×

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!

RIAA Trying to Copy-Protect Radio

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

Technology 364

doctorfaustus writes "The EFF is reporting that "the RIAA has been pushing the FCC to impose a copy-protection mandate on the makers of next-generation digital radio receiver/recorders (think TiVo-for-radio)." According to Mike Godwin, "Never mind that digital audio broadcasting is not significantly greater in quality than regular, analog radio. Never mind that its music quality is vastly less than than that of audio CDs. In spite of these inconvenient facts, the RIAA is hoping that the transition to "digital audio broadcasting" will provide enough confusion and panic that they can persuade Congress or the FCC to impose some kind of copy-protection scheme or regulation on digital radio broadcast." "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

364 comments

In other news... (5, Funny)

k31bang (672440) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605157)

In other news, the RIAA is pushing the FCC for copy-protection on vocal cords.

Re:In other news... (3, Funny)

servicemaster (903088) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605218)

RIAA's dream technology. Encrypted music that can be heard only once by the human ear, then after that you have to pay them.

Re:In other news... (1)

shredluc (805905) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605298)

I'm sorry, but your vocal-cord copy protection scheme has been denied. The constitutional right to free speech shal not be infringed.

Now please report to your nearest ECPE Center(Eardrum Copy Protection Enhancement) for mandatory auditory modification. All violators shal be tried and sentenced at the RIAA RILA (Really idiotic litigating a$$clowns) court system - minimum fine: 24 hours of forced listening to Britney Spears singing "Baby One More Time".

Re:In other news... (2, Funny)

sedyn (880034) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605301)

I thought that the music industry gained that power over artists and their lyrics years ago...

Would this mean that karaoke violates the DCMA?

DMCMCIA (1)

Foktip (736679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605549)

Ever notice how nobody can ever spell DMCA properly?

Im always calling it the "DCMA" or the "DCMCA" or the "DMCMCA" ... hehheh

Its one of those vague meaningless acronyms that fail to register as "something valuable" in our minds. And the brain is very good at forgetting useless crap.

Re:In other news... (5, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605355)

The RIAA is also pushing for a mandatory surcharge whenever vocal cords are created, since they can be used to violate RIAA's existing copyrights.

Will someone please... (5, Funny)

stox (131684) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605163)

shoot RIAA, and take them out of our misery.

Re:Will someone please... (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605200)

shoot RIAA, and take them out of our misery.

Sorry, but the gangsta rappers are still shooting at each other. When they are done, assuming they have enough guns and bullets left, I'm certain they would be happy to oblige. (Unless bribed with sufficient Bling-Bling to rub you out instead.)

Re:Will someone please... (2, Funny)

Fantasio (800086) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605427)

So far, RIAA has only been shooting itself in the foot. They should aim higher !

Breaking News (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605164)

From Ronald Eagleye, our on the spot reporter, Fenwick Finster was apprehended while recording FM radio broadcasts on his digital video camera at the public swimming pool, after RIAA informers tipped off police. Finster claimed it was clearly a misunderstanding, though he refused to explain why he was in the women's locker room with the video camera under his trenchcoat.

Re:Breaking News (1)

Nuskrad (740518) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605291)

I know it's a joke, but under UK law at least (possibly US aswell, but I'm not sure) incidental recording of copyrighted material isn't classed as an infringement of copyright.

This just in (1)

coolGuyZak (844482) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605293)

In a recent press release, an explanation for Finster's whereabouts has been given. "The women's locker room has the best reception," said Harold "The Grease" Lackmeyer, counsel for Finster.

Quality of bits over quantity of bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605189)

>>Never mind that digital audio broadcasting is not significantly greater in quality than regular, analog radio. Never mind that its music quality is vastly less than than that of audio CDs.

Never mind that the huge majority of radio stations play absolute crap like "Lite 80s" or Top 40 for teenage girls.

Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (5, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605194)

I ran tens of thousands of dollars of radio ads this year for my retail stores (focused on 10-22 year olds). Few people heard them.

Why? Radio is dead or dying for most younger people. All my employees under 21 podcast or listen to playlists. The RIAA doesn't really have any idea what they're chasing. Putting a Band-Aid on a corpse is useless.

I'm not fan of music piracy (I used to run a warez pirate BBS 15 years back) anymore. Why? There is nothing worth pirating. The radio doesn't appeal to the market that likes that music. People used to go to concerts, too, but my last concert was $95/ticket for an fairly-unknown electronica band -- the crowd was thin.

Let them DRM everything valuable to them. I'm fine with it! I have no desire to bootleg what I can afford to buy if it pleases me enough. I'll continue to go to $8 Indie bar shows, buy the bands' $10 CDs and $10 T-shirts, and ignore my car radio. My house hasn't had a radio for 10 years.

As it gets harder for consumers to consume, they switch to something easier. I feel bad for record shops and radio ad sales people. The end is coming, but they don't see it.

