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!

Audio Broadcast Flag Introduced in Congress

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the flagged-for-pvp dept.

200

Declan McCullagh writes "We found out in mid-2004 that the RIAA was lobbying the FCC for an audio version of the broadcast flag. But because a federal appeals court slapped down the FCC's video version last year, the RIAA needs to seek formal authorization from Congress. That process finally began today when the audio flag bill was introduced. It would hand the FCC the power to set standards and regulate digital and satellite radio receivers, and RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business." The text of the bill is available online."

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

Moronic (1, Flamebait)

Martix (722774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845675)

This is the kind of crap that is total BS and the sound you get from Satalite radio is lower then FM radio.

Next up coin slots on everything and you pay to play

Re:Moronic (2, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845701)

They will just tax you to have ears. Surgical removal for those in violation.

Re:Moronic (1)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845921)

What the hell are you talking about? I don't know what kind of crappy satellite radio YOU listen to [xmradio.com] , but MY satellite radio [sirius.com] is assuredly almost CD-quality sound.

Re:Moronic (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845971)

He's probably using an fm modulator and doesn't know what the hell is going on..

Re:Moronic (1)

NadaTech (595373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846271)

I have one of the cheapest Delphi Roady2 for XM Radio and it sounds most excellent. While it does have a built in FM tuner that occasionally receives static when going under bridges or pulling up at a stoplight next to someone else using an FM modulator, when using the LINE IN/OUT or even the cassette adapter, it is definatly CD quality. There is actually a connection quality chart that came with the radio that shows the quality to expect with each connection type, FM modulation being the lowest. But anyway, what is good for business is definately NOT good for the music or the people, especially when it is coming from the mouth of a greedy RIAA exec. Insttead of bitching about this on Slashhdot, how about calling your congressman/woman and voicing your discontent? Not that it will do any good, because I don't think you can afford the millions of $$ in lobbying for them to hear you.

Re:Moronic (1)

barjam (37372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846353)

I record the digital PCM stream directly and re-encode it with a fairly good bit rate and the results are as good as any of the mp3s that I have directly ripped from CD.

One word (4, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845679)

strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business.

Bullshit

Re:One word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845866)

Second that. There's nothing wrong with the current model for fans. Free play isn't a bad thing.

Re:One word (4, Insightful)

Mayhem178 (920970) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845899)

a balance that's good for the music,

This couldn't be more wrong. What artist wants to have the spread of their music choked off? The music they put their blood, sweat, and tears into? It's not like they're gonna make any more money by having their music "digitally protected" on the radio, either, so where's the advantage? Don't most music "pirates" get their music from ripping CDs, anyways? I can't say I've ever known anyone that pirated music by recording it off the radio and then distributing it.

good for the fans,

Yeah, because I like being told what I can listen to, when I can listen to it, and where.

and good for business.

Whatever you wanna think. They're not getting my business, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Re:One word (1)

MemoryAid (675811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846388)

The one right part of it is that it is a balance, at least the way you analyze it; it is bad for all parties concerned.

So, the negative end of the 'good' scale.

Re:One word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845928)

Two words actually

Bull Shit.

Re:One word (4, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846089)

Only if by "fans" they mean... uhh... nope, nevermind. Only business applies. When the Asshat Association of America can convince me that not being able to listen to my overpriced music is good for me, I'll reconsider. Till then, I'll take money that I would have bought CDs with and donate it to everone's favorite Swedish website.

You reading this RIAA? Fuck you. We are not encouraged to pay for music by these actions. In trying to stop piracy, you are in fact encouraging it. Get your act together, because if you want to stay in business, you need to think "entertainment business" not "CD business". Stop gouging the bejesus out of us and we won't have to download it questionably. Piracy gets easier every day, but listening to legally purchased music gets harder by the day. Maybe if you can make it so it's not a pain in the ass to listen to our purchased music when it's so much easier (and cheaper) to download it and put it on any player we want, we'll start paying again. Why is iTunes hugely successful when CD sales are plummeting? It's easy and it's at a much more reasonable price. So cut your fucking losses and deal with it, not screw over your actual customers.

Re:One word (2, Insightful)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846473)

Strip out the curses and send this to the RIAA and the congresscritters involved with the bill. Posting it here doesn't do any good. Sending it to them probably won't, either, but at least you'll have voiced your opinion at the right people.

Re:One word (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846429)


strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business.

Bullshit


Wow, with arguments like that you should be a politician, you could probably get an invasion of a country thats done nothing wrong to you through congress

If the RIAA wants it (4, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845680)

If the RIAA wants something and says it's good for music fans, you can be sure it will be something to further enforce their monopoly and abuses as well as extract more money out of your pockets while further limiting our ability to listen to music when and how we want to.

