Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The RIAA's Push for an Audio Broadcast Flag

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the monopoly-protection dept.

Music 374

aaronsorkin writes "The Recording Industry Association of America has discovered that digital radio broadcasts can be copied and redistributed over the Internet, and so it is pushing the FCC to adopt an audio broadcast flag, which would likely prevent users from sending copyrighted radio programs over the Internet. But it could also hamstring other legitimate uses by preventing a digital radio program from leaving the device on which it was recorded. The FCC has initiated a notice of inquiry (pdf), typically a step leading to formal rule-making. The public may submit comments to the FCC between June 16 and July 16. A lobbyist friend sent me copies of the private correspondence on the subject between RIAA president Cary Sherman and Consumer Electronics Association president Gary Shapiro, and Cryptome just posted them here (pdf) and here (pdf). Yes, they're legit. Mindjack just posted an article I wrote on the subject titled, 'Will Digital Radio Be Napsterized?'"

cancel ×

374 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Since when does (4, Interesting)

The Analog Kid (565327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250711)

the RIAA control radio programs?

Re:Since when does (5, Insightful)

riptide_dot (759229) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250749)

If the FCC lets it dictate their policy, then whenever that happens...

Until then, Radio content is still regulated by the FCC - an equally biased organization nonetheless...

Re:Since when does (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250825)

Since many radio stations broadcast music that is owned by record labels who are members of the RIAA.

Re:Since when does (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251037)

What about the radio stations that are directly owned by the record labels?

Re:Since when does (5, Insightful)

jdunlevy (187745) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250844)

he RIAA control radio programs?
Since they found out they actually can control webcasting. That was a crucial slide down the slippery slop, and the RIAA will see how far down they can push us.

Re:Since when does (2, Insightful)

CarrionBird (589738) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251039)

When they were allowed to become a de-facto part of government. Thank senators WB and Sony and pals.

FCC (0, Offtopic)

fitch609 (530352) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250715)

Honestly, the RIAA is getting ridiculous now. You can just record the radio onto a tape cassette if you really wanted it that bad. They just need to give up... First post!!

Re:FCC (5, Insightful)

kemapa (733992) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250788)

They just need to give up...

I agree with you that they need to lighten up a bit, but based on history they will not. Remember the whole 'crisis' over video recorders way back in the day? A more contemporary example is the TiVO controversy, with many broadcast networks saying that TiVO will end their business model and cable will be the only option for TV, which is simply untrue. New technology often spurs fear because people fear what certain things _might_ be used for. Just like a gun, it _might_ be used for illegal purposes, but it might not as well. But what _might_ happen is not a good excuse for stifling technological development

Re:FCC (2, Insightful)

malamute5 (781936) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250888)

The entertainment industry doesn't see things in context. I know many people who didn't watch TV until they bought a TIVO, and now they watch at least an hour per day. Who cares if they skip commercials every once in a while. Same thing with Napster and file sharing raising record sales for the 2 years following its release. If they pulled their heads out of their ass, and not make snap-judgements, they might start making good choices.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250716)

Another useless "feature" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250724)

Flags are easily ignored, and if the stream is sent out in-tact it's a non issue anyway. When will they learn?

Re:Another useless "feature" (4, Interesting)

pragma_x (644215) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250994)

Flags are easily ignored, and if the stream is sent out in-tact it's a non issue anyway. When will they learn?

Yes, it will probably be easy to circumvent, as is true with many other copy protection schemes.

But what this AC fails to realize here is that by instituting a legitimate 'copy-protection feature' (albeit very flimsy) it serves only as a legal lightning rod for copyright violation lawsuits. Furthermore, it bolsters the media's image of attempting to protect what it has, lest someone contests the issue that it more or less 'looks' like they don't care who violates copyright for radio broadcasts. Also the latter may not be much more of a deterrent, but I'm sure the members of the RIAA have shareholders (not just customers) to think about too.

Think of it this way: how much easier would it be to circumvent being fined, or contest and reduce those fines, for speeding if the limit wasn't even posted? The RIAA is now just trying to put the signs up.

IMO, if this goes through, the FCC/RIAA will be able to say that people have 'willfully broken/violated a protection measure' rather than just saying 'they ignored copyright law'. (DMCA anyone?)

NX? (-1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250728)

My money says this is precisely the intended use of the NX (no execute) command supposedly being instituted in teh upcoming service pack of Windows XP.

