×

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!

Webcasters Call Bunk on SoundExchange DRM Ploy

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the that's-the-sound-of-the-other-shoe dept.

Music 109

RadioFan writes "The settlement between webcasters and SoundExchange is starting to come apart at the seams, because everyone is realizing that SoundExchange wants to force DRM on Net Radio. DiMA, one of the largest Net Radio lobbyists, has fired back at Sound Exchange, calling them out for leveraging high royalty fees to push through DRM requirements that they failed to obtain in Congress via broadcast flag and anti-recording legislation. Was this whole thing a ruse to get DRM on net radio?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

109 comments

SoundExchange info (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19918717)

Burbage dies on pg. 12
Hedwig dies on pg. 56
Mad-Eye dies on pg. 78
Scrimgeour dies on pg. 159
Wormtail dies on pg. 471
Dobby dies on pg. 476
Snape dies on pg. 658
Fred Weasley dies on pg. 637

Harry gets fucked up by Voldemort on pg. 704 but comes back to life on pg. 724

Tonks, Lupin, and Colin Creevy have their deaths confirmed on pg. 743

19 years after the events in the book:

Ron has married Hermione, their two children are named Rose and Hugo

Harry has married Ginny, their three children are named Lily, James, and Albus Severus.

Draco Malfoy has a son named Scorpius

                The epilogue shows all of the children boarding the train for Hogwarts together.

The final lines of the book are: "The scar had not pained Harry for 18 years. All was well."

Plot Spoilers
Part of Voldemort's soul was implanted into Harry whenever he used Ara Kadvara on him when he was a baby. Harry then sacrafices himself a la Lilly Potter style, which allows him to kill Voldemort without killing himself. He also has hacks (stone to bring him back to life, and an uber wand).

Snape went to the good side (Hogwarts, etc.) because he was all emo that Voldemort killed Lilly Potter.

Harry has three kids with Ginny. Ron and Hermoine fall in love.

This is not the first post. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19918755)

But it could have been if these faggots didn't go and fuck up the comment system.

they can keep their music, i want no part of it. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19918765)

i will continue to listen to old time radio and other sources
where i do not need ever consider these lobbyists and thier ilk.

pop music must die.

Re:they can keep their music, i want no part of it (1)

Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) | more than 6 years ago | (#19922353)

You do realize that "pop" music is an abbreviated form of "popular" music? - meaning that whatever genre or style of music is popular at the time constitutes "pop". Ergo, pop music cannot die, except possibly under the extremely small but non-zero probability that at some point in the future, all genres of music will just happen to be equally popular for some length of time, in which case pop music would cease to exist for as long as that condition exists.

Yeah! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19918783)

Third post!

Net Radio? What net radio? (3, Insightful)

raydobbs (99133) | more than 6 years ago | (#19918795)

Doesn't the crushing, recursive fee schedule pretty much wipe out all the players? I mean, forcing DRM on something that won't be exposed to the public (for fear of never-ending, revolving bankruptcy) seems utterly pointless. I mean, it could be the desire to stomp out the few remaining embers using any method possible...

Re:Net Radio? What net radio? (2, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919531)

The digital savvy people in the music business have hit upon a "new model" to replace their failing one. Subscriptions. They like this even better than the old model because it promises a more predictable and regular revenue stream. And they're going to try and steamroll anyone or anything that could threaten this new model (meet the new boss, same as the old boss). The biggest threat is net radio.

Re:Net Radio? What net radio? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#19925091)

That sounds pretty similar to Microsoft's subscription software business model. I hate the idea of these new 'cash cow' models that big business is coming up with, and can only hope people reject them forcefully.

Re:Net Radio? What net radio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19921299)

regressive, not recursive

woo first post... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19918799)

first post... guess i should take a stab at discussing this.. let's see.. sound exchange.. DiMA.. internet radio.. oh thank god, a yes or no question... YES!

How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#19918801)

The source also tells me that DRM is the only plausible "tool" at the disposal of webcasters to accomplish SoundExchange's goal of working to stop music "streamripping."
I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.' I mean, even if you closed the loop all the way down to my soundcard, it would still have to come out as sound in some quality or another. Once it's in that analog form, I just pipe it into another input device on the same or different machine and begin recording. I've used TotalRecorder to just copy the buffer of my sound card to a file and have captured many NPR shows that I could not find otherwise to purchase.

How in the hell could DRM prevent this?

But, then again, look at what I'm criticizing! I challenge anyone to list one technology or product that DRM has successfully 'worked' on (in that it prevents piracy). This is laughable and brings the phrase "defective by design" to whole new levels I never thought possible. Not only will it be defective, use cycles and memory on your machine but it will probably make the quality worse. Bravo, DRM, bravo.