Simple rule of thumb, if the RIAA is for something, I am automatically against it.

I really am curious (3, Insightful)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845755)

As to how this is good for the consumer. I can clearly see how it is good for business. Good for music is iffy at best. All I can see (as I'm sure others will not) is consumers will have to buy new equipment and broadcasters will have to expend money to comply.
 
Its about time to put Fair Use into law I think, now if only I could find legislators I trust to do that well...

Bad for consumers and business (4, Insightful)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845683)

The broadcast flag is bad for consumers and business. It's bad for consumers because they are going to have to replace otherwise working radio equipment, right?

And it's bad for businesses, because when DRM goes wrong [and it almost always is wrong] then the maker gets slapped for it. Sony BMG is learning that the hard way. Music playing businesses, such as waiting offices, or ones that use music on their hold system might find themselves paying more too. The RIAA is not going to stop at screwing consumers, it will make sure businesses give them more money too.

Re:Bad for consumers and business (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845731)

DRM doesn't always go bad. Relatively speaking, Apple's FairPlay implementation hasn't had any glaring problems. Yes, Apple did push out a change to the rights with an iTunes update, but it hasn't lead to mass hysteria because of huge problems.

That said, the "balance" the RIAA seeks is a see saw with them on the end that's touching the ground.

Re:Bad for consumers and business (4, Informative)

BLKMGK (34057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845799)

I predict you'll be hearing from more than one person who has lost music transfering from one computer to another - I know I've talked to a few of them. Nothing like trying to move say 60 songs from one machine to another and afterwards only having 50 of them.....

I for one don't use iTunes and prefer to rip the USED CDs I buy instead. Screw 'em!

Re:Bad for consumers and business (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845956)

Personally, I rip used CDs as well. Cheaper, no further payment to RIAA beyond what they already got, and I can rip at whatever bitrate I want.

Re:Bad for consumers and business (1)

Mantrid (250133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845974)

Congrats, I think you just gave a RIAA exec somewhere an aneurism! I mean come on they haven't closed that analog hole yet, plus they didn't get anything from your purchase!

+1

Re:Bad for consumers and business (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845947)

FairPlay goes bad all the time. Why just two days ago an MP3 Player owner contacted me and asked why they couldn't get ACC files they created with ITunes to work on their player. Turns out of course that ACC isn't supported on that player, and if the files have FairPlay built into them, then good luck converting to any other format [besides the lossy problem]. They have to start again from scratch ripping using CDex which I also showed has CDdb that means they don't have to type in artists and track names.

Re:Bad for consumers and business (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846389)

FairPlay goes bad all the time. Why just two days ago an MP3 Player owner contacted me and asked why they couldn't get ACC files they created with ITunes to work on their player. Turns out of course that ACC isn't supported on that player, and if the files have FairPlay built into them, then good luck converting to any other format [besides the lossy problem]. They have to start again from scratch ripping using CDex which I also showed has CDdb that means they don't have to type in artists and track names.

Your buddy ripped the wrong format to AAC, so this isn't a DRM problem. AAC is just a container that accepts a bunch of different stuff, Fairplay crippled stuff being one of them.

The best AAC related solution I've heard of is to rip everything as AAC or whatever with a lossless codec, then bulk convert them to whichever format you like this year. When something better comes along, you can go ahead and rerun the conversion for that format without ripping anything, plus you also keep the CDDB info.

Re:Bad for consumers and business (1)

soupdevil (587476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846071)

I downloaded one album from iTunes. I got a gift certificate. Several songs were corrupted upon download. I never did get to listen to them.

Re:Bad for consumers and business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14846210)

Wow, that's a meaningful addition to the discussion. Did your windows box BSOD once too? Did your car not start one morning? Did you wake up with a tummy ache once?

Re:Bad for consumers and business (4, Informative)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845749)

It's bad for consumers because they are going to have to replace otherwise working radio equipment, right?

Not as written. That's why it's good to RTFA *before* posting...

(2) shall not make obsolete any devices already manufactured and distributed in the marketplace before the implementation of such regulations

Re:Bad for consumers and business (4, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845985)

(2) shall not make obsolete any devices already manufactured and distributed in the marketplace before the implementation of such regulations

So after the implementation of such regulations they can be made obsolete?

You gotta love ambiguity in the language used to craft law.

Seriously, you are legally mandated to love the ambiguity. You don't want to know the penalties for not loving the ambiguity.

Seriously, the penalties are a matter of national security and you do not want to know them. The penalties for knowing them are worse than the aforementioned penalties themselves, so you really don't want to know any of them.

Re:Bad for consumers and business (1)

flez (463418) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846232)

Dude. "Before" modifies "manufactured and distributed" not "implementation".
You're reading it wrong. It's not ambiguous (at least in the way you said it was).