As for quality, who cares? Radio-friendly music is already fidelity-free from excessive compression, gating, and over mastering. Even my MP3'd music is only 96k, my noise floor in the car and outside that I don't mind the loss of resolution.

Don't hate the RIAA, they're already not a concern. It's like hating VHS Macrovision.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (2, Interesting)

dlZ (798734) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605267)

I ran some radio ads a while back and didn't get any hits off of them. Even my older client base doesn't really listen to the radio anymore.

I also agree about music on the radio. I use a tape adapter for my iPod. If my batteries die, I have some old mix tapes stashed in my glove box. I haven't bought a major lab CD in years, and it's not because of anything to do with the RIAA. It's because of the crap that's released. I do the same thing, go to small shows, and buy the CD right off of the band. But then, I listen to mostly hardcore, Oi, and punk. Not stuff you're likely to hear on the radio.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (4, Funny)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605349)

No punk on the radio?!

what about Greenday, No Doubt, and Avril Lavigne?

And hardcore?

We got Korn, Linkon Park, and Limp Bizkit.

There is plenty of punk and hardcore signed by major labels, just listen.

</sarcasm>

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (1, Troll)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605542)

I don't see why this is funny. The only reason punk fans deride the music on the radio as crap is it makes them seem more hardcore. The stuff they're calling awesome sounds much the same.

(Not that punk fans are the only ones guilty of this)

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605388)

I'm into the same styles, but the emo bands seem to far outnumber my hardcore, oi, ska and punk. Chicago still has amazing scene, though, with $5-$9 shows 6 nights a week.

No advertising works anymore. I get a better response on myspace, AIM messages, and word of mouth. Even e-mail is dead for advertising.

Our future is going to be bizarre. Nothing makes sense if we t ink of the past. Lucky for me, I'm a free market lover, and the Internet enables the free market to destroy every destructive regulation our government enacts: sales tax, minimum wage, copyright, IP, income tax, even zoning laws lose strength.

I, for one, welcome my free market as my overlord.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605487)

I listen to mostly hardcore, Oi, and punk. Not stuff you're likely to hear on the radio.

Wotya mean? You can hear Rancid, Green Day, and Blink 182 on the radio all the time. : p

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (1)

smashin234 (555465) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605322)

"People used to go to concerts, too, but my last concert was $95/ticket for an fairly-unknown electronica band -- the crowd was thin."

I have went to a few concerts in the last few years, and they were packed. Its probably the band(s) you chose. Although I may buy less CD's with ITunes, etc. out there, I still like to go to concerts just as much as I did before the MP3 revolution.

And I still listen to the radio. When I get tired of my playlists on my MP3 player, I have to find new music I like somewhere. I just haven't springed for the old satellite radio yet.

And yet, your statement here:

"Don't hate the RIAA, they're already not a concern. It's like hating VHS Macrovision."

Is so true. Copy protecting radio is worthless because I don't see why anyone would bother recording a song on the radio when its so easy to download it either for free or from ITunes.

It is absolutly like putting a band-aid on a corpse.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605537)

I have went to a few concerts in the last few years

Where did you went to school?

I may buy less CD's

FEWER not LESS!!!

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (3, Informative)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605326)

Somewhat off topic, but you should always have a radio (battery or hand crank charge...) in your home for emergency information.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (5, Informative)

n9uxu8 (729360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605334)

WRONG!...not about the viability of radio...bad programming still equates to no listeners, but about "Let the DRM everything valuable to them."

The law states that we can record radio/tv broadcasts. Quietly acquiescing to mandate DRM (even on a media that doesn't interest you personally) effective repeals fair use law and restricts your rights. This is a very bad precedent to allow.

Dave

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605514)

As an Anti-State Anti-Law free marketeer, I have to think out laws much harder to find the unintended consequences.

I embrace the slippery slope now. As more laws criminalize what I consider an inherent right, more black market (read free market) provisions are created. You can never stop billions of individuals making billions of choices every minute.

Copyright is ridiculous, but only technology saves us there. If something is worth so much to a producer, don't produce an easy to copy version.

Play your music live only, on private property. Read your stories out loud rather than in book form. Even prescription drugs don't work anymore with the Internet -- IP laws + crazy regulations = no security.

I'm an outcast on /. because I understand the unintended consequences. I also know we can't stop them, so we just need to embrace what we individually love, and if others embrace the same actions as moral, the free market will provide for us.

Lets breathe life into Radio instead! (3, Interesting)

Foktip (736679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605397)

People who pay for digital radio arent the ones pirating material.

In fact, this is probably just gonna piss people off - I've heard of people who record digital radio, then put it onto their ipods in batches, so they can listen to new music all the time, and its portable.

The purpose of digital radio is to eliminate the need for owning so much music, and that means you dont need to pirate OR buy tons of music! The point of digital radio was to get decent quality, original material on an ongoing basis - its like Napster, only you dont have to do all the research (look for good bands) on your own - they do the work for you.