Nothing I've found on this lays out the implementation so here's my prediction. SoundExchange wants the minimum offer/DRM model in place. Then they can prove it's possible to still streamrip. Then where does that put the web radio sites? At the mercy of SoundExchange, of course, because they implemented something that didn't satisfy a contract.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#19918877)

I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.' I mean, even if you closed the loop all the way down to my soundcard, it would still have to come out as sound in some quality or another. Once it's in that analog form, I just pipe it into another input device on the same or different machine and begin recording. I've used TotalRecorder to just copy the buffer of my sound card to a file and have captured many NPR shows that I could not find otherwise to purchase.


And similar tools exist on Linux to capture the ALSA buffers. There's absolutely no way to prevent 'streamripping' with any DRM. The broadcast has to be decoded at the time of play -- there's no way around it. For that matter, these same techniques work with any DRM.

The bottom line here is that DRM schemes are inherently broken and can't be fixed. So let's just get rid of all DRM and be done with it, 'k Mafiaa?

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (4, Interesting)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919135)

The bottom line here is that DRM schemes are inherently broken and can't be fixed. So let's just get rid of all DRM and be done with it, 'k Mafiaa?

Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (0)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919319)

Why wouldn't you want DRM to be patented? The more its patented the less it can be used, thats the whole basis of IP reform.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919379)

Why wouldn't you want DRM to be patented? The more its patented the less it can be used, thats the whole basis of IP reform.

Two reasons. First, if there's no way to patent it, it becomes harder for a company to make a profit off of it, and less likely large companies will be dumping money into it. Second, if it's not patented, then if you develop an opensource version of it, they can't sue you for patent infringement, although they still might be able to do something with the DMCA. If we could eliminate the DMCA, and make DRM unpatentable, we'd be a lot closer to having all this nonsense with the Mafiaa cleared up.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

Craig Maloney (1104) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920283)

Your conjecture makes no sense, and I'd like to subscribe to your crackpot-theory website.

Seriously, though, how does this make any sense at all? Lets suppose that your conjecture is implemented, and DRM is ineligible for patents. Companies would still be able to make money off of it because what would have previously been patented would now become a trade secret. The padlock is well understood, yet I think there are still companies making money off of padlock sales. And your extrapolation that if its ineligible for patent, ergo it could be opensource is ludicrous at best. Before software patents and the DMCA, there were ways to protect software through copy-protection schemes and other relics of lessons best left learned and not repeated. Unfortunately companies see DRM and the DMCA as the padlock on their virtual shed, while crackers and other pirates see the screws on the plastic handles holding the whole works shut. Patents, laws, and other schemes will not hamper determined companies from making new DRM solutions. The only deterrent is for companies to wake up and realize they are already in a losing arms race with those determined to break their DRM scheme. Until that happens, there will continue to be DRM and DRM-like schemes, regardless of patent or other legal protection.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#19926819)

Companies would still be able to make money off of it because what would have previously been patented would now become a trade secret. The padlock is well understood, yet I think there are still companies making money off of padlock sales.

On your first point, once the DRM implementation has been reverse engineered (which is currently illegal thanks to the DMCA), a open source implementation can be created. If the underlying algorithm isn't covered by patent (and the name by trademark), then there's nothing the company can do to prevent you from distributing your version of the DRM for free, and furthermore, without the DMCA there's nothing they can do if you want to distribute a "broken" version that bypasses authorization checks and just decodes the content. On the second point, a pad lock is a tangible good, it takes resources to create each and every one, and as such, even if it's well understood, because it's a useful item it can still be sold because of the costs necessary to construct it. Software, having 0 duplication cost, if well understood and not protected by patent, trademark, or copyright, becomes much harder to sell because a free version can easily be implemented and distributed. Most companies when faced with a product that can at best be sold for a few months at minimal profit before it becomes completely useless, and long before the development cost has been recouped, will not bother to work on that product. I'm sure, even if the DMCA was repealed today and DRM became unpatentable, there would still be a few companies that would try to develop and market DRM, which would quickly be cracked, and free decoders distributed within weeks of the DRMs release. No companies (unless they were morons and signed long term contracts) would bother to use the DRM because it would be useless (even more than it is now), and the industry would quickly realize the futility of DRM.

You're way off base. (1)

Benanov (583592) | more than 6 years ago | (#19928743)

You can't make an open-source version of DRM.

DRM is an encryption scheme where the recipient is also considered one of the attackers--you HAVE to give the key to the recipient to unlock the media but attempt to tell the recipient how to use the file, which is not technically feasable. An open-source version will simply tell the attacker/recipient how to use the key to unlock the media even faster!

If the source-code is revealed, it ceases to be DRM, because the encrypted key is visible and any protection on the file can be stripped.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919733)

I understand.

The problem is that DRM is a technological "solution" to a sociological "problem". Usually, that sort of fix doesn't work out so well.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920413)

Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?

I wish. If the government made everything that couldn't actually work illegal or unpatentable, it'd implode upon itself.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#19921609)

Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?
The USPTO has no problems with inventions [google.com] that break the laws of physics.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919729)

Yes, but that alsa requires non-approved hardware. Or didn't you notice many of Vista's DRM-in-mind system requirements to keep "premium" content safe?