Re:Bad for consumers and business (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14846407)

Dude, it means what the courts rule that it means, much like how the courts are saying powers granted by the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act were never intended to be applied only to terrorism investigations but to all crimes across the board.

"Keeping the fires of freedom burning" sounds good until you realize that it is in fact your freedoms that are on fire.

This post brought upon you by your sense of humor deficit.

So what the RIAA is saying is: (4, Insightful)

doublem (118724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845837)

All your Bass are belong to us.

By the way, Sony is hardly learning "The Hard Way." The vast majority of users don't even know about the rootkit fiasco, and are buying Sony CDs left and right with no intention of stopping.

The root kit was a blip on Sony's screen, and as far as they;re concerned it's over. Sony doesn't care what a bunch of geeks like us think, just the masses who buy Pop Music CDs.

Re:So what the RIAA is saying is: (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845986)

Some suits have ended, but there's still at least two in Canada that I've not heard of a resolution. Sony still stands to lose in the courts or bargaining tables all around the world from their rootkit DRM crime in Texas and California [last I heard].

http://www.sonysuit.com/ [sonysuit.com]

Re:Bad for consumers and business (2, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845851)

The broadcast flag is bad for consumers and business.

Depends on the business. If your business is selling equipment that kowtows to the broadcast flag or your business depends on making the legal RIGHTS of your customers' a logistical nightmare then it's great for business.

It's bad for consumers because they are going to have to replace otherwise working radio equipment, right?

That didn't stop Congress from *forcing* digital TV adoption and even going so far as to say that they will pay for "low income households" to receive the converter boxes. The rest of us can eat shit and die and suffer and eat the broadcaster's protected content.

Re:Bad for consumers and business (2, Interesting)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845860)

The broadcast flag is bad for consumers and business.

That doesn't matter. All that matters is who's writing the checks, and who controls the media.

In both cases, the entities in question probably want this legislation. That means they'll get it.

This will be passed into law despite any opposition, even if it means adding it as a rider to some other all-important bill.

A third of the way there (2, Funny)

RandomBabblings (949850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845695)

RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business."

Well one out of three ain't bad, right?

Re:A third of the way there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845780)

Partially, it's bad for many businesses that don't support the RIAA too. You still have to tell the hardware vendors that they have to replace their stock, and all those radio stations have to add the flag to all their broadcasts. Besides, many people like me boycot anything that uses DRM.

They really think they have the right... (5, Insightful)

JadussD (951436) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845713)

"a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business."

This is by far the most infuriating thing I've read all day. They just think it's their right to control everything related to music. The RIAA thinks that they should be able to control what is listened to by fans of music, period. As a musician, I swear I will not ever sign a contract with anyone related to these bean-countering destroyers of culture, and if that means I can never make money, so be it. I just hope the Internet makes these people obsolete and impoverished sooner than later.

Re:They really think they have the right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845767)

Please, please, please post a location to get your music! I will NEVER pay for or listen to any of the shite that comes from RIAA "musicians".

Re:They really think they have the right... (2, Insightful)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846224)

Don't be an idiot.

A lot of otherwise great labels are affiliated with the RIAA. Depressingly, Blue Note is. Do you claim that Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Ornette Coleman aren't real "musicians"?

Was Jimi Hendrix not a "musician"? How about Iggy Pop? The members of Can? Or the Velvet Underground? Is Tom Waits a "musician"?

If you don't think so, you're ignoring some of the best music ever recorded.

Re:They really think they have the right... (1)

TekProphet (608963) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845919)

Being anti-consumer and anti-technology are not good positions to be in. You can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times before there is nothing left to stand on.

Re:They really think they have the right... (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845936)

They just think it's their right to control everything related to music.

I'm not normally one to complain, but this morning I was walking down the street and humming some top 40 hits to myself, when out of nowhere some old guy in a suit leaped out and hit me in the face with a shovel.

Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suck) (3, Informative)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845714)

Well, at least they're not gonna make old receivers illegal or inoperable. I guess that must be the part that "strikes a balance" which is "fair to consumers". If you think there'll ever be anything good on satelite radio, buy your hardware now... :)

(2) shall not make obsolete any devices already manufactured and distributed in the marketplace before the implementation of such regulations; and
(3) shall not be inconsistent with the customary use of broadcast content by consumers to the
extent such use is consistent with the purposes of this act and other applicable law.

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (1)

nittacci (841775) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845758)

There's nothing on radio worth listening to that I can't get elsewhere. As soon as a decent portable Sirius "walkman" comes out, it's game over.

Does anybody with all their teeth still listen to AM radio? It's all Limbaugh, Savage and other buffoons.

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845838)

Does anybody with all their teeth still listen to AM radio? It's all Limbaugh, Savage and other buffoons.
 