What they really need is portable digital radios! And bundle it in with another service, like cell-phones or cable TV!

Some good radio. (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605467)

My wife is a big country fan. She has gotten me hooked on one of our local radio stations. It is a small town station that is sometimes hard to pick up but it is well worth it.
They actually like music at that station!
Not only that but they are part of the community. They have a show called DialnDeal every morning where people call in to sell and buy stuff and they broadcast the local high school games football games.
Even the ads are not annoying. They are for local stores and they also seem like part of the community. Clear Channel is what is killing radio. The small town stations that are still independent can still be gems.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (1, Offtopic)

uniqueCondition (769252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605492)

PLEASE (deserving of caps) stop saying podcasting. Save format/DRM downloading music off the internet shouldn't be associated w/ the iPod. You don't need an iPod to make or listen to a "podcast". Why? Because it's marketing speak.

'podcast' means recorded audio
'podcasting' means streaming audio
Come on /., fight it!

Don't blame the format (2, Interesting)

mblase (200735) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605493)

I ran tens of thousands of dollars of radio ads this year for my retail stores (focused on 10-22 year olds). Few people heard them. Why? Radio is dead or dying for most younger people.

Wrong. Few people heard them because most radio stations run commercials for what seems like 5-10 minutes at a stretch, so that they can advertise "50-minute non-stop music". They don't realize that most people, when they hit that eon-long commercial break, just switch to a different station with a similar format.

It's not like TV, where you'd end up missing half of a half-hour program--it's one self-contained four-minute song after another. (Talk radio and similar shows are the exception, natch, but you did specify 10-22 year olds.)

There's a station here in Chicago called NineFM. Tagline: "We play anything" -- they're one of a growing number of what I think of as "iPod Shuffle stations". What really distinguishes them, though, is that they have more but shorter commercial breaks -- usually three or four ads max -- which the listener is more willing to wait through. It's a win-win situation, ad-wise. Honestly, it's half the reason I listen to them almost all the time.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (2, Insightful)

rahlquist (558509) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605501)

Why? Radio is dead or dying for most younger people. All my employees under 21 podcast or listen to playlists. The RIAA doesn't really have any idea what they're chasing. Putting a Band-Aid on a corpse is useless.

Not Quite. The death of radio is much like the death of newspapers, printed books, and the movie theater. Granted each meadium has suffered from shrinkage, but none has completely disappeared. Even libraries are still widely used despite being able to research nearly anything at the Speed of Google!

Radio will suffer, but even now podcasts are gaining steam and picking up advertisers. It will be a slow transition but one that is inevitable. In the end the consumers will be satiated because they will get what they want, flexibility and choice.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (1)

travail_jgd (80602) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605524)

'As it gets harder for consumers to consume, they switch to something easier.'

That assumes there's an option to switch. Right now most MP3 players will accept files from "unverified sources" (ie, done yourself or pirated). If that changes (due to RIAA pressure or legislation), other options for music will be slim and none.

I haven't listened to the radio in my home in about five years. My car radio only gets used while I'm waiting for my (aged) MP3 player to boot, or for trips too short to even bother.

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605526)

My house hasn't had a radio for 10 years.

Very few do, anymore and this is more to your point. What else do people listen to radio for? Usually travelling from point A to point B, like I often do, but I'm fed up with broadcast so I got satellite. Sirius is about to shuffle their channels again on the 29th so we'll see what I end up with. Just don't touch my Radio Classics (Jack Benny, Abbott and Costello, George & Gracie, Fibber McGee, Great Gildersleeve, etc.) and English Premier League football.

Most people are either listening for traffic or talk radio.

Where I live you can find live music every day in a dozen places, a far cry from Karoke and DJ's back in the midwest where I moved from. So what's the outlet for people to learn of new music anymore?

Ahh, the hand that rocks the cradle of music will rock the world...

Re:Band-Aid + Corpse = Still Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605532)

Fools advertise on radio or broadcast.

you should have put EVERY dime into cable adverts.

1/10th the price of the broadcasters and a shitload more penetration.

hell if you buy all tier 2 and 3 networks, at LEAST 1 spot a day on each network you will probably get 20-30 run a day or even more on the lower end networks because of something called "autofill"

Every cable advertising system runs an ad insertion system that will pull from it's pool of ad's for that network on that day for filling of unsold spots. they prefer to put in customers spots than PSA's or "buy more cable" fill spots.

One customer in the past I kew about was able to get 90,000.00 bucks in advertising free because she bought only 1 spot a day for a month on each of the cheapest networks the cable company had in the lineup. got great exposure, good turnout and everyone knew her spots (note: dont make your commercial look like crap or this will bite you.. and no you as the store owner do not know crap about making a commercial, let the shooting team do their job.)

call up your local cable tv ad rep and have them give you a low down on what tiers and channels as well as pricing. and DO NOT buy anything from tier 1 unless you got lots of cash.