What they want is a cash cow. Something where if a user complies the user pays a lot of money to them. If the user does not comply and has no money the user goes ignored if the user does not comply (or with tight enough demands even if the user does) then they have an airtight case pre-made, just fill in the blank and confiscate any equipment said user might have as evidence.

It is a similar technique to labeling things as drug paraphernalia like pipes and bongs which are most often probably used for drugs(maybe, don't have figures) to lighters and glowsticks which have many legal legitimate uses and reasons why someone who didn't use drugs to carry around. It makes it much easier to prove a case. Such techniques are used all the time. "Authorities" find that certain factors mean that an individual is more likely to be doing something. After these factors are linked they are at first used to trace and find real evidence against the offender, but before long after these factors are "well known" the factors themselves are submitted as evidence, especially when real evidence is lacking.

This substituted evidence can be used to convict someone or more likely to push harder to gather more real evidence or gain a settlement.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#19925715)

Yes, but that alsa requires non-approved hardware. Or didn't you notice many of Vista's DRM-in-mind system requirements to keep "premium" content safe?


Ever heard of running an OS under virtualization? There's nothing to prevent Vista from under VMware, QEMU, XEN, Parallels, etc. As long as the emulator makes Vista 'think' it has DRM-capable hardware, then you'll have no problems capturing anything coming out of the sound card when running under a non-DRM-restricting OS.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

lessermilton (863868) | more than 6 years ago | (#19928429)

Just try this - put an altoids tin somewhere in near plain sight, a visine (or other eyedropper) on the dash, and then get pulled over...

I can practically guarentee that they'll ask to "search" your vehicle.

On the topic of DRM, I can't think of any particular reason that it should work. Heck, the closest thing anyone could possibly get to "real" DRM is if they did something like Terminal Man...

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920335)

And similar tools exist on Linux to capture the ALSA buffers. There's absolutely no way to prevent 'streamripping' with any DRM. The broadcast has to be decoded at the time of play -- there's no way around it. For that matter, these same techniques work with any DRM.

The bottom line here is that DRM schemes are inherently broken and can't be fixed. So let's just get rid of all DRM and be done with it, 'k Mafiaa?

DRM schemes are not "inherently broken" -- they work just fine for the majority of their target victims; i.e., the vast majority of computer users who wouldn't know an "ALSA buffer" from a fried egg and think "Linux" is a character in "Peanuts." (Hell, I can't tell you how many people I've encountered -- pretty intelligent folks -- who thought that there was absolutely no way to capture and save an image when "right-click disable" is used on a website.) DRM advocates know well that damn few people will have the knowledge, skills, or gumption to circumvent the DRM. If it requires more than two steps and/or knowledge any more advanced than it takes to send an e-mail, most folks will just swear, give up, and go see what's on YouTube.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 6 years ago | (#19921987)

Yes, lots of people are incapable of leaving their DRM bubble. The MAFIAA is happy to keep them safely crippled -- that's a lot of "lost sales avoided", according to their way of thinking.

But don't forget that DRM also suffers from the "broke once, broken everywhere" problem. If only one smart person figures out how to break DRM, he or she can publish his or her findings. A few others will use those findings to develop a tool. Many people will then use the tool to rip and republish the media in other ways: torrents, pirate sites, etc.

Ultimately, even if Joe Sixpack thinks JHymn is just a song about Lil' Baby Jeebus, he's still capable of typing "download brittany spears song" into Google and clicking on whatever shows up. The only reason he doesn't succeed very often is the diligence of the mafioso lawyers at sending Cease and Desist notices.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 6 years ago | (#19922597)

Ultimately, even if Joe Sixpack thinks JHymn is just a song about Lil' Baby Jeebus, he's still capable of typing "download brittany spears song" into Google and clicking on whatever shows up. The only reason he doesn't succeed very often is the diligence of the mafioso lawyers at sending Cease and Desist notices.
Nah, the only reason he doesn't succeed these days is the deluge for made for Google ad pages and porn sites that he gets on that search.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

physicsnick (1031656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19918901)

Exactly. Streamripping is a fundamental possibility in any kind of broadcast media. If it can reach my ears, I can build a device to record it.

I just don't understand why they care so much about online streams; they're often lower quality than common radio signals. Why aren't they clamoring to stop people from streamripping ordinary radio stations? Are they secretly devising DRM'd radios with encrypted ratio broadcasts? If they aren't applying the same tactics to analog broadcasts, the whole endeavor is pointless.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (4, Insightful)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919077)

The quality of online is at least as good if not better and is getting better than analog over-the-air radio. That's the crux of this. They see the way things are going. They see that wireless clouds are proliferating and that terrestrial radio may disappear as people carry around wireless internet radio devices. If they could stop you from recording off of HD radio, they would. If you can get your singles off the radio/internet radio, you don't need to buy it, and these guys are in the business of selling the music that they create.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919915)

They see the way things are going. They see that wireless clouds are proliferating and that terrestrial radio may disappear as people carry around wireless internet radio devices. If they could stop you from recording off of HD radio, they would.
Did you just accuse them of looking further than the ends of their collective noses? Are you sure you're posting to the right site?