...and sports.

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14846441)

He said "and other buffoons."

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (1)

Gattman01 (957859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845935)

I use the AM to listen to "Coast to Coast" . Gotta get my conspiracy fix somehow, and I don't feel like paying for the podcasts.

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (1)

nittacci (841775) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846125)

Good point, Gattman. I forgot about Coast to Coast. I listen to it in my sleep every night. Between my iPod and Sirius, I sometimes forget the source of what's coming through my earbuds. One thing about Coast to Coast: When you play it in your sleep it gives you some kick-ass dreams. A few nights ago they did a show (or it was a repeat) about the recordings of ghosts by a husband and wife that do recording in graveyards and things, and I had one of the most vivid nightmares of my life. I've had dreams of being chased by Mayans and extraterrestrial abduction. I do miss Art Bell's terrific voice, though. George is OK, but he's no Art Bell. I can still remember some of his shows with that Malachy Martin priest/excorcist dude and having to look under the bed "just to make sure". I don't think I slept much those nights.

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (1)

Gattman01 (957859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846220)

Now that you mention it, I did have weird dreams when listening to that show. I haven't listened in a few months because of work and other obligations.

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845786)

Re: they're not gonna make old receivers illegal or inoperable

And you think they won't reallocate the FM and AM bands to something else like they plan to do with analog TV?

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (3, Interesting)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845804)

I've actually already noticed this with media center edition. The computer I got shipped with a tuner card, media center edition and the ability to listen to FM. Obviously the FM is buffered, but for some odd reason you can't record off of it, MCE doesn't provide that capability. Now I'm sure there's other software that could do this that I could get, but I'm just saying: sign of things to come.

Re:Buy a radio now (if you think radio doesn't suc (1)

jms1 (686215) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846552)

Read #3 again.
(3) shall not be inconsistent with the customary use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with the purposes of this act and other applicable law.
basically, they're saying that it won't restrict fair use, unless your idea of "fair use" happens to not agree with "the purposes of this act".

Howard Worldwide (4, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845739)

...would hand the FCC the power to set standards and regulate digital and satellite radio receivers...

Coming soon, Howard Stern on HAM radio.

Re:Howard Worldwide (1)

Yo Grark (465041) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845814)

---Coming soon, Howard Stern on HAM radio.

Least then he'd have something to bitch about. "The FCC is...wait...no more fines...Oprah is...wait....she's on satellite too?....my wife is....wait...I'm divorced for no good reason....my kids are...wait not my responsibility......Actually I got it pretty good now!"

Yo Grark

Re:Howard Worldwide (2, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845845)

Coming soon, Howard Stern on HAM radio.

The FCC won't be kosher with that!

In other news (2, Funny)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845746)

In other news, Donald Rumsfeld declares that Abu Graïb is good for iraki prisoneers and Joseph Stalin declares that gulags are good for political opponents. More exciting news on the redefinition and ironic use of "good" at 11.

Re:In other news (1)

bj8rn (583532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845978)

and Joseph Stalin declares that gulags are good for political opponents.

Actually, Stalin would have his opponents declare that the Gulag was good for them. I think the RIAA could take a lesson from this and a) have consumers publicly state that the broadcast flag is good for them and has led to a "drastically improved listening experience", b) have some people voluntarily turn in their non-compliant hardware (or turn themselves in as filesharers), or c) surrender to the French [slashdot.org] .

so what (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845760)

Just noticed last night while mpeg encoding - mp3 has a copyright flag. So do CD's and DAT's. Nobody's jumping and shouting about those. The important part is having control over the software to ignore them.

Re:so what (3, Insightful)

pxuongl (758399) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845839)

and the bill says that all devices that come out after the bill is made into law cannot ignore the flag, and that the FCC will have the power to regulate, meaning anybody making software to ignore the flag will be breaking the law.

Re:so what (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846511)

What about -using- software/hardware that doesn't support the flag? For example, what if the software was written in, to pick a country at random... Norway? I guess using it here would violate the DMCA and result in imprisonment or something.

This country needs a reboot.

Re:so what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845975)

Just noticed last night. you are retarted. te copyright flag on mp3's is universally ignored and the no copy bit on DAT has completely killed that platform. DAT was a no-starter and died a horrible death.

Also DAT no copy flag is easy to override with the right hardware and a simple hack.

DAT = really stinking old tech.

Good for the fans? How? (2, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845773)

good for the fans

How is content restriction ever good for the fans?

Are they thinking it'll make content owners happier and therefore produce more stuff, then making fans happier? I don't get it.