And what about DTT? (1)

C0deJunkie (309293) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605198)

Mmmm... Digital Terrestrial Television will follow DAB in a few months. According to recent laws all trasmission will be digital before the end of 2006. I wonder if this will mean that some show or film won't be "recordable".

Re:And what about DTT? (1)

DarthStrydre (685032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605517)

Are you talking about ATSC DTV and HDTV? If so, that has been broadcast for a few years already, free for all who have a tuner. The "broadcast flag", last I heard, was repealed, until it is again passed :-P

Got it. (-1, Troll)

Karma_fucker_sucker (898393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605201)

RIAA is Evil and Satanic. This copy protection is no good, yadda, yadda,yadda,yadda,yadda,yadda, and yadda.

Good, now I don't need to read any posts. See ya.

P.S. Bye Bye Karma!

So when . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605202)

So when are they going to attempt to ban people from listening from the music, so nobody can attempt to reproduce it by whistling?

RIAA must be stopped, it shocks me that we've allowed them to get this far.

Didn't We already with this fight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605204)

As I recall, Any broadcast media is allowed to be recorded for personal use. This goes against that very idea.

Radio is dead (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605205)

.. or if it isn't it should be. If I bother with internet at all, I will use internet radio. But I just pick a random station. It's all about gaining a new perspective. You simply can't do that on over the air radio.
So. the RIAA can do whatever they want with radio. Preferably roll it up real tight and shove it up their .....
btw I've heard some interesting music out of Iran lately.....

Re:Radio is dead (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605257)

Yep, they're just causing their own demise. Podcasting and other technologies will just replace radio (digital or otherwise) that much quicker as the RIAA continues to piss people off.

Who really uses Tivo for radio (2, Interesting)

Mr Guy (547690) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605206)

I could see this in the form of an XM like device, with PPV radio on demand, but I'm not sure the concept of tivo for radio will really pay off. It's not worth the effort. That's what music on CDs is for. As far as programs go, most people are perfectly happy turning the radio on and playing whatever happens to be on at the time.

I could tivo my radio now with the capture card in my computer and dump mp3 files of shows I like but never happen to catch such as Car Talk, to disk and play that in my car right now. The odds of me actually doing it are very, very small.

What happened to fair use? (2, Interesting)

jeffs72 (711141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605215)

I don't mean to sound naive, but seriously, what happened to fair use? I thought part of the broadcasting agreement allowed for people who receive the signal to record it.

Same as email received is the property of the owner, isn't signal received property of the receiver?

Re:What happened to fair use? (3, Informative)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605278)

Well, yes, but those fair use priveleges exist by statute. (And they are privileges, not "rights".) Hence, the RIAA wants the statutes changed.

Re:What happened to fair use? (1)

jeffs72 (711141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605354)

Ah, I see now. That just bites.

Sad thing is, I can see them pulling it off. But like others have said, who cares, I guess. I have Sirius in my car, so I haven't listed to a local station in almost 2 years now. Radio pretty much sucks at this point.

Sad to see the art of music get so corrupt.

Re:What happened to fair use? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605551)

Correspondence is the property of the owner, but the copyright on the correspondence is retained by the writer. This issue was settled in America way back upon the death of George Washington and the publication of his personal letters.

Nonetheless the recipient retains fair use rights.

This is an issue for writers of history/biography, especially now that copyright is generated automagically rather than by explicit registration.

KFG

Already done. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605217)

ClearChannel has the patent on this, by airing music not worth copying in the first place.

"My ears! The earmuffs do nothing!"

Re:Already done. (1)

kianu7 (886560) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605378)

Yeah, it's such a bummer that ClearChannel doesn't play any of the good bands like White Snake, Warrant, Silent Riot, and Queensryche anymore.

And what's with the haircuts that people have, these days? People think they're cool, but they weren't as cool as us when we had our mullets, hightops, and stonewashed jeans

Things just aren't as cool as they used to be.

yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605223)

The RIAA might be bribing our Senators and Congressmen with hundreds of millions but now even many artists are turning against them. It seems like the RIAA is slowly beginning to falter because they can't take the heat and the intense criticism from all directions anymore.

Somehow... (2, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605226)

I don't care about this in the slightest.

I gave up listening to radio regularly years ago when my favorite station in Minneapolis turned into a Dianna Ross style station for 3 whole days. And now in South Dakota, the stations aren't much better, 90% country! *shudder*

These days if I remember I might listen to some Prairie Home Companion, Love Line, or Bob & Tom in the Morning.

Other than that... I no longer care what goes on on the radio as I've got my iPod wired into my deck and am quite happy with commercial free, hi-fidelity commutes!

In other words... (2, Insightful)

tktk (540564) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605227)

...RIAA is hoping that the transition to "digital audio broadcasting" will provide enough confusion and panic that they can persuade Congress or the FCC to impose some kind of copy-protection scheme or regulation on digital radio broadcast.

Legislate a way for us to survive.