Re:NX? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250772)

No way dude. You're going at it all wrong. MS will never do anything that could reliably stop piracy as long as it is helping corporate competitors. It's not in MS's interests. They want Sony dead because that's their growth market. Once the competitors are gone, well okay, but no sooner than that.

Re:NX? (2, Interesting)

riptide_dot (759229) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250776)

I thought that the NX command was being put in to make sure that code could only be executed in certain memory spaces, not to make sure that only certain code could be executed.

And it requires specific processors and chipsets that support the command.

My understanding was that it's more for protection of the stability of the OS, not protection of copyrights of software...

Re:NX? (1)

Spellbinder (615834) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250821)

as soon as they (not you as it should be) have control of your computer everything is possible

Re:NX? (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250830)

You would be correct. XPSP2 supports NX (or as SP2 refers to it, Data Execution Prevention [DEP]). However, I don't know which CPUs support it, if any, currently.

Re:NX? (2, Informative)

Geiger581 (471105) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250785)

Sorry, but it's No eXecute, not No Read. NX can only prevent execution of code not intended to be executed (stack or data space), not prevent the reading of memory space of a program. NX should be appreciated solely on the grounds that it steals a great deal of Palladium's thunder, postponing that nightmare a little further.

Re:NX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250894)

Sorry, you're wrong. Can I have the money now?

Foolish. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250741)

Foolish sums up all of their attempts at putting the genie back in the bottle. RIAA, wake up, the younger generation doesn't think twice about obtaining copies of the music they want, despite what legislation you buy. You can't turn back the clock legally and expect that to cause cultural backpedalling.

Re:Foolish. (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251079)

Most people don't understand copyright anyway.

Ethically or otherwise. I was talking about previewing an upcoming movie before shelling out $20 to go see it with my SO and got into a morality discussion with someone who I knew had just shared a tape of a recent popular PPV and didn't see the analogue in behaviour even after having it explained.

People will do what they want and will believe what they want.

LOL (1)

dot_borg (751877) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250742)

It just never ends with the RIAA.

napsterized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250743)

I used to listen to a couple of radio stations while i surfed the net, with this will copying them to my computer be ilegal?

Re:napsterized? (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250758)

This doesn't make copying them any more legal or illegal then they already are, just slightly more difficult.

Evil bit... (5, Funny)

b.e.n.n.y_b.o.y_1234 (652631) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250748)

Why don't they just set the 'evil' bit?!

Re:Evil bit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250912)

They are the evil bit...

Re:Evil bit... (2, Funny)

petepac (194110) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251075)

...And a Sticky Bit at that.

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250757)

first post, bwhahahahahah!

easy to bypass (5, Insightful)

eisenbud (708663) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250764)

How lossy is hooking up the line out of your digital radio to your computer's sound input? Obviously you wouldn't want to do that over and over again, but I bet after one iteration of digital to analog to digital you'd still have very good sound quality. So this won't even work terribly well to "prevent piracy".

Re:easy to bypass (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250852)

The Audigy panels (from Sound Blaster) have digital input and output through optical fiber, maybe you can try that right now.

Re:easy to bypass (1)

eisenbud (708663) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251002)

Right, except it seems less likely that things that honor the broadcast flag will be happy to give you digital output. Unless they do it under some DMCA-encumbered DRM scheme. Which of course people will probably figure out how to break eventually. But it seems that rerecording (for your own personal use, of course) from the analog audio that they already will have to output will be more likely legal. And the tools for doing so (an RCA cable) will be less likely to be hounded off the internet than the software tools for breaking the DRM.

Re:easy to bypass (2, Interesting)

forand (530402) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250917)

I think that the RIAA is trying to just make it harder. They thought that tapes were the end of the world too but in the end they realized that it was just too time consuming to make copies of all your records. They worry about it now if you can make 10k copies in just a few minutes, this bit flag would only be on US electronics and not universal so the problem will still be there just harder for people in the US. Also it will mean that electronics will cost, however slightly, more due to being forced to include analysis of this bit.

I don't think anyone would care if the RIAA wanted to make all broadcasts have a bit that says it is copyrighted, what makes us mad is that they want to force all the electronics makers to not allow the owner of the electron device to use all aspects of the device on media with this bit set.

Introductions... (3, Insightful)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250767)

Fair use, meet the circular file. Circular file, meet fair use.