Re:Good for the fans? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845933)

There's nothing to get. When the RIAA introduces something as 'good for the fans', what the mean is that the fans aren't going to like it, so naturally they introduce it as exactly what it's not. It's a classic DRM tactic, just look at Sony. According to Sony, 'content-management' features actually empower the customer to manage their own content, as if they were never able to do that before.

Re:Good for the fans? How? (4, Funny)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846043)

You have an attention span of more than 5 sec. You clearly are not the target fanbase he is talking about . If on the other hand, were you to have a attention span of less than 5 sec, then you would have realized that this indeed is beneficial to the fans, because.. Oh look there's a shinny penny.

Backdoor video broadcast flag???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14845820)

I'm not going to read the bill text because if the RIAA thinks it's a good balance it simply means that everything tips towards them. Is there a possibility that this can be extended into the audio portion of a video broadcast thereby backdooring in the video broadcast flag??? You can see the video with no sound rendering the video useless!!!!!

Curiously absent (3, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845831)

RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business."

Curiously absent is "good for the artists and musicians we represent".

Re:Curiously absent (1)

pxuongl (758399) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845857)

that's because they don't represent anything... "artists and musicians whom we indenture and whose music we hold hostage" would be more accurate.

Re:Curiously absent (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14846370)


> good for the artists and musicians we represent

Actually, the RIAA represents only the music publishers, and specifically does not represent artists or musicians.

(If you're a musician, try applying for membership in the RIAA and see how far you get.)

When an artist signs a recording contract, he/she does not become an employee of the publisher.

The relationship between the publisher and the artist is more like a business-to-contractor type of relationship.

now i'm worried (1, Funny)

jcgf (688310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845855)

When I read that riaa was lobbying again I thought, well that's no big deal. But now they got the FCC involved. They may look small, but they will mess you up man.

Imagine it's about midnight when you hear such a clatter, but when you arose to see what was the matter. The FCC comes right through the fucking shutters and have you on the foor before you can say "what the fuck". Then you can kiss your electronics goodbye as they take everything from the PC to the fucking alarm clock and pcoket calculator.

Then it's time for good cop bad cop...

GCBC as they like to call it, well it's not pretty. First they have one of the female agents give you a hummer, then the others beat your head about as she does it chanting "break break break" trying to make you cry and thus be imasculated in front of said female agent. But no man you gotta stick it to them, but next comes the treatment and well that usually does people in.

Nobody knows what the treatment consists of because well no one that has come back was able to talk about it. The others just didn't come back.

They say the FCC doesn't play games, well let me tell you they play some fucked up ones if I ever seen them.

Re:now i'm worried (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846534)

Wow. You lived through having your phone service disconnected by Ma Bell didn't you?

Madness (1)

massivefoot (922746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845880)

It would hand the FCC the power to set standards and regulate digital and satellite radio receivers, and RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol says it strikes "a balance that's good for the music, good for the fans, and good for business.

No, lad. You want to transmit an audio signal, you accept that I'm gonna do whatever I damn well like when I recieve it. Is it just me, or does anyone else think the RIAA is becoming a bit "precious"?

As usual, (-1, Troll)

Puls4r (724907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845901)

The first 25 dolts to reply generally haven't even read the bill.

The current equipment will NOT be made obsolete.

They framed this in a manner that was interesting. Why are they talking about licensing and fees in law? That makes very little sense. Copyright law already covers who can copy it and who can't.

This law is really only about the "flag". And how that flag functions is NOT going to be up to the consumer. A consumer, wanting to make a copy of something they purchased, is NOT going to run out and buy a "license" before they make a copy.

However, I really do question the opponents to this law. You may pay for the right to watch your cable on demand and listen to your music. But you don't have the right to tape them, at least not last time I checked. I'm fairly certain movies aren't shown on TV and Cable to allow people a chance to record them and keep them. That may be unintended side affect of the current law. It was never the purpose.

Why is a broadcast flag bad? You don't OWN the material that's being beamed into your house, any more than you own a movie that you happened to go see in a theater. We all know where the legalities stand on taking a camcorder into a theater, don't we?

Re:As usual, (1)

john82 (68332) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845972)

such licenses shall include prohibitions against unauthorized copying and redistribution of transmitted content ...

That phrase unauthorized copying pops-up several times in the text of the bill. There is however no definition of what constitutes "unauthorized copy". Absent that definition, it would seem difficult to evaluate what we're getting here.

Re:As usual, (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14846091)

>Why is a broadcast flag bad? You don't OWN the material that's being beamed into your house, any more than you own a movie that you happened to go see in a theater.

Airwaves are a public resource. The public resource has been licensed by the FCC in different manners and monies gained in different amounts for different activities. Spectrum that is for a single private individual's use only is VERY expensive and is generally not receivable without special equipment. Spectrum that is for everyone and anyone is VERY cheap and is generally receivable with any equipment. [yes, this varies also by power and bandwidth]. But now people who have licensed spectrum for the use of anyone at all want to use their cheaply purchased public resource for their own special private commercial usage.