Let them keep it (4, Interesting)

curtisk (191737) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605236)

The solution

The recording industry has proposed that the FCC (1) prevent redistribution of recordings onto the Internet, removable media or to other devices; and (2) limit searching and automated copying such as by artist or song title so that individual recordings cannot be separated from surrounding content.

Good for them.

Vague solution, so are they saying that they want the recording to somehow STAY on the recording device? They must have some magick or something that will accomplish that! And that you cannot just record a song, without,say, recording the lead-in from the DJ and the commercial afterwards (surrounding content)?

They just don't get it. If people want your songs for free, they will get it. One way or another. Goddamnit, how long will it take them to realize this so I don't have to see the "**AA is trying to steal our rights again" versus "Our revenues (and even the hard working music store clerk too!!) are going to be devistated! Waaah!" get rehashed over and over and over.

And the sad thing is most of whats out there on commercial radio I wouldn't care about even if it was truly FREE from the get go.

Blah.

Idiots. (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605477)

Surely we don't expect someone to start publishing instructions for "analog audio recording into your storage device"?

Yeah, we lose a few bits of quality but hey, it's what people have been doing for decades. I just hope the RIAA don't start using DRM'ed brain implants so there's no analog audio at all... *rolls eyes*

Re:Let them keep it (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605505)

The new 2005 telecom law [wikipedia.org] is 72.4% magical. It's still in committee, but the whole concept that "Broadband Video" (loosely defined) should be regulated in a manner remotely similar to current cable operators [1] [paperlined.org] is a slightly absurd on its face.

I think that most people in government don't fully realize how dramatically different digital networked things are from what they're used to legislating about.

At least they're trying to be consistent (1)

kianu7 (886560) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605240)

Hey, at least they're trying to be consistent. If it's okay for people to copy low-res media but not high-res media, then the line is blurred a bit.

In my opinion, it is the existence of free radio that makes it so hard to feel guilty about downloading illegal music. You turn on the radio, and you can hear all kinds of music for free. When the commercials come on, you simply switch channels and continue listening to more free music.

When people grow up listening to music for free...it's kinda hard to make the switch.

It is CD quality (2, Informative)

no_opinion (148098) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605243)

iBiquity [ibiquity.com] is the company that created and licenses the HD Radio technology and they say that it is CD quality [ibiquity.com] . I would not expect the broadcasters to be that interested in spending millions of dollars to roll out something that sounds equivalent to what they have now.

Re:It is CD quality (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605353)

> iBiquity is the company that created and licenses the HD Radio technology and
> they say that it is CD quality. I would not expect the broadcasters to be that
> interested in spending millions of dollars to roll out something that sounds
> equivalent to what they have now.

That's what they're doing in the UK. DAB is sort-of taking off, despite offering pretty low bitrates. 96kbps on a classical music station (BBC Radio 3)? I don't think so. Better to stick with a decent FM tuner/ariel. Perhaps iBiquity is different. It does indeed claim to offer `compact disk-like quality` but that could mean anything, from the same bitrate to simply being in a digital format. I'd like to see if it scales to provide competition for DAB in the UK, although perhaps it's too late and the frequencies they'd have used are already used by DAB. A similar thing is happening with TV in the UK - there's a system called Freeview which offers a load of free channels but pretty heavily compressed so background detail is blurry, and fast panning shots causes the picture to break up into little squares momentarily.

Re:It is CD quality (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605368)

Well, the press release I found says 'sound similar to CD quality' whatever that means.

I suspect that if it really was CD quality they would come out and say so.

Depends - it's up to the broadcaster (1)

wodelltech (168047) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605547)

(Disclaimer - I am a former iBiquity employee...)

Broadcasters may choose to reduce the bit-rate of their primary (audio) program in order to make room for additional audio or potentially other services. (This information is readily available at ibiquity.com.) Thus, the audio quality is - as has historically been the case - largely dependent on the individual broadcaster.

As well, the topic of 'audio quality/fidelity' is a highly subjective topic. There are plenty of audiophiles who don't like CD's...

this is... (2, Interesting)

xao gypsie (641755) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605250)

...really disturbing. Whatever my bias may be, it is hard not to consider that the riaa is simply trying to control everything. What about college radio stations that play indipendent music, or when the radio plays artists that arent really concerned about piracy issues? It looks more and more like the riaa are becoming control freaks...

64 megs of flash ram will hold 5000 hours of radio (1)

Cerdic (904049) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605258)

Once you cut out the commercials and DJ blabber, that will leave approximately 1 hour of actual music that should fit nicely into that 64 megs.

Seriously, does anyone bother with the radio? I swear that I can make a 5 mile trip without hearing a single song on most stations.

Hmm.. (3, Funny)

Ikn (712788) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605272)

I just took a micro cassette recorder, and recorded myself farting onto a snare drum. I wonder how long it will be before the RIAA says that is copyright protected.

