs

      The war of drugs may be a failure, but how many thousands of people are being imprisoned every year for nothing more than marijuana possession? Just because the war fails doesn't mean that tons of people who've never hurt anyone won't have their lives destroyed by it.
  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by halivar (535827) <bfelger&gmail,com> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:01PM (#15215359) Homepage
    A spirit of bipartisanship bridges the right and left in harmonious accord!

    *puke*
  • by Illbay (700081) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:01PM (#15215366) Journal
    The fact is that people who scream about "special interests" seem not to consider that in a representative democracy like ours, EVERYONE is a "special interest."

    I am sure that this bill originated among the "special interests" that make proprietary streaming music formats. It will take the "special interests" of those who want to hold onto the freedom to stream media in whatever format is best, to convince them otherwise.

    • representative democracy like ours

      I find it much easier to call us a Republic :D
      • FWIW, I do understand that we are "a republic, not a democracy." However, the term "democracy" and "democratic" are appropriate with reference to the "majority rules" feature of so much of how we are governed.
    • by jfengel (409917) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:22PM (#15215548) Homepage Journal
      When people say "special interests", they usually mean a relatively small set of people with a disproportionate amount of power for one reason or another. Sometimes it's because they have a whole lot of money to be used in campaign donations. Sometimes it's a group that one party or another feels beholden to (the religious right, Latinos, nationalists, labor) for ideological reasons, even where that group isn't necessarily a majority (or even the majority of the majority), where solidarity outweighs the group's overall interest.

      Geographically, power in the US Congress is not evenly divided. Bills begin in committees; committee members (and especially chairs) have considerable ability to quash or modify bills. Amendments to bills are difficult to remove. Especially in some committees, a single Congressman can effectively hold an entire house of Congress to the special interests of his or her constituents.

      A substantial rewrite of the rules of Congress might help, but they're not happening any time soon (because the present rules always benefit the party in power). So some "special interests" will continue to have more power than their voting numbers suggest, and so the term "special interest" will continue to have a pejorative connotation.
      • A substantial rewrite of the rules of Congress might help,...

        Starting, IMO, with "normalizing" congressional numbers back to the representative level they were in the Nineteenth Century--that is, there ought to be about 1,200 Representatives by now.

    • by Valdrax (32670) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:24PM (#15215573)
      There is in fact a difference between a "special interest" and the "public interest." A "special interest" works to get what good for their minority slice of society, whereas the "public interest" seeks to benefit the majority's interests.

      This is not inherently a value judgement, though it often is as special interests often work at the expense of the majority's rights. The civil rights movement is a good counter-example of a special interest working for rights that do not negatively impact the majority's rights.

      Consumer rights is not a special interest. It is clearly the public interest since we are all consumers.

      I will say, that I've never been more disgusted with Dianne Feinstein right now. She's clearly putting the interests of her campaign funders above the interest of the public. I think she brings shame to the Democrats in an election year where the theme of the power of lobbying interests is a central strength for the party. Then again, Hollywood and the recording industry have been a big bribers of the Democrats long before they because bipartisan bribers.
      • by KenSeymour (81018) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @08:38PM (#15217525)
        Senator Feinstein is one of my senators. I have sent her an email
        letting her know that I am concerned about the issue. I downloaded
        and printed out the bill and will probably send her another one
        once I figure out what it means.

        One might argue that writing your congress people accomplishes nothing.
        But so does griping about it on /.

        You can let them know how you feel about it.
        You can vote for or against them.
        You can make campaign donations for or against them.

        One person might not make a difference, but more than one person is concerned about this type of law.

        You know the congress hears what the lobbyists clients think.
        Have they heard what you think?
      • I will say, that I've never been more disgusted with Dianne Feinstein right now. She's clearly putting the interests of her campaign funders above the interest of the public.

        Wow, ya think?

        But isn't that what she's always done? Between her and Schumer, it's a wonder that we have any rights left at all.
    • by Mindwarp (15738) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:39PM (#15215712) Homepage Journal
      The fact is that people who scream about "special interests" seem not to consider that in a representative democracy like ours, EVERYONE is a "special interest."