Re:Introductions... (1)

56ker (566853) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251010)

Yet another nail in the coffin of freedom of speech and the ability to do things easily. Mind you I'm sure they'll incorporate DRM into everything new eventually and then just wait for the other hardware devices to fail....

Re:Introductions... (0)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251020)

Error: cannot move file c:/system/startup-sound/brittney_mickey_mouse_duet .mp3 to directory c:/bin/circular. Operation not permitted by ABC/Disney.

Flag (5, Insightful)

nkh (750837) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250774)

And the broadcast flag is automatically cleared when the packet leaves american computers? We should tell Cisco to put this new feature in their routers.

Re:Flag (1)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250804)


The flag is encoded into the music at a higher layer, not layer 2.

Re:Flag (1)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250835)

s/2/3/g ... blah.

Re:Flag (3, Funny)

Petronius (515525) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250871)

The American flag?

Remember DAT? (5, Informative)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250777)

They did this about 15 years ago with what was the last promising tape-based format, and ended up killing the medium for pretty much everyone but pro audio studios. Wonder how much potential revenue they missed out on w/ that fiasco?

Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (5, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250778)

where the villains' scheme depended on the "fact" that no matter what type of regulatory and taxation hell the industries were put under, they'd still produce, and this provide power to the very people who were strangling them.

How long until people just give up and listen to local music? Leave the RIAA to the sheep, and the sheep to the RIAA, and the sheep will get what they deserve. Remember, the only reason that ??AA organizations have any influence is that people buy their stuff. You have two options: buy their stuff, but don't complain, or don't buy their stuff, and try and support alternative markets - local bands, live concerts, low power FM, etc.

Hear Hear! Count me out for RIAA profits also. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9251028)

I don't buy their stuff:
I don't listen to the radio.
I don't buy CD's.
I don't even listen to music produced in the
United States anymore.

Hey, RIAA? You can take your 'popular' music and shove it up your collective asses.
Thanks for driving creative talent out of business in the states. We really appreciate it.

Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251029)

The only problem is that I shouldn't have to jump through flaming hoops to avoid being a sheep.

I'd rather work hard at setting policy and providing feedback than sitting back and letting the 'sheep' get their due and having to work hard to spend 50$ on specialty cables and tools to circumvent useless technological and legal constraints.

The reason the ??AA have influence is because they represent a BUNCH of competitors in a market and thus have influence that depends more on people's desire for that commodity (music, movies) rather than a specific distributor/brand.

Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (5, Informative)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251038)

You have two options: buy their stuff, but don't complain, or don't buy their stuff, and try and support alternative markets - local bands, live concerts, low power FM, etc.

This is undoubtedly what the long term future holds. However, for the next 50 years, if you don't buy their stuff outright, they'll just get a law passed under which the government collects money from you on their behalf. You will pay the RIAA whether you want to or not.

Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9251043)

You remind me of all the pseudo-intellectuals I've had to put up with in my life simply because I enjoy a good cup of coffee.

People that do things you disagree with are not sheep.
People that make a tradeoff in your principles to acquire something they want in the most moral fashion possible are not worth less than you.

You have boiled a very complicated issue down to two ridiculously simplified choices, neither of which is even mutually exclusive. You are not my arbiter of taste, and I suspect that holds for a fuck of a lot of people.

You are not special. You are not unique. And your Atlas Shrugged reference makes me realize that you are probably a nasty windbag that would make me regret having a sense of hearing if I were ever to spend time in your presence. Have a good day.

Re:Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged (4, Insightful)

tetsuji (572812) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251047)

How long until people just give up and listen to local music? Leave the RIAA to the sheep, and the sheep to the RIAA, and the sheep will get what they deserve.

Too many sheep.

FUCK RADIO (4, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250787)

I don't even listen to radio anyway. Of course, I'll still be arguing against the broadcast flags anytime it comes up, but I haven't listened to the radio in, hell, I can't remember how long.

Besides, I doubt digital terrestrial radio will take off, same way that digital terrestrial television has not taken off - the few people watching terrestrial DTV are those with HD sets.

If an industry doesn't see fit to give me my legal rights, then I won't use their product, and I will do my damndest to make sure other people don't use their product either.

I resent being told that I can't do something because I *might* use it for illegal purposes. Even if what I'm actually *planning* to do is fully legal.