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919937)

If you can get your singles off the radio/internet radio, you don't need to buy it

Surely you're not insinuating that the other songs on the albums aren't worth listening to?!?

*Smacks face like McCauley Culkin*

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

Lunarsight (1053230) | more than 6 years ago | (#19924921)

To be completely fair, over-the-air radio deserves to disappear. It's pretty horrid nowadays. Most airwave radio is little more than a gear in the corporate machine which tries and take artists on large record labels, and turn them into hit-machines. The end result is a nauseatingly awful playlist that rotates through the same dozen or so artists over and over again.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (2, Informative)

fallungus (810282) | more than 6 years ago | (#19925397)

Commercial over-the-air radio deserves to disappear, but there are still quite a few non-commercial stations on the left of the dial [wusb.fm] which haven't sold out to NPR, still serve the community, and feature diverse playlists which feature many new independent and local artists that you will never hear on commercial radio. These non-commercial stations are depending on net broadcasting to reach a wider audience, since their transmitters are generally low-powered.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

weber (36246) | more than 6 years ago | (#19924969)

What good would DRM (if it worked) do against people getting music for free? If you don't want to pay, you go to The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] or similar places and get it (in CD quality). Why would you bother ripping a stream?!? I guess this would just make the casual "streamripper" searching for another way to avoid paying for music discover the plethora of the p2p universe.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (3, Interesting)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919083)

I just don't understand why they care so much about online streams;
Because net radio is a threat to their business model, and because it's the future of radio.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

cianduffy (742890) | more than 6 years ago | (#19921021)

Analogue? Thats barely a risk... They're not stopping me dumping the direct, anywhere from 128 to 320k Musicam streams of radio stations I want to listen to direct off digital satellite or DAB here, not really can they - I have hours of Paul van Dyk sets recorded at 320 from Radio Fritz, for instance. Until they can DRM that, the 32 (notice the factor of ten...)k webstream isn't really worth caring about, surely?

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919113)

I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.'

Pandora and Live365 both stop streamripping as any reasonable person understands it. Obviously blocking any possible "recording" isn't possible and it's FUD to suggest that that's what at issue.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

mystran (545374) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920059)

Yeah well, one even nowadays sees schemes like flashplayers used to stream normal mp3s over normal http connection, used to prevent people from saving the mp3s involved. Same with videos too. I'd say against normal person it's probably pretty effective. :)

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

Hucko (998827) | more than 6 years ago | (#19923561)

It is possible they aren't playing anything ppl want. I worked out how, and have never had reason to use any form of ripping. I believe I am not alone in knowing but never using nefarious mechanisms.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19920357)

Pandora caches the 128kbps mp3s onto the user's computer. It's not really streaming that pandora does. Sure it's not intuitive to the normal user but when word gets around (it already has) you can if you really wanted to, grab a particular song.

DRM = Global Warming & Lost Production (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19919145)

Not only will it be defective, use cycles and memory on your machine but it will probably make the quality worse.

Hey, good point. Where are all the green people complaining how DRM is contributing to global warming because the computer is required to use more energy than needed to perform it's common tasks, thus waisting energy and contributing to global warming. Lets call this 'Energy Creep'.

And where are all the business people who should be complaining about Vista et. al that require such extra computer CPU to run all these extra non-sense DRM scheme's that's wasting said energy (and therefor also costing more on the electricity bill) but slowing down a persons computer and making software more complex that more crashes can happen, costing business countless money each year in lost employee productivity and higher electricity bills?

There's so many ways to attack DRM. The sad thing is that those who are trying to push this worthless crap on us probably appreciate some of the arguments when put into other contexts.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919245)

Goverment put the v-chip in tv's. Whats to stop them from convincing congress that all analog equipment sold in the future must have a filter that blocks recording? It wouldn't stop someone with a little know how to circumvent but once the sheeple are used to not being able to record things how hard would it be to just ban analog equipment? How long would it take 5 maybe 10 years?

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919703)

"Whats to stop them from convincing congress that all analog equipment sold in the future must have a filter that blocks recording?"

Well, you supply your own answer in the very next sentence-
"It wouldn't stop someone with a little know how to circumvent"

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | more than 6 years ago | (#19921647)

Right but how many of the sheeple will hack a piece of equipment, its very unlikely. Then when everyone is use to not being able to record analog for DRMed sounds/video the government aka RIAA steps in and says "You don't need analog at ALL."

The "analog" equipment (1)

ickeicke (927264) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919907)

I think the analog step that is being referred to is the step from speakers (audio source) to ears. That will always be captureable as long as that step is not digital. One option would be to remove the eardrums from everyone and then install some kind of digital receptor that translates the digital DRM'ed signal directly to the auditory nerve (or the optical nerve in case of video/images). Somehow, I think that all this will take a bit more than "5 maybe 10 years".