      Paraphrasing Orwell, "Everyone is a special interest. It's just that some are more special than others." Unfortunately for the man on the street, how special you are seems to equate directly with how much cash you have to throw at lobbyists.
  • by gasmonso (929871) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:01PM (#15215368) Homepage

    This is yet another reason for artists not to sign with the RIAA and its cronies. This will drive a more consumer oriented driven alternative to this crap. It's just a matter of time... som long as they keep doing stuff like this.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
    • Yea, because when some record label says "we are giving you $1 million dollars, but we will then own you" the poor starving artist is going to say "uhm no, my music is free"...right.

      This law sucks - it will just make it more easy for the RIAA/MPAA to say "look those evil pirates broke ANOTHER one of your laws, now you should ban all streaming media including buying music online...dammit they have to buy our price fixed cds...err i mean our reasonably priced cds"

      What we need is for our gov't to start w
    • by Jetson (176002)
      Many of the major Canadian recording artists and all of the indie labels have pulled out of a music industry organization (similar to the RIAA) and formed a new collective that directly opposes the DMCA and the anti-download and IP-is-protected-forever laws being created in the USA and elsewhere. They issued statements calling on the Canadian government to reject attempts to pass DMCA-style laws in Canada and want to see MP3 downloading made 100% legal for non-commercial users.

      The story is covered HERE [theglobeandmail.com]

  • Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:02PM (#15215372) Homepage Journal
    e.g., Windows Media or Real

    This won't happen - the Mac community will never allow it... iPods 95% of the market, etc etc... ;-)
    • Re:Bah! (Score:3, Informative)

      by dcowart (13321)
      You are forgetting that while iPod/iTunes can play MP3's, AAC, and it's associated DRM, will be required and MP3's will be phased out. Then it will be a fight between your favorite DRM'ed format.
    • RIAA CEO "We must make it harder for these people to get streaming music, as opposed to CD's."

      Senator "But 95% of MP3 holders use iPods and they demand streaming music"

      RIAA CEO "Mr Senator, please accept $10,000 as a donation to your next election".

      Senator "Oh, but the people really don't know what's best. We need to stop the evil pirates. That is why they voted me into office"

      RIAA CEO "Oh and speaking of, maybe we can help the process by banning all streaming media"

      Senator "but why?"

      RIAA C
  • like foie gras (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MoFoQ (584566)
    again...this is like the ban on foie gras (fatty goose liver) in Chicago.

    don't they have better and more important issues to work out instead of "PERFORM"-ing for their lobbying bedroom buddies?

    heck...Canadian Artists are against DRM. link: http://www.musiccreators.ca/ [musiccreators.ca]

    in fact, govt should stay out of it....and it should be between the webcasters and the artists to hammer out a deal.
  • In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@gmai l . c om> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:04PM (#15215388) Journal
    Congress is examining a new law aimed at prohibiting the pillow to the cool side, citing concerns from air-conditionner makers for reduced sales.
    • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by digitalunity (19107) <digitalunity@yahoo . c om> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:27PM (#15215599) Homepage
      How is this off-topic?

      I'm sick to f'ing death of an *extremely* miniscule population(the content-owners) twisting our politicians into knots like voodoo dolls. I'm not sure who to blame more, the politicians or the media companies... They should be sent to Gitmo(I'm completely not even joking, either).

      This protectionism is harmful to the citizens of our country. It will provide marginal reductions in piracy, but will completely obliterate the distribution channel for music where the artists want their music to be free. Is it truly necessary to destroy the freedom of 99% of the people so that a few already-rich people can attempt to squeeze that last penny from people?
  • i probably wouldn't be voting for her anyway bacuse she's the incombent, but feinstein just forfitted any posibility of earning my vote.

    DOWN WITH CARRIER POLITICIANS!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:07PM (#15215420)
    Why are they spending tax dollars on this kind of crap legislation! Two ASS sentors who haven't a clue. If someone is playing something it can be recorded even with the most secure format ever invented! How? Easy, i can record what I fucking hear you twits.

    jesus i fucking hate california and the dumbasses who are in it, i need to move outa here back to the east coast, oh wait more dumbasses there too, midwest, fuck more dumbasses there too. Canada?! double dumbasses there! eh ;)
  • Good news! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir (585350) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:09PM (#15215427) Journal
    This is actually good news. Now I only have to worry about cracking one or two formats, instead of a whole bunch of them!

    In the words of Louis Black: "This is Congress doing the people's work. The people's stupid, stupid work.