And, just like virtually every other protection system out there, it WILL be broken. The only one I know of that HASN'T been broken publically is digital cable - and I feel it's been broken, but just not revealed to the public yet.

Re:FUCK RADIO (3, Interesting)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250956)

I don't think I've listened to any radio but NPR (for news) for about a year now. Otherwise, I ask some of my friends what they like and give it a listen, then buy it from one of the online stores (like the iTunes store).

Otherwise, radio for me died when I turned it on, heard the same songs I had heard 12 months before played every 2 hours, turned it off for 2 months, turned it on (same songs from 2 months ago every few hours), turned it off for 4 months, and repeat.

I figure another 8 months and I'll see if anything new is playing. Till then, forget it.

Re:FUCK RADIO (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251000)

Having talked to some friends with digital cable I'm pretty sure it is broken.

OTOH browsing the alt.binaries.multimedia Heirarchy suggests that the digital cable encryption has been cracked.

Re:FUCK RADIO (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251061)

Well, assuming that you're fairly well-versed on the subject, I'm sure you're aware of the use of HPF's and why they are only a band-aid measure for getting temporary free PPV. I hadn't heard anything specific about QAM encryption, but like I said, I would about guarantee that somewhere in the world is documentation detailing how to decrypt any QAM signal and retrieve the raw video.

RIAA broadcast flag? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250790)

Don't we already have one of those [50thaib.org] ?

shi7.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250792)

..and then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250793)

...it'll be cracked...and then they'll modify their protection scheme..and then someone will crack it again... Eventually someone will sue, the RIAA will start yet another campaign about theft and attempt prosecution. You know, I don't sympathize with music swappers at all, but the RIAA seems Hell bent on looking as stupid as possible these days.

Little Slow, here's a mirror (3, Informative)

karmatic (776420) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250815)

Here [t28.net] .

Re:Little Slow, here's a mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250936)

Actually, the FCC link works fine. The "top secret" cryptome.org links are slashdotted though. Got a mirror for those?

Sick of the RIAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250816)

Who do these guys think they are? I know they are trying to protect their products - but they are forcing rules that cripple other applications and use. Hosers!

RIAA wants a pay, not play button (3, Insightful)

Fiz Ocelot (642698) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250836)

"Also, as noted in your letter, there is no content "license" at issue because RIAA members have no licensable right that could be a basis for imposing limitations on free broadcasts."

Looks like this may be a lot harder for the RIAA than mp3 issues to me.

Re:RIAA wants a pay, not play button (1)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250948)

No licensable right? What about the rights granted by 17 U.S.C. 107(1),(3), and (6)? [cornell.edu] It would seem that the copyright holder or their representatibe would have the right to prevent unauthorized copying, distribution, and public performance by digital audio transmission. That's not to say this broadcast flag is the best way to protect those rights, but they certainly have those rights to protect.

bullshit (1)

An0maly (448481) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250841)

i don't see how any of this will stop me from taking line out to line in and just recording/encoding shit myself.

Fair enough (4, Interesting)

nacturation (646836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250845)

This may be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with this. Radio is there for you to listen to and enjoy. The music is being broadcast to you at no charge (excepting commercial-free services like XM and Sirius) and the broadcaster sets the licensing terms. Naturally, the broadcaster needs to comply with the licensing terms of the copyright owner, represented typically by the RIAA.

So what rights are being infringed here? Unless you're paying a radio station to broadcast your own music to you, you are not in posession of a license to the music. So fair use in terms of copying to your computer, etc. doesn't apply as you haven't purchased anything. One could make the argument from a research standpoint and being able to record samples for the purposes of critique, etc. This would easily be fulfilled by plugging a jack into the headphone slot and recording the non-digital output to tape or via line-in on a computer and you'd still get better quality than any non-digital radio station that exists today.

Honestly, I don't see an issue here.

Re:Fair enough (2, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250903)

I believe if you have a right to access the analog version, you also have a right to access the clean digital version. You don't lose any rights just because it's 0s and 1s, instead of a variable voltage.

So now, it's apparently a crime to be a purist, and want direct access to high quality media? Sure, maybe the analog version might be good enough for you, but if you're a purist, then it's not.

Re:Fair enough (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251015)

I believe if you have a right to access the analog version, you also have a right to access the clean digital version. You don't lose any rights just because it's 0s and 1s, instead of a variable voltage.