With "proper" DRM in the receptor/translator, that system would be pretty fool proof. Although even then you could try and tap the auditory nerve and record the signal, or maybe even use somekind of brain scan to interpret the signals being received in the brain.

*puts on tinfoil hat.

Re:The "analog" equipment (1)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | more than 6 years ago | (#19921693)

Remember when HBO only came in as an analog signal and you needed a box to view it? Well take a similar step in a different direction, play the analog out the speakers but place in it a signal that locks out new analog recording devices. No need for auditory surgery if you train the masses correctly. Does this make us the little deviants?

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

UserGoogol (623581) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919277)

Indeed, and that argument applies more to streaming audio than non-streaming audio because even though the analog hole always exists, with non-streaming audio it's a pain in the ass to exploit because you're forced to record at one second per second, (whereas with digital copying you can often go much faster) but with streaming audio one second per second is a constraint forced on you by the nature of the technology itself.

DRM would effectively limit SOME features (1)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919513)

If you're wrapping the whole stream in encrypted DRM-crap, and you're using a low-level buffer grab to save the audio, then stream rippers will lose out on the metadata embedded in streams. This means that you won't be able to separate a stream into individual songs, which would really suck for Joe User. It's fine if you're listening to mixed sets, but I personally like separate mp3 files for each song.

And before anyone suggests it, there is no way to blindly separate a stream accurately into individual songs (some songs have quiet/silent sections).

Re:DRM would effectively limit SOME features (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920625)

You can break most songs or streams into sets easily. The level of the song changes between songs and the amount of silence changes between tracks. Early rippers would do this and apply the meta data to it after wards. Of course it isn't perfect and you would have to name each one individually by hand after checking to see if the entire song was there, but at the cost of ten CDs to get ten songs you actually like, it would be worth it.

Re:DRM would effectively limit SOME features (1)

manowar821 (986185) | more than 6 years ago | (#19927127)

Whatever man, if you're knowledgeable enough to rip DRM protected streams of any sort, you're smart enough to use a program like CoolEditPro to chop it up into individual tracks. It's easy, and even fun to mess around with audio!

Try it out. :)

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (2, Interesting)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919627)

You've hit on why DRM is just a blip. It's going to die off of natural causes, sooner or more sooner. At the very worst, it will become so de-fanged as to not matter beyond some use like parental controls for your toddler.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920321)

I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.'

Consider DRM which works only with cooperating drivers that disable recording during play of protected content. Yes you still have the analog hole, but it's no longer *convenient* to record shows. Requires another machine/device and less than stellar quality.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (3, Informative)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 6 years ago | (#19922037)

I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.' I mean, even if you closed the loop all the way down to my soundcard, it would still have to come out as sound in some quality or another. Once it's in that analog form, I just pipe it into another input device on the same or different machine and begin recording. I've used TotalRecorder to just copy the buffer of my sound card to a file and have captured many NPR shows that I could not find otherwise to purchase.

How in the hell could DRM prevent this?
Actually, it doesn't have to. The industry can enforce Draconian licenses to prevent streamripping. Check out Pandora Radio [pandora.com] . Essentially, they are an Internet radio station that respresent the future of what Net radio is likely to become. They give you some freedom to hear the genre of music you like, but zero control over exactly what you will hear at any given time -- making streamripping to obtain certain songs extremely tedious and out of reach for all but the most dedicated pirates.

They accomplish this through these restrictions:
1. They stop you from specifically being able to play a particular song or artist. Instead they'll create a station that you can customize based on genre, that will from time to time randomly play a song from the artist you chose.
2. You can't programatically find out what's playing. The radio player itself is flash-based, no handy Shoutcast stream tags here.
3. Even if you and a friend listen to the same custom station at the same time, both will be randomly playing through a different part of that station's universe --> no predictability.
4. You have limited ability to skip songs (something like 7 per hour).
5. You can't go back and listen to a song that's already played (fully or partially).
6. You can't restart a song that's just started playing.
7. You can't tell what going to play next.

Aside from these restrictions, it's actually a pretty cool idea and I listen to Pandora from time to time, but the music license effectively makes it so that there's simply no viable way to record the songs you want unless you're willing to sit there for hours, manually chopping up and labeling audio.

Re:How Could You Implement This 'Solution'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19922139)

that actually works in the webcasters' favor. according to the article, the proposed contract said "to implement technology related to streamripping... provided such technology is feasible and is available on reasonable terms."

Since it isn't feasible, the webcasters would no longer be bound to that clause

I disagree (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19918821)

That’s like saying someone always puts earth first. Knowing local legislative has always given readily independent analysis doings. Vacuum orders load down ever man offering republicans testimonies. Knowledge in locals locations has evermore influence on the environment. It makes sense if you look at the details.

