Senate Bill May Ban Streaming MP3s 503
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."
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Use Ogg (Score:3, Informative)
Question...would this stop me from streaming music over RDP from my house to work?
ummm... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Not like it matters (Score:4, Informative)
So I guess it can be put under the umbrella of war on terror.
Re:mplayer (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:2, Informative)
Who is "the corporation?" I like Ben Stein's answer: "The widows and orphans."
In their urge to oversimplify everything, people like to use the term "corporations" or "corporate interests" to signify some tiny but extremely powerful cabal who exercise inordinate influence, effectively enslaving "the little people."
Now, there was a time when "big business" really was in the hands of a relative few: the Rockefellers, the Gettys, the Carnegies, etc. But that was more than a century ago.
The fact is that "corporations" are made up of shareholders, including (in a great many instances) the people who work there. By a HUGE margin, the majority category of shareholder is the typical pension fund the beneficiaries of which are retirees or their surviving dependents.
That's who primarily benefits from the success of corporate business. And yes, that even includes the petroleum business--who happen to be benefitting currently from the bidding-up of the price of their product by commodities traders in every country who are reacting (rightly or wrongly) to what they perceive to be the state of the world's affairs.
In the end, there's no conspiracy to take all your stuff so that some CEO somewhere can have another yacht.
Sorry.
Re:Where do I fit into all this? (Score:2, Informative)
In addition, we don't force anyone wanting to sing to be on camera. We encourage it, but don't force it. We use wireless mics, so if folks don't feel like being on cam, they can simply sing from their seats (we only have 1 person that does that because she's self concious about her weight)
The bar pays about $1500 a year in ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fee's for public performance, and AOL has their own deals with these agencies in addition to soundexchange.
So basically, we're covered. Going back to my original question though, since we are on the grey line, if this law passes, are we going to be *required* by law to start using a DRM format?
This would be very detrimental to my broadcasts since in order to record the broadcasts (for later playback when the bar closes) we use streamripper32. If I could not use streamripper to record the live events (which I guess puts this into a whole new realm) we'd be fucked. What about other live broadcasters using the shoutcast system? Would they be shit out of luck too?
If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FOR THIS! (Score:1, Informative)
You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government, you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS!
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:4, Informative)
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P110762.asp [msn.com]
Guarenteed that all top oil execs are making tens of millions of dollars right now, once you throw in stock options, benefits, bonuses, and pensions. Meanwhile, it costs over 40 dollars to fill up your gas tank. Not that oil is unique, its just a good example. Which leads us to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stratificat
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:5, Informative)
I understand your point. I can even logically follow along and agree with your arguement.
But somehow, the CEO still ends up with the new yacht [hamptonroads.com], and the pensions go unfunded [newsmax.com]...
Secure Audio Path (Score:4, Informative)
Just use Total Recorder
Total Recorder is a shim driver. Shim drivers don't work if your streaming station requires the Secure Audio Path, which works only on audio output drivers that have been signed by Microsoft as conforming to Windows Media Digital Restrictions Management rules. Drivers must turn off all cleartext digital outputs as a condition of getting signed; all unsigned drivers get silence. But ye still cannae stop the analog hole.
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:3, Informative)
And I know that in the last decade these number have gotten more skued, not less. Even if you argue that there are not Carnage's or Rockafellers operating right now, the group effects are still the same.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:4, Informative)
It's so sweet to see that some people still naively believe in the hoax of democracy and think that they elect the leaders and therefor the new good time will start
It doesn't matter what's the name of the player that is sitting on the chair, it matters what is behind him. in united states it's either bad guys who have been paid off by the industry or the other bad guys who have done exactly the same. you can change the name on the chairs every day if you want to, but nothing will change (too little too late).
You already tried it out, some people voted arnold to become the head of california
And even if through some miracle you could get an independent candidate up there, then most of the time he has to continue or fix up the mess of the previous man at the job. Without the help from a big strong (offpaid) party, he/she doesn't have the time to go to the toilet and therefor the stuff that you elected for, you still won't get
Democracy died a long time ago, at least on that side of the atlantic ocean.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:3, Informative)
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 are penalized for how you behave under the influence, not the fact that you have a receipt in your wallet. And you don't get arrested for being drunk in a bar, unless you start a fight or cause a great disturbance. The liquor store can't sell you liquor if you already look trashed, but that's to stop you from hurting yourself, and you don't get in trouble for it. We learned the hard way that people can't drive when drunk, but we didn't turn around and ban alcohol, did we?
>Likewise I imagine if you are getting busted for drugs you are being busted in a public location, are cultivating it outside, or selling significant amounts.
Cops go after the most visible targets, sure, and as a result most arrests are for mere posession. (see bottom) Because of the demand, economics dictates that a black market will exist. As the legal deterrants increase (jail time, property seizure, mandatory minimums), dealers will become increasingly dangerous, as their freedom is on the line. Meanwhile, the steady stream of arrests, especially in certain minority communities, erodes public trust in the police, and crime increases. The only reason this hasn't exploded already is because a lot of the people affected are still locked up.
"There have been more than 3.7 million marijuana arrests this decade [1990-2000]. Eighty-three percent of these arrests were for possession only.
Marijuana arrests rose every year since 1991, reaching an all time high of 695,200 in 1997. Marijuana arrests increased 59 percent during this period. Conversely, use of marijuana by adults remained unchanged."
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4015 [norml.org]
Look at the graphs supplied by the US Department of Justice:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm [usdoj.gov]
The arrests just go up and up. And yet we underfund drug rehabilitation programs. Good policy. Can't stop now, there's a war going on.
I called Senator Feinstein's office about this (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:Not like it matters (Score:2, Informative)
How does this bill define a new crime? (Score:3, Informative)
T[he plaintiff in the case of a digital transmission to the public without DRM would be t]he US Department of Justice.
This bill (page 1 [gpo.gov] and page 2 [gpo.gov]) makes no amendment to Title 18, United States Code, which defines crimes. It changes only Title 17, which defines copyrights. Specifically, this bill narrows section 114, which primarily makes exemptions to the exclusive rights under section 106. Therefore, in the case of a licensor and licensee who have agreed to a license under the exclusive rights of section 106 to transmit a work to the public without DRM, how would this bill make either party guilty of a crime or otherwise bring the DOJ into it?
Re:'Your Rights Online"? What rights anymore? (Score:3, Informative)
"The Green Party in the European Parliament has invited Hartmut Pilch, head of the Foundation for Free Information Infrastructure, and Richard Stallman from the Free Software Foundation to speak at a hearing at the European Parliament entitled: "Is software patentability necessary?" The Greens hold only around 10 percent of the seats in the Parliament, but they can still influence the debate and propose amendments to the draft law." - Green Party to hear open source line on patents [infoworld.com]
"The Green Party [of the USA] opposes patenting or copyrighting lifeforms, algorithms, DNA, colors or commonly-used words and phrases. We support broad interpretation and ultimate expansion of the Fair Use of copyrighted works. We support open source and copyleft models in order to promote the public interest and the spirit of copyright." - http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/economics.html [gp.org]
The Greens' core principles [google.com] may be incompatible with most voting slashdotters tho.