Need something? Download free app.
- Related Stories
-
High-definition radio gears up for reality
May 26, 2005 -
Radio stations vow to speed digital moves
January 5, 2005 -
Piracy battle begins over digital radio
June 16, 2004 -
FCC to look at digital radio piracy?
April 7, 2004 -
Tuning in to digital radio
October 21, 2002
Some legal experts say the recording software may violate digital copyright laws and does little more than promote piracy.
The story "TiVo-like devices for radio raise piracy fears" published May 29, 2005 at 2:05 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.
NWLB
****
http://www.nwlb.net
personally, i recommend "indy" because it helps direct you to the music that you like, and it's 100% legal (everything is done with the artist's permission):
http://www.indy.tv/
mark d.
RIAA's dream law). Cry Me a River!
Perhaps if RIAA wasn't so busy screwing over its artists (while at
the same time claiming to protect their rights), then maybe they
could stop treating everyone as though they were a criminal.
DMCA is a draconian law that destroys the rights of honest
people.
This fight is between the entertainment industry and the computer industry. Noone else should be involved in this. We are all getting caught in the middle of this idiocy when it has nothing to do with the general public.
The entertainment industry seems to want to kill the internet and the computer industry. If not kill, then certainly bring it down through submission by forcing the direction of money, legal situations, and stifling any chance of inovation.
This fight will end in one of two ways: it will destroy the recording industry or it will render computers/internet unusable. ALL for the sake of power, greed, and control. Is it worth losing the computer industry to keep the recording industry?
>recording industry or it will render computers/internet unusable.
>ALL for the sake of power, greed, and control. Is it worth losing
>the computer industry to keep the recording industry?
This is probably the most succinct and well stated comment about computers and audio and video that I have seen. I am just amazed at how backwards the RIAA and the MPAA are when it comes to the distribution of material in the digital age.
Even more so, I am wondering what happened to the "Free Market let the Market Decide" GOP party who are in charge, but seem to be no more "Free Market" than Karl Marx. I mean how do you justify saying you're for "letting the market decide" on one hand, and then allowing laws to prevail which offer one industry protectionism over another industy on the other hand?
What am I missing in this picture? If one is truly a "free market" advocate, then shouldn't the DMCA be scaled back?
The copyright and DMCA issues are not whether copying has occurred, but whether or not the end-user had authorized access to the broadcast.
In the case of broadcast TV and AM/FM radio, anyone within broadcast range was authorized to receive the signal. The same principles apply to cable TV and Internet radio streams, except now the range of the broadcast covers the entire globe.
The Appeals Court ruling in Chamberlain v. Skylink is particularly relevant to this issue (pg. 43, paraphrased):
"The Copyright Act authorizes [consumers] to use the copy [of a protected work] that they purchased. [Consumers] are therefore immune from [DMCA] Section 1201(a)(1) circumvention liability."
Anyone claiming that their copyrights have been violated through an unauthorized circumvention must be able to prove that third-parties now have unauthorized access to the copyrighted work.
It's quite clear to me, for instance, that as an HBO subscriber I shouldn't record the Sopranos and give/sell copies to the general public. But if I give that copy to a third party who IS an HBO subscriber, then there is no copyright or DMCA issue because everyone involved has authorized access.
You must remember, Jay Cooper is paid to make legal statements that frame his clients' legal position in the most advantageous way.
If I had the opportunity to ask Jay Cooper three questions, this is what they'd be:
1. How is a computer hard drive NOT a digital recording device? (see paragraph 4 in the article)
2. Have you read the Appeals Court ruling for "Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc."?
3. If the Internet Radio broadcast is free and open to the public, then who are these unauthorized users who now have access to these broadcasts?
What is the differance between downloading a song from a P2P system and getting that same song (in full) by recording it off of some freely given internet stream? Could it be the place it came from? If so, in the end...what real differance would that really make? There are alot of internet radio sources broadcasting alot (if not all) of the same things that are found on P2P. If I understand your question correctly...seems to me that ANY and ALL internet radio broadcasting becomes no differant from P2P. With the only possible differances being that the end user has to work a little harder to have the song, the broadcaster pays the recording industry where as P2P doesn't, and P2P is alot more popular (for all kinds of reasons). When these three things are considered, the most valid of these three points is that P2P does not pay the recording industry. If this is what all this is about, then it makes no sense to interact with end users at all...much less creating lawsuits against children for downloading. That needs to remain between the managing company running the P2P and the recording industry.
What I see here is that the recording industry is angry that what they call theirs has takin form on the internet period. Would all these things just stop if music and movies just no longer existed on the net?
This issue has progressed to such an extreme degree that it is no longer just about music and movies. It becomes a hot potatoe that can and likely will involve every single thing found online. I feel like I will need to hire a laywer just to have a website (or even a webpage) and be forced to charge people for just typing in the address of that site.
With something as global as the internet is, creating a system specificly for free distribution (such as free internet radio) automaticly gives the end user (anywhere on Earth) legal rights to it. If this is not the case, then the computer industry is the guilty party due to the way these machines are designed.
industry?
RIAA certainly thinks so.
Why are we, the general public, involved? Because RIAA's ideas
trample our right to fair use. If it were up to RIAA, we would pay
them to buy a CD (their preferred price would be $30-$50, of
which the recording artist would still get the same 10 cent cut),
then we'd have to pay them every time we listened to a song
from the CD. They would love it.
Of course, it would suck for you and me, but who cares-- We
need to keep RIAA execs in their pimped out driving machines
that are parked in their multi-million dollars homes.
This is about DRM and the misapplication of laws regarding it. Somewhere along the way the industry raised the concern that digital copies are perfect copies and convinced the legislature that they needed protection from this. Thus DCMA was born. But it was not created to prevent consumers from doing what they had always been able to do, it was not created to revoke fair-use practices that had already been defended in court. Unfortunately the industry managed to get it passed in such a way that it is now illegal to do things that are legal to do simply because you had to circumvent DRM to do them in the digital domain.
TIVOing radio is not new - I have been doing it for 10 years with a VCR. And mix tapes from radio recordings were very popular - swapped among friends when I was in school. OK, I'm 37 and everything was analog then. Suddenly everything is digital and the industry has a mechanism for controlling re-distribution and a new revenue model to persue - pay per listen. Combine that with concern over lost ad revenue from commercials and the industy now believes that only by completely controlling the "hearing of music" will they be adequately protected from infringement. (laugh now, you'll understand later)
Why should we care? Indy music, compressed files included in CDs, not buying RIAA music... these are temporary avoidances of the real problem. It is not copyrighted music, but DRM protected music that we are fighting over. If the industry is allowed to implement technical solutions to their "problem", in a few years we will find ourselves with hardware that will simply not allow fair use in any form. Remember Palladium? It's not dead just repackaged with a new name to avoid outcry. There are some real advantages to consumers in the form of virus protection etc, but also so solid brick walls to fair-use. Palladium CPUs will simply not process files without proper authorization - as defined by the content providers. No software hack will circumvent this for the hobbyists who simply want to play with their content. If we don't stand up for our rights now, there won't be any rights to stand up for later when we can no longer avoid the industry's control over "our media".