Re:I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19919137)

That's some super arguing there complete with a secret code... I shudder to think how much time you wasted with the bold tag getting that right.
btw, there is a place in hell for mean-spirited, offensive, lets-ruin-the-party-for-everyone people like you... i hope you enjoy the bbq

Does it matter (5, Interesting)

funkatron (912521) | more than 6 years ago | (#19918857)

Surely the obvious solution is for the net radio stations to move their server out of SoundExchange's reach. I hear hosting in Russia isn't too expensive these days.

Re:Does it matter (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920131)

Or maybe make arrangements with Aruba to host the servers pay them under similar rules of the current system.

Re:Does it matter (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920581)

I don't remember the case but I remember someone getting busted for doing just that. They were being accused of copyright infringement and pirating and move the servers off shore where the laws didn't apply and that was used as evidence of malice or intent or something of the sorts at his trial.

I wish I could remember who and where it happened to. but ti wasn't more then a few years ago that it happened.

Re:Does it matter (2, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920773)

Well it was pretty dumb of them to not also move offshore. If you're going to move your servers offshore to avoid US laws, you might as well move yourself over there too. I don't think the guys running The Pirate Bay would still be operating if they lived in the US while their servers were located in Sweden.

Not that I'm thinking of moving there, but how is Russia for immigration anyway? You'd have to learn the language of course, but other than that it seems like a fairly decent place to live. It's not like you'll have your head sawed off or be blown up by suicide bombers, like in other parts of the world. And it doesn't seem like they're terribly restrictive with freedom, from what little I've heard, unlike places like China.

Wouldn't it be ironic if people started moving to Russia in search of freedom?

Re:Does it matter (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 6 years ago | (#19925267)

Not that I'm thinking of moving there, but how is Russia for immigration anyway? You'd have to learn the language of course, but other than that it seems like a fairly decent place to live. It's not like you'll have your head sawed off or be blown up by suicide bombers, like in other parts of the world. And it doesn't seem like they're terribly restrictive with freedom, from what little I've heard, unlike places like China.

Wouldn't it be ironic if people started moving to Russia in search of freedom?
No, it would be stupid.
Russia has real problems with organised crime (lots of it in the Kermlin), political and journalistic critics of the government end up dead (even if they are not in Russia). "Russia's population is actually decreasing because of catastrophic health problems" (Jared Diamond's words not mine). A quick look at this Human Rights Watch [hrw.org] report is not exactly heartwarming.

As for the "no terrorism" claim, note that the overwhelming group in Chechnya [wikipedia.org] are Sunni Muslims (the Afgan Taliban government was the only nation to recognise their independant state), and so I can't imagine any suicide bombers being sympathetic to attacking Russia. Oh wait, this [wikipedia.org] with 344 civilan deaths due to Chechen and pro-Islamic fundamentalists. And in this one [wikipedia.org] the Russians forces helped the terrorists kill over 100 civilians.

And if you want to know how Putin views freedom, he did consider the interview of George Tenet by Larry King "Torture" [bbc.co.uk] , so I wouldn't worry about all the real torture going on. See the torture section of this report [amnesty.org]

Other than that I hear the Steppes are lovely this time of year.

Rippers (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19918873)

Noticed this reaction [stationripper.com] from one ripping software company. Used the software before, works petty good... and I agree with a lot being said on this about the latest in this mess.

Re:Rippers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19919377)

Funny:

Trying to prevent recording what eventually HAS to be analog is kinda pointless in the long run...
(Maybe the RIAA will require us to have a digitial implant to listen to music some day?)

Would be nice:

I wish the RIAA would focus more on trying to make money off the way people want to use their product, instead of trying to come up with new ways that restrict how people use those products.
I can only hope that software like stationripper keeps on working, and the RIAA dies a very nasty death. I run a small audio/video shop. I would imagine if I started dictating what users could do with the equipment I sell them, I'd be out of business quick. Not sure why the music industry things they are exempt from this basic idea.

Re:Rippers (1)

zeet (70981) | more than 6 years ago | (#19928631)

I like this line the best:

And trying to restrict people from being able to time-shit radio is also pointless.

Never heard of that particular practice. Perhaps it goes with this product [atechflash.com] .

Motives are simple (4, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#19918903)

I've said it before: the RIAA wants to hobble net radio, because it represents a huge threat to the control they currently hold over what people listen to. They dictate to the terrestrial stations which artists will get airplay, something that is impossible to do when any schmuck can start a web site and stream music. That's why the terrestrial stations don't pay this "performance royalty." They're the "good guys."

Net radio gives opportunities to unknown/independent artists to reach potential fans, and this simply does not serve the interests of the "big five" (or is it "big three" now?) record companies who are responsible for all the crappy music, cross-fading and talking over we get on commercial, FM radio these days.

So, sure, they want to introduce DRM to net radio, as well as crippling fees that only allow big companies (like AOL, for example) to play. Anything to wring a few more dollars out of unsuspecting music fans and prolong their control over the choices available to us.