Re:Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605480)

It is copyrighted... By US Law, you know own the copyright to the sound of your fart waves hitting those snares on the otherside of that drum.

The question is, what are you going to do with that copyright? I'd put it on ccmixter.org.

Re:Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605545)

That *is* copyrighted, to you. There's no need to register copyright, it's automatically assigned to the creator, although they can sell it. OTOH, feel free to DRM your farts ;)

Microsoft: Smells for sure!

FM Radio (1)

Zaulden (848844) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605290)

There were the same sort of claims when FM radio came out - the quality is so much better than FM that it will encourage people to record the content illegally. I'm not worrying too much about this; it's like saying you can't tape a TV show you missed because you were at work.

There's only one way (1)

Namronorman (901664) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605292)

to stop recording of their holy radio, and that's to stop broadcasting. If you can hear it, you can record it!

Aside from that, I listen to public radio, no commercials and better quality.

Way to go, RIAA... (1, Insightful)

Kreldon (31202) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605313)

...treat your customers as criminals and expect 'em to like it. And, as other posters noted, most of the manufactured, fake, top-40 pop shit on modern corporate radio isn't worth listening to (let alone pirating) in the first place.

So, RIAA, I have four words to say: fuck off and die.

Potential Ask Slashdot: how to get started with independent/non-RIAA artists, music, and online services -- particularly if your tastes run towards older music?

Do what the NFL does... (1)

DigiWood (311681) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605318)

If the RIAA wants to make it illegal to record what is broadcast over the airwaves then they need to say: "The following may not be recorded on any medium for any purpose." before any content they do not want to have people record. I admit this will get tedious but it will ensure that they are protected and consumers know that they do not have the rights to record what they are listening to. Clear cut and simple to implement.

I am not on their side. I am just trying to point out there are ways to accomplish what they want without making more stupid laws.

Re:Do what the NFL does... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605436)

Uhm, I think it's still legal to record NFL games for your own use. They do have that disclaimer, but I thought that was for redistributing or using it for 'clips' or 'commentary.' I could be wrong, but otherwise all these commercials for tivos recording games would be 'promoting piracy!!!111'

*cough*

Our dear leaders... (3, Interesting)

loraksus (171574) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605327)

The differences between analog and digital can seem numerous and great - especially if you get a couple thousand on the side from the people presenting these "facts" to you.

I got to the point a little while ago where I'm not completely blaming the RIAA etc for pushing stupid legislation but for the politicians in accepting it. If stupid legislation gets passed, we really only have a small group of people to blame.

They're smart (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605340)

Since they stated that the quality is not excellent to begin with, I doubt anyone would have a problem with just sampling the analog output if they wanted to record it.

I just don't see it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605346)

I can see where satellite radio is a win - things like sports or other "live" events. Given the ubiquity of mp3 players, why the ?%!(&# do people want to pay a monthly rent to get music (actually, limited-selection, slanted-towards-favorites music) when a few months rent pays for the mp3 player?

They you could make/play your own stuff, including B-sides and all the other songs OTHER than those 40 classic rock dinosaurs floatin' about.

territory (1)

esterhasz (632870) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605348)

I really believe that some of management and the lawyers in the content industry don't really care about whether their absurd proposals have actual monetary benefits. It's really about territory. Pissing on the tree before any other dog does. Defending the hunting grounds, etc.

The funny thing is that this behavoir in dogs is no longer adapted to their human living environment, just some atavistic reflex...

Misleading summary, article (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605371)

This is not an attempt to place blanket copy protection on radio broadcasts.

This is an attempt to prevent TIVO-like devices from recording on any other basis than "as-broadcast." You want to record a song? No problem, according to the request. You want your DAR to record every song played by a certain artist? Not allowed.

The broadcast industry wants to preserve their ability to send advertising to their audiences. The recording industry wants to preservce their ability to sell albums to the public.

I don't see a problem with those goals.

In the long run, though, I can't see radio music broadcasting being profitable, except for live performances. There are far too many competing access points to music.

Always ask for more than you want (2, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605379)

Even if it doesn't make sense. That way, when they whittle you down to something less, they feel like they've accomplished something. Meanwhile, you get what you want.

We all know the tactic. It's like salary negotiations during an interview.

The RIAA can suck it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605381)

Fuck it. Let em. The only people that record off the radio are 12 year olds making mix tapes for the "love of their life" at school. And that's only if they don't have internet access.

When will they understand (1)

834r9394557r011 (878286) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605382)

When will the riaa get it through their skulls that this kind of campaing can be compared to the so called "war on terrorism". They will never be able to stop illigal downloading/copying of music until they realize they are no longer going to be able to charge $18(US) for a cd. People don't want to go to a store to by a cd anymore; they want to download the song they heard on the radio that they thought was sweet. I personally think record companies in general are heading out. Bands and musicians really don't need them anymore to promote their music, or to sell it for that matter. With the kinds of software available, and a huge marketing tool, a la internet, at the fingertips most musicians and bands are fully capable of getting their music out to the general public. I think it will be some time before this really picks up, but believe me, I think they realize they are on their way out the door(due in part the rediculouse amounts of money they charge bands and musicians to even create an album, not to mention the fact that they must take a huge percentage of the profits to fill their fat pockets). I recently visited a site,Taxi.com [taxi.com], that is the first step in getting to this point. (Albeit a small one)

Distribution Channels (2, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605389)

I don't own an XM radio. I can't see buying one and then paying for a monthly subscription to listen to crappy music. If the RIAA succeeds it'll reduce the value proposition even further.

