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."
Not like it matters (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
This is a GOOD thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
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]like foie gras (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
mplayer (Score:2, Interesting)
America Government by and for the Corporations... (Score:2, Interesting)
The dishonorable Sentator John "I am a Jackass" Kerry proved all this to me once. Thank God that Son of Satan didn't become President.
I wrote him a carefully worded letter expressing my opinions as someone whom he represents (BULLSHIT, he represents Disney, et al). I got a very nicely worded form letter in return which basically told me I could go to hell, and that the rights of the Corporations were far more important than mine to free speech and fair use.
Where do I fit into all this? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:WTF! They spend fucking tax dollars on this shi (Score:3, Interesting)
They have a perfect clue of how much money they did pocket from the RIAA just before trying to get that stupid stuff in.
death toll for podcasting? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:'Your Rights Online"? What rights anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Democracy isn't always very democratic (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Where do I fit into all this? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 letter of US law.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed. All one has to do is offer private certs to the subscribe base and pipe the stream over SSL.
Scott
Meanwhile, in Canada.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The story is covered HERE [theglobeandmail.com]
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, that's democracy for ya (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:3, Interesting)
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!!
Re:Not like it matters (Score:3, Interesting)
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 too drunk in a bar. 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.
I would like to note for the most part I agree with your sentiment, but I think too many people do exactly what you accuse our government of with the war on drugs, misrepresenting facts to demonize the problems.
Re:Not like it matters (Score:5, Interesting)