So now, it's apparently a crime to be a purist, and want direct access to high quality media? Sure, maybe the analog version might be good enough for you, but if you're a purist, then it's not.


I've been listening to analog acoustic waves all my life so, pray tell, where can I get a direct digital audio feed into my brain?

Seriously though... why else would you want a clean digital version unless it's to record to another medium? And given that such a recording is a copyright violation because you don't have a license to the copyrighted material, what makes you think that it's your sacred right?

If you don't like the fact that you don't have any rights to the material you listen to over a digital radio broadcast, don't listen to it. Go and purchase a CD and enjoy your fair use rights that you (still) have because of the purchase.

If your issue is that "copyright is evil", then fine... do something to reform the system. However, given current copyright law you're not losing any rights because you had no rights to the radio broadcast to begin with.

Re:Fair enough (1)

CodeMonkey4Hire (773870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251033)

(I hope that I'm wrong about this, but...)

What rights do you have over the analog version? You have a right to listen/watch to the broadcast, but I don't think that you have the right to make an analog copy and do as you wish with it. Just because it is nearly impossible to catch/prevent people copying off the radio or TV doesn't mean that you have rights to it.

I know that information wants to be free, but I am talking about legal rights.

Re:Fair enough (1)

Fratz (630746) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250941)

The only issue I see is that if the RIAA gets its way, it'll mean manufacturers have to research, develop, and produce solutions to the RIAA's "problem" and end up costing me money when I buy their broken equipment.

Re:Fair enough (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251046)

The only issue I see is that if the RIAA gets its way, it'll mean manufacturers have to research, develop, and produce solutions to the RIAA's "problem" and end up costing me money when I buy their broken equipment.

Why would you buy broken equipment then? Spend your money elsewhere. Nobody's forcing you to go out and buy a crippled digital receiver.

Re:Fair enough (1)

saderax (718814) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250951)

The issue is not in the licensing of the music. My concern is more in the peddling of new technologies to ensure their futile copy prevention measures will be implemented. Now I must buy new descrambling radios for the home and the car if i choose to listen to the free media provided.

To summarize, I agree that the music rights are undoubtedly owned by the RIAA and brodcasted freely by the radio stations. However no matter what new DRM enabled player _I_ must buy to access the supposed free content, the new standards will impose no negative effect on music piracy. "if i can hear it, i can copy it" (if i so choose to break the law), and until they start forcefully marketing DRM enabled speakers and ears, the (legal) consumer will pay double. (once for the media, once for the player.) </RANT>

Re:Fair enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9251024)

"I agree that the music rights are undoubtedly owned by the RIAA"

You'd be wrong. This is a really complex area of copyright, but these rights are actually owned by people like BMI and ASCAP.

I think the record companies are trying for a coup whereby they eliminate fair use and cut out BMI/ASCAP in a single stroke.

You are mistaken (5, Interesting)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250960)

Consider someone listening to a radio show and writing an article about it. That would be fair use, no? Then if that someone happens to be a radio journalist, is it not also fair use for said radio journalist to include a snippet of the original broadcast?

This happens all the time. Ever heard that famous Hindenburg broadcast? How about snippets from famous radio shows?

It's no good to say you should make your own analogue recording. That's an artificial limit to fair use. What if said journalist is a poor starving student who does everything on a home computer? Are you saying students have to buy D/A and A/D converters to become journalists?

You can't start limiting fair use, or it becomes unfair use.

What a silly thing to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250997)

"and the broadcaster sets the licensing terms"

No they don't. I don't agree to any license when I listen to the radio. I just got a new car, and I checked the radio book. Nope, no license.

There was no "I AGREE" button when I listened to some music this morning. Nothing like that.

So what you've done is set up a strawman ("Broadcasters set up licensing terms") and then concoct a legal "theory" on why this is okay.

Well first of all, there is no licensing terms related to listening to the radio, either analog or things like Shoutcast, and I didn't agree to do anything. I've always been able to tape from radio for my personal enjoyment, and why you think switching from digital to analog changes is the equation is a mystery. Frankly, you seem more like a troll than being well thought out.

I don't need a license to listen to radio, I don't need a license to exercise the rights that are spelled out in constituional law regarding copyrights.

In short, you're all wet.

Re:Fair enough (2, Informative)

Cbs228 (596164) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251006)

So fair use in terms of copying to your computer, etc. doesn't apply as you haven't purchased anything.