  • mplayer (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Mplayer can dump Windows Media streams (and others!) just fine.
  • I think we need some sort of blacklist where we keep track of these politicians, and come election time, vote these n00bs out of office. What do you think?
    • by RexRhino (769423) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:12PM (#15215465)
      No, because if you are Democrat, you aren't going to vote for a Republican in order to vote against the blacklisted politician. And if you are a Republican, you are not going to vote for a Democrat. Either way you will make some excuse why it is OK to vote for the pro-DRM candidate ("Well, I gotta vote for Fienstien or otherwise the Republicans will win, and we can't let that!").
  • by hurfy (735314)
    So that means my business model of making vinyl albums recorded off webcasts isn't gonna fly?

    This is to keep people from using a stream to supply mp3 for download? We need a whole new law to protect the 2 albums that aren't available on BT somewhere?

    If someone is receiving this stream legitimately and they change to another format, they can't sanitize it and share it anyway if thats what they were gonna do? Those other formats aren't that secure are they?
  • by bizitch (546406) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:12PM (#15215461) Homepage
    ... analog hole *ahem* ...
  • ...as an individual you have no rights what so ever. Our government has been taken over by the Corporate Lobby. He who has the deepest pockets gets the laws passed that they want passed. The average individual gets screwed, because he has no voice, and no way to influence ($$$$$$$) his elected officals. We the people get to vote to put him there, but after that the Corporations get to decide what that elected person actually decides on our behalf.

    The dishonorable Sentator John "I am a Jackass" Kerry pro
  • by t0qer (230538) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:13PM (#15215467) Homepage Journal
    I'm an AOL sponsored NSV (nullsoft streaming video) station. The reason I ask "Where do I fit into this" is my station rides the grey line of copyright and licensed music... I broadcast people singing from a karaoke bar. [205.188.215.229]

    Our audio is broadcasted using ACCP, because the sound quality is fantastic. Let's say for a minute though, we decided to broadcast back into vp3 video and mp3 audio (so linux/macs could watch)

    Is this really copyright infringement? Or are we semi protected by parody exemptions? Nearly %100 of karaoke music is reproduced backing tracks, made by the karaoke companies in their studios. Add in that 1/2 these folks couldn't carry a tune to save their lives, it's actually pretty funny and amusing to watch.

    I'm only slightly worried, Feinstien sounds like she doesn't know WTF she's talking about. Add to that i've got AOL behind me, and she can kiss my ass. Seriously though, i'm riding a grey line of copyright here, anyone have any insights or thoughts?

    --toq
    • Assuming the ASCAP fees have been paid for the rights to the music in question have been paid, its your karaoke singers you need to be mindful of here.

      If you are broadcasting these people's performances without getting them to sign a release you can probably be sued by any/all of them for violating their performers rights.

      You aren't legally allowed to do what youre doing without the explicit permission of the performers.

      Basically, it sounds to me like you, and AOL are committing criminal acts under the lett
  • by ikekrull (59661) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:14PM (#15215479) Homepage
    I wonder if theyre going to throw the TV station and MTV executives in jail, and the people who record the digitally streamed videos on their TiVos for violating this law because they include major label music without DRM?

  • And... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AriaStar (964558)
    ...our politicians really have nothing better to do than to waste time on a bill that can't be enforced? There is no president to keep in line, no repeat-child-molester free due to a technicality loophole in the law? They couldn't stop piracy, and they're not going to stop this. So they may as well quit wasting tax dollars via their salaries, and instead do something worthwhile.
  • by Guysmiley777 (880063) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:17PM (#15215498)
    50g per vote PST
  • If podcasters can no longer comment on music published by major labels, they'll move to commentary on indie musicians who release their rights for commentary purposes. RIAA members lose, indie musicians win, the public wins, some podcasters win, some lose. The key thing is that the major record companies lose a free publicity channel and we don't have to hear about their pablumized song releases.
  • So if this passed, you're saying all of my podcasts go bye bye? Well, at least the ones playing copyrighted music... And how does a podcast differ from a radio broadcast, exactly? I can record a radio show with no problems, but if it comes in via a podcast it's a big bad no no. I mean, obviously, people recording music off the radio has just KILLED the music industry...
  • by robyannetta (820243) * on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:19PM (#15215519) Homepage
    This is yet another example of our freely elected Congressional system being circumvented only by the most powerful (fat pocketed) lobbyist (bribery agent) of the **AA.

    I'm not going to spout "Call your Congressional representative" because that dosen't any good. The solution is to register to vote and vote OUT anyone in D.C. that' over 40 years old (or don't own an iPod).