Think of it this way: In your local downtown there's probably a free water fountain. Now imagine if the local water bottling station managed to pass a law that said they could hook into that water fountain and use it to bottle their water. You, the public, get to pay for the water that they plan to sell back to you! And... now you don't even have the old water fountain to show for it! You've been ripped off.

You don't get it both ways. If you want to sell TV service then you get a special private spectrum (a section between 2 - 3 Ghz) and you pay a lot of money for that privilege (some local MMDS companies already do this). If you want to broadcast on the frequency commonly known as "channel 6" (ie: 82 - 88 Mhz), however, then you get a low price from the FCC, but you absolutely MUST allow anyone to do as they please with what they pick up (barring basic copyright laws that prevent you from copying your timeshift recordings for friends or rebroadcasting for public use).

Adding a broadcast flag would be no different from a HAM radio operator broadcasting encrypted TV and charging for it. Absolutely illegal right now, and even if it weren't, incredibly unethical.

Re:As usual, (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846523)

But now people who have licensed spectrum for the use of anyone at all want to use their cheaply purchased public resource for their own special private commercial usage.

That's not right. Radio and TV stations have licensed the spectrum for their exclusive use over a certain area. That's why pirate broadcasters who piggyback on commercially-licensed frequencies are breaking the law.

Fair use doctrine says you have the right to tape. (3, Informative)

texas (43689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846113)

But you don't have the right to tape them.

Who's a dolt? Fair use doctrine does indeed allow time shifting (recording for later playback). It was validated by SCOTUS in the early 80's Betamax case, and hasn't been overturned by any subsequent decisions. If you don't believe me, here's the EFF's take on it [eff.org] .

So I guess that makes you a dolt too, spouting off about that which you know so little. It's people like you who are willing to just take whatever bread crumbs they toss us that are allowing them to get away with crap like this in the first place. Get educated about your rights, or shut up.

Re:Fair use doctrine says you have the right to ta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14846169)

It's people like you who are willing to just take whatever bread crumbs they toss us that are allowing them to get away with crap like this in the first place.

Uh, dude, you can't spot an industry shill when you see one?

Family Guy (1)

darthservo (942083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846180)

All of this reminds me of an older Family Guy episode:

Peter is watching Monday Night Football. He puts in a VHS tape and hits record. Suddenly, the front door crashes in. FBI agents rush in with guns drawn.
Agent: "Do you have the express written consent of ABC and the NFL?"
Peter (holds up a letter): "Just ABC..."
The agents cock their guns, and open fire at VCR.

So, this apparently could hold true for radio? RIAA agents with guns...yipee.

Re:Family Guy (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846430)

So, this apparently could hold true for radio? RIAA agents with guns...yipee.

Look on the bright side: The RIAA loves to behave like jackbooted thugs, but if you shoot one while he's serving a no-knock raid on your house, you won't go to jail.

Re:As usual, (3, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846121)

Um you better go reread copyright law again. You have a legal right to copy all music you want from the radio or TV.

As long as it's for yourself and you don't distribute that material.

the broadcast flag prevents such things. hell they want to make tivo illegal unless it's sanctioned.

I will listen to music or watch TV the way I want to not how I am told to by others.

Re:As usual, (2, Informative)

deck (201035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846200)

You my dear poster are definitley a TROLL. RIAA employee?

The problem with the brodcast flag and other DRM (Digital Restictions Management) is that they WILL eventually be used to manipulate the media to ensure that the message is only what the powers that be want it to be whether it is in the music or the image.

You're the dolt, fuckwad (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14846205)

It was "never the purpose?" WHOSE PURPOSE? SAYS WHO?

When you pay money for something, you do so as part of an AGREEMENT. Who are you to try to say, after the fact, what the nature of my agreement is?

If I lawfully access any content, and lawfully return it undamaged save normal wear and tear, what is it to you, or to anyone?

When my grandfather set up an 8MM camera to film classical music being shown on TV, was he doing anything wrong? No. When my dad did the same to film off the TV, was he doing anything wrong? No. When friends and I shared party mix cassette tapes in college, were we doing anything wrong? No.

BTW, didja ever hear of the Betamax case, in which the US Supreme Court (before this country was fully OWNED by business, and we occasionally had the rights of the American people respected) decided that the constitutional fair use rights which we all have, and which the government has not and cannot constitutionally take away from us, allowed the type of recording off the TV that you are now questioning?

Are you SO FUCKING STUPID that you go around pseuo-authoritatively commenting on things you don't know even the slightest basics about?

I swear, we need a revolution in this country. And corporate apologists like you are the first guys I am going to kill when I pick up the gun.