Re:Motives are simple (3, Interesting)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919179)

I would think that if they try to force independent artists into using DRM via any of these methods they're looking to get slapped with a class-action lawsuit for something like restraint of trade. An independent artist that is willing to provide free music in order to get gigs, sell other music, or to develop a following, may not want its use hampered by DRM or to be refused by net radio stations for not having it, and that such restrictions would unfairly impair such an artist's ability to make money from his/her creations. IANAL, but if they actually have the gall to try to block non-DRM independent music from net radio, or levy a charge from net stations purportedly on behalf of the independent that the independent does not want, someone is opening themselves up to some new lawsuit possibilities here...

Re:Motives are simple (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919341)

How is that different than the Zune, for example, applying DRM to music files you "squirt" at other users, with no regard to the wishes of the actual copyright holder?

These "performance royalties" are collected for all songs played, regardless of their origin and the wishes of the artist. Any artist may apply to SoundExchange to receive the royalties collected on their behalf, less a "handling fee." It is not optional.

Re:Motives are simple (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919805)

Most of the time the record companies are the copyright holders. Only the top musicians can negotiate to own the rights to their songs with major labels. (Generally speaking. There are exceptions.)

Re:Motives are simple (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920023)

Keep in mind also that we are talking about the copyright on the performance which, as you pointed out, is usually held by the record company. The copyright on the song itself (the publishing rights) may be held by the artist or another party. Royalties are collected on behalf of the copyright holder of the song itself by either BMI or ASCAAP. These royalties, unlike the "performance royalty," are paid by terrestrial stations and internet stations alike. They are also based on the revenue the station earns. The "performance royalties" are paid by internet station only, and are based on the number of listeners. So a station with no revenue source pays the same rates as the Clear Channel station.

Re:Motives are simple (2, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919657)

That's why the terrestrial stations don't pay this "performance royalty." They're the "good guys."

You may not have noticed, but the performance royalty groups are trying to go after terrestrial radio stations now too. It's possible that they never liked radio's "free ride".

Link [hollywoodreporter.com]

Re:Motives are simple (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919849)

I don't know who you are referring to when you say "performance royalty groups." The group who lobbied for and was granted these royalties in 1996 was the RIAA, who represents the holders of the copyright on the performances in question. I have heard nothing of these rates being paid by terrestrial stations. Perhaps you could provide a bit more detail.

Re:Motives are simple (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920083)

Sorry, I didn't notice your link. I hadn't seen that article, and I don't know how successful the groups involved will be in their quest to get FM stations to pay these royalties. I only had time to skim the article, but I would be very surprised if the proposed rates would be based on the number of listeners, as the rates proposed by the Copyright Board are.

Thanks for the information. I will look in to it further.

Re:Motives are simple (1)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 6 years ago | (#19927857)

100% correct. The record industry doesn't want the current system, where they control artist exposure through payola, to change. They have absolutely no interest in anything that might help artists get exposure based on public opinion.

you F4il Iht (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19918931)

centralized 7rack of where users. BSD/OS Corpse turned over

Already done for Clear Channel (4, Informative)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 6 years ago | (#19918989)

I listen to a local Clear Channel station online while at work. The week of July 4th, the stream suddenly stopped playing in Winamp. They had implemented a DRM scheme that requires you to play it through their web player (WMP10).

So...I'd say it's already here.

Re:Already done for Clear Channel (4, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919033)

The difference is that the Clear Channel stations was probably more than happy to accommodate the wishes of the RIAA, as they work hand-in-hand with each other in the "terrestrial world." The RIAA would like net stations to fall in line too, and are using the "performace royalty" - by way of their proxy SoundExchange - to accomplish this.

Re:Already done for Clear Channel (2, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919611)

And all that would do here is prevent me from listening to their station. NO radio station is so important that I will radically change MY way of doing stuff to accomodate THEM. My choice is naked WinAmp, and if they don't offer a stream that works with it, oh well... there's other music out there to discover. Listening to the radio, by whatever means, is supposed to *enhance* my day, not piss me off.

Not showing artist/title is annoying, but I can put up with it... but it actively prevents me from pursuing any that I like well enough to buy, too.

Talk about cutting their own throats....

Re:Already done for Clear Channel (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920785)

I listen to a local Clear Channel station online while at work. The week of July 4th, the stream suddenly stopped playing in Winamp. They had implemented a DRM scheme that requires you to play it through their web player (WMP10).

Sounds like a good move to me. After all, if it's a ClearChannel station, it must not be worth listening to.

Re:Already done for Clear Channel (1)

Phoobarnvaz (1030274) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920953)

Sounds like a good move to me. After all, if it's a ClearChannel station, it must not be worth listening to.

After all this garbage...I've gotten to the point where I only listen to non-US stations. Not only do I get out of my comfort zone...get to hear what others are hearing out the country & don't have to worry about this DRM BS.

Plus...music is music...so the same songs I would hear in the US...if a station were to play them at all...sounds the same. The same formats we used to listen to years ago are still being used outside the US.