That is simply not true. Traditionally, consumers have had the right to "time shift" or "media shift" copyrighted works. "Time shifting" is what allows you to legally record a T.V. show (either with a VHS tape or a PVR) for later viewing. The inclusion of a broadcast flag takes away this right. Yes, time-shifting can be used for copyright infringement, but that does not change the fact that the RIAA et. al are attempting to deprive consumers of their fair use rights.

The EFF has more information on this here [eff.org] .

Re:Fair enough (1)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251026)

This would easily be fulfilled by plugging a jack into the headphone slot and recording the non-digital output to tape or via line-in on a computer and you'd still get better quality than any non-digital radio station that exists today.

I hate to play devil's advocate (ok, I lie, I love it, but I hate to do it for the RIAA) but it would seem that this would open you up to DMCA liability. The way I read the anticircumvention provisions [cornell.edu] this would be a "circumvent[ion of] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under" Title 17.

useless (0, Troll)

eegad (588763) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250847)

When will the RIAA realize that they can't control technology that's already been unleashed? What they really need to do is charge us a listening fee for letting the songs enter our ears. If they initiated a per song per ear license then they'd be set. They might as well try cause it'd work just about as well.

covered under normal broadcast flag? (1)

musikit (716987) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250850)

if they transmit as a HDTV signal (not familiar with subject so please forgive) and just didn't put in a video signal wouldn't the normal broadcast flag cover this?

or does the current broadcast flag only cover video? so i couldn't save in HDTV format but i would be able to listen to the THX sound?

Re:covered under normal broadcast flag? (2, Informative)

kb7oeb (543726) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251084)

The FCC restricts what modulation can be broadcast on what frequency. Digital TV broadcasts are modulated with 8VSB (Vestigial Side Band) where digital radio uses IBOC with COFDM. Using IBOC they can transmit Analog and Digital at the same time on the same frequency.

I found a website that talks about it. http://www.fact-index.com/d/di/digital_audio_broad casting.html [fact-index.com]

Uhm, and so what does a flag do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250851)

I don't see how this is such a big deal even if they do put flags in the streams. From the beginning Digital Radio was supposedly DRM'd and obviously it was sham. Why should flags change things? I've no doubt that under just the right in vitro conditions it does what it's supposed to. But put it out in the wild and its dead in a matter of hours.
As others point out, it's a hopeless battle. Information wants to be free. This isn't some conspiracy. This goes back literally thousands of years. Trying to control how people use information is not only morally reprehensible and an insult to humanity, it is about as practical as hearding mosquitos in an open field.

This will just keep getting worse (1, Funny)

Quixadhal (45024) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250860)

As long as the RIAA is given the same freedoms that the real Mafia enjoyed in Chicago, they will continue acting like this.

"So, I says to my pal Vinny here, that I didn't think yer MCL (Music Creation License) was quite.. shall we say... up to snuff."

"Hehe, ya... snuff!"

"Quiet! Anyways, I was thinkin... Maybe if ye wanted to help us out, wese could maybe help you out. Vinny and I were really looking to find some of those Internet Terrorists, you knows... the ones that download YOUR music without paying US first? And if you could maybe point a few out, we could get that whole MCL cleared up, capeche?"

watermark? (1)

Chuck Bucket (142633) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250873)

so what happy name will they come up with for this type of 'watermark', and how long before someone figures out how to 'clean' a recording of this?

I guess the internet is the last 'free' place for music, thus the RIAA needs to push it outta the way as well.

PCGB

Re:watermark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9251062)

so what happy name will they come up with for this type of 'watermark', and how long before someone figures out how to 'clean' a recording of this?

The idea of a watermark, to make a copy uniqe so it can be associated with a specific owner (even after reproduction).
The idea of radio, distribute to many anonymous receivers while sending once.

These can not be made compatible in an efficiant *and* secure way even if you could radio listeners to subscribe with real names.

I like it (2, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250879)

Maybe some can't tell the difference with their lousy computer speakers, but to a real audiophile, music sounds much better with a broadcast flag.

It's like salt for music. You don't have to have it, it's just better with it.

*sigh* they still don't get one simple fact (5, Insightful)

acroyear (5882) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250880)

any digital protection system can be broken, no matter HOW complicated.

the one way that breaks ALL digital protection systems, and still leaves the content with decent audio, is to go through an analog phase. record from the output of your sound card into another computer via the analog lines, you only lose one analog generation (negligable given how lossy mp3 encoding was on the original content), and get a perfectly rippable copy on the other side with no history of any DRM preserved whatsoever.

so you DRM bastards: KNOCK IT OFF!