1) Kill off all the distribution channels for your product.
2) ????
3) Profit!!

Re:Distribution Channels (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605516)

I think you got the numbers wrong...

what the RIAA is doing is:

1) Profit!
2) Kill off all the distribution channels for your product.
3) ????
Nelson) HAH HAH!

Time of Adoption? (5, Insightful)

bleaknik (780571) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605404)

Ok, I have no motivation whatsoever right now to adopt any new form of radio, and this further demotivates me.

These people keep thinking they can control everything that we think, do, or say. When the founders of the USA wrote the bill of rights and drafted our first laws, they had no intention whatsoever that they would be abused this way.

Software patents? Now I cannot program an application that is an interface for presenting and displaying playback information on a portable device because microsoft owns the patent? Come on. Lame.

Music? I'm sorry, but I have no realistic alternative to buying the CD if I want to listen to music. Radio sucks (ok, the commercials more than anything else), and I have no good reason to pay 99 cents for a song on iTunes. I, for one, like the pretty box.

I have no doubt that HDTV might have been pushed forth a lot sooner if anyone settled on a standard. Instead, they've been debating the different ways to present the media, and most recently the biggest qualm is with the feared broadcast flag. If it weren't for things like broadcast flag, I'm sure I could have been watching Sonic SatAM in HD 12 years ago.

Need another point? BluRay or HD-DVD? Nope. The biggest debate I've seen is piracy control. Encryption schemes, manufacturing processes, etc. The studios are leaning away from HD-DVD because they basically utilize the same technology as existing DVDs, but BluRay didn't have the must have CSS (Consumer Screwed Severely) version 2.0.

Bloody hell. Instead of promoting innovation, this system promotes stagnation. I for one, am sick and tired of it. And anyone who questions that... I'd like to point out that, while aural recording techniques have dramatically improved over the past 20 years, we're still using the same basic late 70s/early 80s tech to record most of the world's CDs. I know there's nothing wrong with the proven tech, but why do CDs still run $16 a pop?

Remember (1)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605410)

When a couple of years ago they were talking about "plugging the analog hole." After all it doesn't matter what copy protection you put in as soon as it goes out to the speakers someone could then convert it back to digital and make a copy of the music. I guess they were going to force all makers of A/D converters to check to make sure they weren't reading in copyrighted material. Never mind that you could in theory be able to make your own A/D converter out of radio shack parts if you knew what you are doing, or that millions of older A/D converters and the sound cards that use them have already been sold, or that the cost of these copy right checkers would probably cost more than the a/d converters themselves. I can see it now: someone in some hospital plays music too loud. The A/D converters in the life saving monitors all shut down at once because they accidentally picked up copyrighted material. This kills dozens of people -- but at least no one used those A/D converters to pirate music!

weird (1)

panic911 (224370) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605429)

I wonder how much money they estimate is lost due to radio recordings. I used to record tapes when I was a little kid. If I recorded a tape it was because I didn't have money or didn't care enough to buy it - either way they wouldn't have received one dime from me for that song. The quality is so terrible, they censor the hell out of them, and usually the song is cut off or faded out early. I'm pretty sure radio recordings are one of the smallest threats to the recording industry.

DRM Commercials!!! (1)

Daveznet (789744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605431)

Why is the RIAA trying to copyright radio? Ive pretty much stopped listening to the Radio, there is too much talking by the DJs and too many commercials that and the fact they play the same music over and over. RIAA is alot like Microsoft but instead of pantents they try to put copyright protection on everything.

possible misuse of broadcasts... (2, Interesting)

Tominva1045 (587712) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605434)



One of the many possible misuses of these broadcasts, given the many audio editing software tools out there today, would be the recording and editing of these broadcasts to make broadcasters appear to take positions (political, ethical, or other) that are the exact opposite of what they actually represent.

Listen to the Don and Mike radio show and sooner or later you will hear edited audio of Govenor Arnold S. of California espousing positions exactly opposite of his stated ones.

Like him or not, copyright of digital broadcasts could give originators of content the legal protection they need to limit others from profiting from or generally smearing their reputation.

With respect to not copying the music--- go buy the CD if it's that good. The owner of the product determines the license agreement.