Ubj nobhg... (1)

also-rr (980579) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919007)

Jr whfg rapelcg rirelguvat jvgu Ebg13? Vg orapuznexf snibhenoyl va grezf bs frphevgl jvgu fhpu vaqhfgel fgnaqneqf nf PFF naq JZN, obgu bs juvpu ner oebxra.

Re:How about... (4, Funny)

griffjon (14945) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919197)

That comment reads (in ROT13):

We just encrypt everything with Rot13? It benchmarks favourably in terms of security with such industry standards as CSS and WMA, both of which are broken.

I reply - even better, we have the DMCA already on the books; so legally ROT13 is just as secure as any other protection mechanism, if you break it, you can be sued. This is the case, I propose DRM move to Double-ROT13. ROT13 is an old method, and like DES moving to TripleDES (3DES), ROT13 should update to 2ROT13 for increased security AND performance - even better, it works out of the box on existing players - zero compatibility problems, no need to worry about whiny users with old or new technology.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19920789)

Double-ROT13 a.k.a. ROT26? (26 letters in alphabet...hmm let me think about this...)

Re:Ubj nobhg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19928569)

Uhh, dude, you forgot to switch your keyboard mapping back to Dvorak after the n00b used your PC to check his MySpace account.

All makes sense (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19919041)

That's like saying someone always puts earth first. Knowing local legislative has always given readily independent a nalysis doings. Vacuum orders load down ever man offering republicans testimonies. Knowledge in locals locations has evermore influence on the environment. It makes sense if you look at the details.

What about advertising? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919129)

Don't at least a significant percentage of these radio stations rely on advertising revenue? Putting DRM will invariably lead to loss of some percentage of the audience.

frost pI5t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19919415)

ThAt *BSD 0wned.

OT: Is Slashdot Slashdotted? (-1, Offtopic)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919467)

What's with the servers today? I keep getting 500 Internal Server Errors!

Re:OT: Is Slashdot Slashdotted? (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919669)

I don't get a timeout error like you're getting, but today all the discussion and reply pages are taking 20-30 seconds to come up (the index page is not affected).

Might be a side effect of the new Discussion 2 thing, listed on the main article page.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/19/171622 8 [slashdot.org]

Hope it doesn't screw up the low-bandwidth and no-CSS setups (which I use... the regular view makes my eyes crazy).

Slashdot is lagged to shit (0)

crabpeople (720852) | more than 6 years ago | (#19919637)

New comment system hicups?

Its barely worth clicking on the comments links when they take over a minute to load up. Not to mention 1 minute plus if you want to view some thread or individual comment.

Time Shifting (not just a good idea, it's the law) (1)

shanec (130923) | more than 6 years ago | (#19920217)

One thing that the RIAA likes to forget about is a little court case that allowed "time shifting."

Time shifting is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer. Typically, this refers to TV programming but can also refer to radio shows via podcasts. Time Shifting [wikipedia.org]

What tools would you use to "time shift" a webcast but a stream-ripper? Therefore, eliminating the stream-rippers effectively rewrites the law.

Give it time. Even if they actually get webcast streams intertwined with DRM (which I highly doubt), it won't be long until someone sues because they can't exercise their rights under the law.

Shane
General Manager,
Big Blue Swing.com

Re:Time Shifting (not just a good idea, it's the l (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#19922483)

it won't be long until someone sues because they can't exercise their rights under the law

Yeah, because it as really pushed all those lawsuits concerning DVD backup and format shifting. Oh, right...it hasn't. Thing is, not enough people know enough to care, and so few streaming media outlets provide enough quallity to matter. The general population doesn't care, and the audio geeks don't want it (96kb streams, that is). Not that it would matter, they would just buy a patch to the law for audio. They've already done so for rentals.

No mention (1)

verybadradio (1129207) | more than 6 years ago | (#19924053)

There's no mention in the article of streams such as ShoutCast.

I use shoutcast for mine and there are literally thousands others using it. Pirate radio is another free one. They may not bother with mine and other radio stations because I dont have any income coming from it and dont want or expect it either.

On another note I think trying to make internet radio stations pay a royalty to combat stream ripping is a completely insane idea that shows just how out of touch these people are. Do they honestly think that if I want music I have to resort to ripping low quality streams? There are 1001 places to get it available on the net. I've got better things to do with my time than to search out music on the radio and rip the stream.

I've tried ripping a stream of an old 1960's broadcast. I intented to use some of the audio for commercials I was putting together. It was a pain and I was left with two choices:

1) sit at the computer and listen until just the right moment and begin ripping or;
2) record hours of audio to get the right piece and listen to it later to find it, and cut the piece out.

Either way it was labor intensive.

GPLv3 For Music (1)

morriscat69 (807260) | more than 6 years ago | (#19924123)

So, bear with me here.. music is bits right?

So I am thinking, the independent musicians of the world need something like a EULA, something that would get around the "$ound Exchange" compulsory license.

Is it possible? Would it have to be wrapped in a 'software program'?
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...