All DRM does is make the stupid feel empowered, the common person feel condescended to, and the pirates feel bored as to how easy it was to crack it...

In other news today ... (3, Funny)

Jtheletter (686279) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250882)

...the RIAA began legal filings to sue numerous users of an online news forum collectively known as "slashdotters" for copyright infringement of internal emails.

The emails, stored in a digital format known as PDF (which the RIAA maintains is yet another tool used exclusively by online hackers and pirates for the sole purpose of stealing IP), while not normally covered by copyright, were in this case earmarked by RIAA president Cary Sherman for use in his new book: Digital Stranglehold - a Step-by-Step Guide to Forcefully Prevent Any Exchange of Audio Information Whatsoever in the New Millenium - or - How to Ram the Buttplug of DRM Further up the American Consumer's Ass.

Thanks to Globalization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250890)

Thanks to Globalization I can listen to Norweigan or Dutch radio without any of that. I don't like American music anyway. How many Boy Bands can you stand? It's all psychedelic trance and black metal for me folks. And to tell you the truth most of my music comes from overseas.

Ive got a flag for the RIAA (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250901)

They need to wave one of these [aaronfein.com] , cuz they can't stop the revolution

It's just like a game of Illuminati (4, Funny)

TheTXLibra (781128) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250905)

Shock Jocks are controlled by the FCC.
The FCC is controlled by the Supreme Court, which is controlled Bavarian Illuminati.
RIAA is controlled by Cthulhu.
RIAA with the assistance of Cthulhu will attempt to control the FCC... and they're bidding tons of megabucks.

...let's hope to God they roll an 11 or 12.

-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old. [everything2.com]

When a man is drowning... (4, Interesting)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250906)

...we say that he goes down for the 3rd time to mean that he used up his chances for life and he's finally going under for good.

This is really the RIAA and its members going down for the 3rd time.

What I'm really waiting for is for the sh*t to hit the fan when Joe Six Pack buys his $3K HDTV, and pays Comcast $150 a month for HDTV content and then another $2K for his Digital VCR (or DVD or whatever), and he presses the RECORD button to tape the latest Victoria Secret underwear show, and a message pops up that says "Due to copyright restrictions, you may not record".

All of the sudden people will understand what people like the EFF have been complaining about for years.

Right now, congress and the FCC is passing these goofy laws and regulations because there's no downside; broadcast flag? Sure. DRM? Sure. Whatever will keep Hollywood happy.

But when people begin to complain about losing their ability to do what they do today, people are going to be very unhappy, and that's the stuff that brings people out to vote. Remember, Florida? It only take a few people to tip an entire election.

DRM on consumer audio in the past has been the death of a new format. I don't think things have changed that much. Unhappy consumers won't buy stuff.

And if consumers aren't buying TV's, Radio's and Computers because of Hollywood/RIAA lobbying, things will change quickly.

robbIE's push for gnu online dating evapourates (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9250908)

so, did anywon ever really 'date' the won-eyed girl? is the refudlicking moon/mars/bars shot still scheduled for the fall?

The next logical step: (4, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250910)

Memory flag

All audio/video devices will have to be able to broadcast the memory flag. Only individuals who have had the necessary surgery (elective, not typically covered by insurance) will be able to actually view such content. Depending on the decision of the content provider, the content might almost immediately disappear from a person's memory, be a faint memory driving the repurchase of an opportunity to see/hear it again, or could be lodged so firmly in their brain of the end-user that they will have to pay extra to get rid of it.

They're just now figuring this out? (2, Informative)

ManyLostPackets (646646) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250914)

Zinf [zinf.org] has long allowed for the saving of digital broadcasts, from shoutcast at least. But I havn't tested it on other formats, like .m3u streams and what-not (and can't 'cause I'm at work)

This is just another failed attempt... (4, Interesting)

karmatic (776420) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250965)

This is just another failed attempt to excercise control over digital services. It's to be expected - they are convinced it will make them more money in the end, and as such they feel compelled to stop it.