Why I don't listen to radio? (1)

nukeade (583009) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605461)

First they took off Howard Stern in the morning. I had no reason to listen to the radio on the way to work because I don't like any other morning talk program (it's surprisingly hard to find a station that plays music in the morning). Next they took the three rock stations I liked (very classic rock, classic rock, and modern rock) and transitioned them all over to playing the same songs (mostly modern) but in different frequencies to justify the distinctions. Now I have no reason to listen to the radio om the way home. A friend offered to fix my radio for free when it broke. I asked, "Why? What would I listen to?"

So now you want to make DRM radio? Knock yourselves out! I don't care.

~Ben

too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605464)

The Federal Court has already struck down the broadcast flag for TV and the same applies for radio. Ergo: The RIAA doesn't stand a chance.

Besides, with the FCC playing an increasingly irrelevant role and its regulatory power being questioned, the FCC might soon not even have the regulatory powers anymore to mandate any of RIAA's dubious and controversial proposals.

All I want is micro-timeshifting (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605472)

I don't care about recording, saving, or anything. Nothing broadcast on the radio is worth keeping.

All I want is to timeshift the am broadcasts of baseball games by about 3 seconds so they mathc up with the (satellite) television broadcast I'm watching. Any simple way to do that one?

radio isn't dead (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605483)

here comes the usual "radio is dead" comments

radio may be dead if you live in the middle of nowhere and get one pop station

i live in midtown manhattan, so i get unbelievable listening choices over radio... everything from classical to jazz to country to bbc to classic rock to one station that plays reggaeton nonstop all day, would that ever appeal to me

and for such a listener as me, i chose the iRiver IFP-180T simply because it has a radio tuner, and would never buy an iPod, because i can't believe apple wouldn't devote the 50 cents it would cost to put a radio tuner in there

so please, comment in the idiocy that is the RIAA, but enough with the "radio is dead" refrain just because you can't get a good station in east bohunk arkansas

it may be dead whereever you live in rural usa, but it's not dead in the cities

But congress can't raise the minimum wealth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13605488)

Protecting the wealth of the already wealthy but not helping a poor working man to feed his family si what the current congress is all about. Maybe it's time to "score" getting the rich of George Bush and his buddies in Congress as "on topic".

Seems like the Republicans forgot all about "big government interfering in the free markets to help special interests".

How the RIAA can make money (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605495)

I'll bet a lot of people feel like I do: if something is really worth it, I'll gladly pay for it. What the RIAA is up against is not mp3 or p2p or xyz. Their problem is their product.

Most stuff out there is completely insulting. Seriously. How many talentless "pretty faces" get record deals? Britney Spears. Jesse McCartney. Hillary Duff. Destiny's Child. Need I say more? I remember seeing this interview with Prince (who IS a real artist), and he was trying to encourage some of these "musicians" to learn music (like how to read it, etc.) Are you serious? Some of the most popular acts that the RIAA is peddling don't even know music?!? That's like me holding a well paying job as a carpenter and not even knowing how to use a saw!

When you couple that with the fact that they are just not smart enough to figure out how to utilize new technologies (which is evident by how hard they fight against said technologies) and it is easy to see why they are continually losing business (or so they claim).

I wish (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605499)


I wish the RIAA had more gold and platinum albums to award, so they aren't so bored into doing crap like this.

And for another topic?

What other forms of business where the business model is to put your product over the freely available air waves and then require the government to lessen the freedom's of its people in order to protect that business?

WTF?

Did the government decide VHS or beta? What about the DVD format?

Beef, its what's for dinner!

Join the RIAA to Beat Them (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605522)

As long as people's response to RIAA depradations on our rights to use the content we own fairly are met with only defensive actions, they'll never stop. We need to put people representing fair copyright use on the RIAA board of directors. Like FSF people, or Archive.org people, or others from the "Creative Commons" community. People making digital recordings all day long, of content and apps, who want the widest possible use of our recordings. Where do I apply?

Degraded copies? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605528)

Since we keep on hearing the RIAA and MPAA wanting to apply these flags to prevent any sort of copying, I was wondering whether people would accept something else: degraded copies.

The idea being that you can record anything off the air, but video quality is reduced to that of an average VHS and audio to that of an audio tape. This was you can at least have a local copy, but it isn't as good as the one you can get in the shops. This may sound like what Macrovision tries to do, except Macrovision varies the colour intensity, so you wouldn't want to watch the copy either way.

RIAA Thought Process (1)

Justifiable_Delusion (759339) | more than 8 years ago | (#13605555)

Their job right now is to protect themselves as much as possible. Though they have no real thing to worry about (or maybe they do, who knows) they need to protect as much as they can otherwise they will be seen as failures. The key for them is to get as much protection as possible...irrelevant of true need. Just get it...and if they keep trying over and over (BTW...HOW DOES A PRIVATE CORPROATION get to INTRODUCE legislation to MY Congress? WTF man?) eventually some stupid person will stick their bill on as a tagger to something significant and they will steal a little more of our freedom...sigh...i wish it were still 1899 in terms of legislation in this great nation of the USA...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...