    Any Slashdot readers willing to run for public office on the newly made-up 'Open Source Party' ticket? You know the one: Demands the return of personal freedoms, supports the repeal of the DMCA and requires public office to use open standards for public documents?

    Oh, sorry. I was in Fantasyland for a second there. I live in the U.S.A.

  • Profit! (Score:3, Funny)

    by ichigo 2.0 (900288) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:22PM (#15215553)
    1. Develop a format even more restrictive than Realmedia and Windows Media, e.g. somekind of hardware-DRM scheme which forces people to hold their breath while listening to said format.
    2. Thanks to this law everyone has to use your format! Charge obscene amounts of money in royalties.
    3. Profit!

    Oops, forgot to ??? the second step, don't you dare steal my idea! And no, didn't RTFA. :)
  • PERFORM? PATRIOT? I'm sure that people think up the acronyms, and then try to find words that fit. What a bunch of arse.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:35PM (#15215675)
    Coming to you, from a country that has better problems than doing the bidding of the music industry.

    Just a hunch: Could it be that a national law ain't worth jack in an international medium? So it's illegal in the US? Move to Mexico. Make it illegal there? Move to the EU. Make it illegal in the EU? Move to Russia. Make it illegal in Russia? Who cares?
  • It's not possible. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheMCP (121589) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:37PM (#15215687) Homepage
    and uses technology that is reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making of copies or phonorecords embodying the transmission in whole or in part
    There is no such technology. Nothing you can do to the software can prevent me from grabbing the analog audio out of my computer and recording it if I really want to. Even if you build the DRM right into the hardware, ultimately the audio gets decrypted somewhere and goes to a speaker, which has two electrical contacts on it, and I can tap directly onto those contacts and record it. Even if you build the DRM into the speaker, I can take the speaker apart and find those contacts and do it. As long as the physical playback device is in my physical control, nothing anyone can do can forcibly prevent me from recording the output if I wanted to.

    Basically, it says you have to use this fantasy technology if it is "reasonably available, technologically feasible" and I say that any competent technician will tell you it's neither. This is like passing a law requiring that it may not rain on wednesdays: it's meaningless.
  • Blowing Smoke (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mugnyte (203225) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:41PM (#15215732) Journal

      Obviously, anyone who thinks more than 1 minute about this realizes that the government can't dictate which products should be used in a market.

      Legislating which containers for content are lawful and which aren't is a bit silly. Seems akin to "If your DVD box doesn't have a lock on it, the you are in violation. DVD boxes without locks are illegal."

      Perhaps are some point, our corporate society will realize that the digital domain is just too full of holes and backdoors to keep contained. They will keep trying, but technology is now evolving faster than they can keep up.

      Please keep the names of these folks in mind when voting, folks. Money moves bills, but votes move them out (no promises about replacements).

  • Satellite Radio (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:00PM (#15215886)
    Everyone here's going OMG I can't stream mp3s on teh intarweb anymore, but the real reason for this legislation is to stifle satellite radio technology - specifically, the devices they are producing that allow a person to record the songs they hear on XM or Sirius (you know, same as terrestrial radio, where our right to record is actually ensconced in statute). But the RIAA, rather than comparing satellite and terrestrial radio, is comparing satellite radio to Internet streaming (and, by extension, Internet-based piracy).

    Of course, they're making moves against HD radio as well, as Senator Ferguson (R-NJ) has introduced legislation that would revoke the same rights granted to citizens as they apply to HD radio.

    Just click on the link in the /. article to the text of the bill as printed in the Congressional Record, and go to the next page. The RIAA's stance is plainly outlined there.

  • by The_REAL_DZA (731082) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:04PM (#15215915)
    I mean, if I can't get the tune out of my head, will I go to jail? (because I don't think 959 choruses of the Scooby Doo theme will make me a lot of friends on the cellblock; my wife's already threatened to shove me out of the car at 75mph...)

    • Me: "...doobie doo, where are you..."
    • Her: "You can stop that now."
    • Me: "...we need some help from you now... Yeah, I WISH "
  • by jfern (115937) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @06:39PM (#15216619)
    Here are her numbers:

    DC: 202-224-3841
    SF: 415-393-0707
    LA: 310-914-7300
    SD: 619-231-9712
    Fresno: 559-485-7430

    Or you can e-mail her here:
    http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.htm [senate.gov]

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.

Working...