Remember that election last November? You know, the one that signaled the need for change. Well, apparently that change doesn’t include taking a more enlightened approach to legislation involving new technology. Earlier this month a bipartisan group of Senators lead by Diane Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a bill that would create a variety of new restrictions for both Internet broadcasters and listeners.
Bill S.256, also known as the “Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act” (PERFORM), would, among other things, require that Internet broadcasters protect their audio streams with DRM technology. Apparently the RIAA has convinced Feinstein that unencrypted audio streams are contributing to the global piracy problem.
In a world where just about every song ever recorded is available from any number of online sources, it’s hard to believe that a significant number of listeners are sitting around waiting for their favorite song to play on some Internet station so they can record the stream, cut the song out of the stream, tag it, then transfer it to their iPod. No, something tells me that people who don’t want to pay for songs have more efficient ways of stealing music.
It’s unfathomable that lawmakers would spend time attempting to cripple a new industry that is still in its infancy. Worse yet, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this bill. It was introduced last year and ultimately failed. The fact that it’s been reintroduced is a testament to the RIAA’s persistence as a lobbying group.
It’s conceivable that, if passed, the law would eliminate a large number of existing Internet broadcasters. If the cost of investing in proprietary DRM streaming systems doesn’t run broadcasters out of business, the new royalty and licensing fees just might. Keep in mind that Internet broadcasters are already paying the same licensing fees that terrestrial broadcasters pay, as well as additional fees that terrestrial broadcasters don’t pay.
Then there are the issues related to the use of DRM. Since there’s no such thing as an open DRM standard broadcasters will likely pick and choose from the motley assortment of available options. Not only will this create confusion among consumers, but it will likely leave many users out in the cold. Very few DRM schemes are cross-platform, and the ones that are (FairPlay) would likely not be available to Internet broadcasters.
Chances are that many broadcasters would select Microsoft’s DRM system, effectively turning Internet radio into a Windows-only medium (and ironically leaving Zune users out of the loop).
If I didn’t know better I might think that these politicians and lobbyists were actively trying to kill Internet radio. If this bill passes they’ll be off to a good start.
We encourage you to take action by contacting your local lawmaker and sharing your opinions on this matter. Follow the links below for more information:
I’m thinking of starting a new industry that generate energy from human remains. We’ll have a giant trencher that digs through a cemetery, separates bodies from junk and burns them.
Do you still think “It’s unfathomable that lawmakers would spend time attempting to cripple a new industry that is still in its infancy. ”
I love my MP3 player and would hate to be without it, but the music companies have a right to protect what they produce and consumers have a right to fight them. Your argument seems to be that the industry has no right to seek protection and I think your are wrong. They have every right.
Fight the issue directly. Work with the industry to find a solution. Negotiate. Accusing congress of doing their job doesn’t seem like the right approach.
Greg: I see this as a classic case of trying to pass a law where no problem exists. There is absolutely no evidence that Internet radio is contributing to piracy.
If passed this law would result in nebulous and poorly defined security requirements for streaming music. As I’ve noted, it would likely throw the market into chaos by confusing consumers and running many legitimate Internet broadcasters out of business.
While I agree that the labels have rights, it’s worth noting that consumers and Internet broadcasters have rights as well. Unfortunately there is no negotiating with the music lobby because the RIAA has taken a scorched earth approach to dealing with their own customers.
“it’s hard to believe that a significant number of listeners are sitting around waiting for their favorite song to play on some Internet station so they can record the stream, cut the song out of the stream, tag it, then transfer it to their iPod”
It’s called StreamRipper, a very lovely automated way to easily rip & tag thousands of songs in a matter of hours.
While I don’t agree with the legislation, one of the cornerstones of your argument is extremely weak.
This really sucks dude. I listen to one of the best radio shows ever online. I mean i get to ask bands that i like questions that i want answers to. Theres nothing wrong with it at all. Sure people listen but thats because they care. If this goes through i dunno whats going to happen to me. The link for me to the real world and the bands under ground will be gone 🙁 the best bands ever are under ground 🙁
Kevin – OK, and I’ll also mention Audio Hijack for our Mac friends out there.