This technology, like Macrovision (that's not technically digital, but it fits), DVD's CSS, Adobe PDF, Zip File Passwords, iTunes, SDMI, Microsoft Reader, DirecTV, those silly self-destructing DVDs, faulty CD Toc's, autorun-based protection, SecuRom, Game Consoles, LaserLok, and any other number of protection technologies, it will be defeated, broken, or bypassed).

Hundreds of man-hours, hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing, and the only real protection still lying around is simple cryptography (and only when the keys aren't given to users at all, instead of this "hide it in the box, but don't tell anyone" crap).

The only real reason to be concerned is the "stifiling innovation" issue. What devices, technologies, or uses will I lose because of this? To some extent, it benefits open-source, as open-source software can address markets made smaller by the fact that the only way to use the services the way you want is to break the law.

However, how many cool gizmos, gadgets, and whatnots haven't been made, thanks to the DMCA etc.?

Just a little something to think about.

Its real easy to break this... (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250980)

http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fna me=CTLG&product%5Fid=42-2550

Once again RIAA shows us its inability (2, Insightful)

famazza (398147) | more than 10 years ago | (#9250996)

Once again RIAA shows us that is simply can't adapt themselves to the new reality of information sharing.

Internet isn't just a new media, or a new commercial channel. It's also a new and improved way to communicate. For those who want me to be even more clear, it's a new way to share and exchange information.

The fact is that internet users will, for itself, share information among each other. That's what a communication tool meant to do. And there's nothing RIAA can do that'll will avoid 95% of the world population (US residents are 5% only) sharing information, musing included.

RIAA must do just like any other group or company around the world when a new technology tries to ruin its buissines, adapt.

Not adapting itself to the new technological reality, RIAA is opening huge chances of new visionaries company or groups to be successful, being the first in the market and getting ahead even before RIAA can think in any action to avoid it.

The revolution is in its way. All we can do (including RIAA) is adapt ourselves to it. It's useless to try to stop a train without destroying it.

foriegn hardware (1)

greywar (640908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251008)

Is it just me, or can anyone else see a future where cracked hardware that ignores DRM flags will suddenly be flooding the market? I can't beleive that the RIAA thinks this is going to work? Who thinks of this? the RIAA's 'gifted' child? All this does is stop US companies. The FCC does not control the world. Gah...the stupidity of this just drives me insane. Wheres my gun?

OK RIAA, time to fuck off. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9251016)

Listen, I'm totally sick of your shit. You come across as a paranoid obsessive-compulsive organization that I find extremely unpleasant and distasteful.

Unlike those poor people who are afflicted with paranoia and obsessive-compulsive disorder, there is no treatment or hope for you. I don't want anything to do with you.

Keep your precious copyrights and DRM and be miserable in your own little reality without your customers.

In other words, fuck off.

All your radio... (5, Funny)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251032)

Consumers: What happen?
Slash-Dot: Somebody set up us the Broadcast Flag.
Slash-Dot: We get SUED.
Consumers: What!
Slash-Dot: Main screen turn on.
Consumers: It's You!!
RIAA: How are you gentlemen!!
RIAA: All your radio are belong to us.
RIAA: Your fair use rights are on the way to destruction.
Consumers: What you say!!
RIAA: Your rights have no chance to survive make your time.
RIAA: HA HA HA HA!
RIAA: Sue you all
Consumers: You know what you doing.
RIAA: Landsharks, engage
Consumers: For great justice.

At this rate (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251049)

the RIAA is bound to push for implanted "ear-meters" in everyone, and automatic billing whenever music is listened to.

likely? (1)

AyeRoxor! (471669) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251053)

which would likely prevent users from sending copyrighted radio programs over the Internet

Likely ATTEMPT maybe. Likely prevent?

Not...
um. Not..

Well, not likely.

If I listen to a song... (2, Interesting)

midifarm (666278) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251057)

If I listen to a song playing in my head, do I have to pay royalties on it?

Peace

RIAA taking over word of mouth (3, Funny)

Fullmetal Edward (720590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251063)

12 year old girl caught singing Britney in the shower. RIAA sue for 17 billion dollars over copyright issues.

Next on in the future news!

Old programs? (3, Interesting)

eviljolly (411836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9251066)

So how are they going to stop us from using older programs to broadcast the media? I don't feel a need to upgrade my shoutcast server just so I can have a radio broadcast flag that rats me out when I'm broadcasting copyrighted music. They would either have to change the way the internet works, or force a new media type on us other than mp3.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>