"good for the fans" (2, Insightful)

kuwan (443684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845904)

Yeah, good for the fans because it makes it so they can't do something that they've been able to do since the advent of personal recording equipment - record songs off the radio.

Yep, it's good for everyone all around isn't it?

Alarmist (2, Informative)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845916)

Big deal. The bill has a total of one sponsor and hasn't even been referred to committee yet. Folks, any legislator can introduce a bill on anything. Most of them die in committee and never see the light of day. Get back to me if it makes it out of committee.

Re:Alarmist (1)

idobi (820896) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846323)

Most of them die in committee and never see the light of day. Get back to me if it makes it out of committee.
or at least when it gets into committee...

Intelligent Design (4, Insightful)

stlhawkeye (868951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845932)

Rep. Mike Ferguson, a New Jersey Republican, said his bill--which would enforce a so-called "broadcast flag" for digital and satellite audio receivers--was necessary to protect the music industry from the threat of piracy.

Necessary? I don't think it's necessary. It'll help, but at what cost to the consumer? And not the Slashdot freeloaders, the honest people who don't pirate anything. Actually, that would include most of Slashdot, none of us ever pirate, we just try before we buy. That's right, isn't it? I'm new here, I don't know the official way we dress up our excuses yet.

"With exciting new digital audio devices on the market today and more on the horizon, Congress needs to streamline the deployment of digital services and protect the intellectual property rights of creators," said Ferguson, who is a member of the House of Representatives' Internet subcommittee. Rep. Mary Bono, a California Republican, is one of the four other co-sponsors.

Well, she's absolutely right here on one count. Congress does need to protect the intellectual property rights of creators, because they are currently under massive assault in a legal system that is a decade behind the technology that it regulates. However, as a Republican, Ms. Bono ought to understand that regulating business is rarely the answer to these problems. Or, in this case, regulating consumers. Even worse. What happened to small government staying out of our lives, Ms. Bono? I'm among those that put the Republicans in power during the Clinton administration and you and your ilk have gradually betrayed our trust. Further, it is also the job of Congress to ensure that our rights as consumers are protected, and for all his enthusiasm, I don't think Darth Nader is up to the job. For one, he's not in the legislature. You are, Ms. Bono.

That's because a federal appeals court last year unceremoniously rejected a similar set of regulations from the FCC, saying the agency did not have authority to mandate a broadcast flag for digital video.

Further proof that over a long enough trajectory the legal system almost always gets it right.

At a breakfast roundtable with reporters on Thursday, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said some sort of legislation is necessary to prevent Americans from saving high-quality music from digital broadcasts, assembling a "personal music library" of their own, and redistributing "recorded songs over the Internet or on removable media."

We already have legislation that forbids this. They don't want legislation, they want mandated hardware controls to enforce it. I have no objections to streamlining the law to get it caught up with technology and limit the impact of piracy on the RIAA's bottom line. I do have a serious problem with legal mandates that enforce technological limits on legal behavior.

Devices like the Sirius S50, the RIAA worries, can record satellite radio broadcasts but aren't required to include digital rights management limitations.

Nor should they be. Sirius bought broadcast rights from ASCAP or whoever broadcast rights group does digital radio, just like everybody else does. The industry has its money from Sirius et al. The only barrier to mass copyright infringement is unreadable devices. As Roger Ebert pointed out long ago, anybody who is a hair above marginally technically competant can create high-quality reproductions of almost any playable media using cheap technology, and store the output in any formot. Onto p2p it goes. The broadcast flag is a big expensive pain in the ass that will not address the problem to their satisfaction, and they'll be back demanding MORE legislation in 5 years when their E/P ratio is too high. The broadcast flag is the first step on a long road of incremenetal freedom reduction that winds gradually out of sight into uncharted territory. Actually, it's not so uncharted. We know what's at the other end.

At a hearing in January, some senators expressed concern that an audio flag would infringe on traditional notions of fair use rights, and the politically powerful National Association of Broadcasters also urged caution on the audio flag.

Go go, NAB! You're forgiven for Rush Limbaugh's half-dozen Marconi Awards. We actually might have quite an ally in talk radio, they have to put up with this ASCAP/broadcast flag stuff too. Limbaugh in particular has dealt with it intelligently. You can just buy his product straight from him, commercial-free, packaged up with some other bullshit, and skip the middle man. And at least somebody in Congress has stopped to ask the question, "is this good for everybody who DOESN'T work for the recording industry?"

The satellite radio companies have grappled with the issue of unauthorized copying in the past, although there is little or no evidence showing that their networks have helped seed file-swapping networks or other piracy hubs.

Yeah, because the number of teenagers and college kids with satellite radio is tiny, and that's who does most of this.