Here’s a question for you: What sort of streams are you ripping and what is the end result of your effort? If you’re out to pirate specific music there are much more efficient ways to do that.
And don’t forget that most audio streams are currently 128kb at best. Someone who wants to steal music can easily find higher quality files any number of other places.
Programs like StreamRipper have a small user base relative to the total number of people who listen to Internet radio. And I’d be willing to bet that the people who use StreamRipper aren’t going to be stopped by a DRM encoded stream.
What’s missing is that broadcasters actually have a pretty sweet deal. They pay an incredibly low license fee for the rights to broadcast music, and the music producers are required by (old) law to allow this. There’s no market pricing for broadcast rights! IMHO This is a really good thing for the listener, because it means cheap access to lots of music for the broadcasters. The law is really helping us here.
Segmenting an audio stream into individual songs that you can automatically collect, group into albums, replay in your own order, and so on is a pretty significant new feature that the writers of the original mandatory broadcast license laws didn’t foresee. It seems entirely reasonable to not allow this significant new feature to be covered by the old incredibly cheap mandatory license fee.
Put another way, the market suggests that random access to very large collections of songs is worth somewhere in the range of $10-$20/customer/month — and broadcasters don’t (won’t, shouldn’t have to) pay anything remotely close to this for the music they play.
This law may actually be in our interest, since it seems to make it clear what recording *is* allowed under the broadcast license. (It’s worth exploring whether this provision could be used to make DRM illegal if it prevents allowed recording!) I don’t see where DRM is required, just that broadcasters can’t make it too easy to segment the music. i.e. an internet radio station could use voiceovers instead of a machine readable meta data track to announce songs and be in compliance with no DRM.
I sent a letter to my representatives in Congresss (via the EFF Action Center). I hope everyone else did the same.
Bob:
“There’s no market pricing for broadcast rights! IMHO This is a really good thing for the listener, because it means cheap access to lots of music for the broadcasters. The law is really helping us here.”
It’s been this way since the dawn of radio. It’s generally been considered a form of promotion for the labels. In fact, airplay is so important to the labels that they frequently PAY radio stations to play their music. It’s called Payola, and it’s against the law.
“Segmenting an audio stream into individual songs that you can automatically collect, group into albums, replay in your own order, and so on is a pretty significant new feature that the writers of the original mandatory broadcast license laws didn’t foresee. It seems entirely reasonable to not allow this significant new feature to be covered by the old incredibly cheap mandatory license fee.”
Actually, that feature would be disallowed entirely regardless of what rate the broadcaster is paying.
Your suggestion that the going market rate for this sort of service is in the $10-$20 range seems to be based on the going rate for Rhapsody and other music subscription services. You simply can’t compare those services to internet broadcasters. Two entirely different concepts. The all-you-can eat music services provide music on demand and in a higher quality audio format. Those are clearly premium services, not to be confused with a traditional broadcast model.
“It’s worth exploring whether this provision could be used to make DRM illegal if it prevents allowed recording!”
OK, this comment makes me suspicious. Just who exactly do you work for?
Have you read the proposed bill? While DRM is not mentioned explicitly the only way to meet the requirements of an allowed recording would be to use DRM technology.
Read this and tell me how you would accomplish this without DRM:
“(10)(A)(iii) do not permit the redistribution, retransmission or other exporting of a phono-record embodying all or part of a performance licensed under this section from the device by digital outputs or removable media, unless hte destination device is part of a secure in-home network that also complies with each of the requirements prescribed in this paragraph.”
“Segmenting an audio stream into individual songs that you can automatically collect, group into albums, replay in your own order, and so on is a pretty significant new feature”
hmmm….seems to me anyone with a cassette recorder hooked up to the radio could have been doing this for years