Mod Parent UP (1)

soapee01 (698313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846344)

I wish I had mod points today.

Re:Intelligent Design (1)

witch (21633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846455)

"...some sort of legislation is necessary to prevent Americans from saving high-quality music..."

So they're not content to have legislation that prohibits, they want legislation that prevents. That, to me, sounds like mandating technical measures which can artificially extend copyright protection beyond that already granted by Congress.

Re:Intelligent Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14846526)

I don't think pirate means what you think it means.

Congress needs to introduce other bill too... (1)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845960)

US congress needs to introduce an other bill that limits windows as the only OS that can run on the computers (or may be anything that has microprocessor or may be anything MS thinks their OS can run on). This bill should be introduced in the best interest of the people. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OUR CONGRESS representative working for the people.

How about a Commercial Flag? (4, Funny)

JustASlashDotGuy (905444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845967)


What I want to see introduced is a 'Commercial' flag. This was my PVR could
more effectively autoskip commericials!

Re:How about a Commercial Flag? (1)

dmeranda (120061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846251)

Or more likely, prevent you from fast-forwarding through the commercials
as well as not letting you mute the audio while a commercial is playing.
After all, you don't want to be a "thief" do you?

Re:How about a Commercial Flag? (1)

gmby (205626) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846465)

You forgot; the volume boost during commercials and the flashing white frames that blind you.

Pearls Before Swine (1)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#14845984)

The music industry of the last century was mature in that it worked for everyone involved. With the coming of the wired/wireless world came irritants the upset the status quo. The little piggys that ran the music/movie industries are trying to figure out how to turn these new irritants into pearls. It's a if pigs were oysters sorta thing.

Lawmakers are being asked to legislate the new industry to protect the status quo of the old industry players, the rights of consumers, the cultural heritage of their respective countries and, in doing so, lay down fuzzy, arbitrary lines to aportion the new pie between the respective players with an eye to tax revenue. The legislators most certainly are stakeholders in this brave new world as the more rigorously they define the rights of participants the more surely they can define tax revenue. It's in terms of potential tax revenue that the rights of consumers are likely to be pushed aside. Profits for big business translates into tax revenue for big government.

The United States has... (3, Funny)

dudeX (78272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846003)

the best democracy that money can buy...

This is a good thing (2, Insightful)

mrpeebles (853978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846014)

Remember, the alternative was not between a bill being introduced, or not introduced- it was between whether or not there would be a democratic debate on this at all. There is no use getting mad at the recording industry for wanting this. It is in its nature. You might as well get angry at the sun for setting at the end of each day. Congress is another matter entirely. But this is the way it is supposed to work. The RIAA represents American citizens that have a right to have their voices heard, the same as the rest of us do. The point is to not waste time ranting about the RIAA, which isn't productive (although boycotting their goods is productive), but rather to (politely) rant to your representatives in Congress how mad you will be at them if a law like this is passed. They care a lot more than the RIAA does if you, and people like you, are angry at them. The fact of the matter is that the RIAA is only entitled to as much of a "balance" as it has the congressional votes to support.

Any legal scholor out there? (2, Interesting)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846053)

If it gives the FCC the power to regulate Satallite radio, would this also allow them to impose decency standards to satallite radio? Can we say goodbye Howard Stern.. and to half the buisness model of Sirius...

Digital Radio is an old news (1, Informative)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846161)

There is an over-the-air, unprotected digital radio broadcast system in the UK operating for years now. And you know what? The sky didn't fall.

Robert

OMG (1)

Corbu Mulak (931063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846333)

wtf, nerf RIAA plz

No cable/satellite, no radio, no problem (1)

msbsod (574856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846343)

I have no cable or satellite program anymore. COX was such a money sink and all I got was commercials, fake news, religious bullshit, screwed history and science channels, sometimes an old movie, no sex, and PBS (public TV in the US). Well, I still can get PBS for free via antenna, but I do not need it. I use the saved money to buy used DVDs. This is a lot cheaper. If one day the DRM nightmare kicks in, then I say good bye to movie discs, too. Radio is only interesting for me when I drive long distances, let's say more than 100 km. If the RIAA screws up radio, then I replace it with an MP3 player, as long as that works. I can also drive my car without radio, thanks. In fact when traffic gets bad I turn it off. There are so many things I can do instead of watching TV or listening to music, I really do not depend on products from the MPAA or RIAA. Customers only need to adapt. If the industry adapts, good for them. If not, life is still good without them.

Pirating radio? (1)

dominator (61418) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846489)

How many people are "pirating" radio broadcasts? As opposed to CDs and pre-ripped songs? Honestly? How is this anything more than a pre-emptive power grab?

The mean.. (1)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14846529)

What they mean to say is that its good for their pockets.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?