New Law To Require DRM On Streaming Music

from the all-about-choice,-huh? dept

Wed, Apr 26th 2006 1:27pm — Mike Masnick

One of the other common themes at this morning's Cato event from the folks supporting stronger IP protections was that it was all about "choice." They kept saying that the point of having laws to protect DRM is to give people the "choice" of whether or not to protect their works. Those of us who were arguing on the other side wondered why this "choice" needed to be codified by law -- when they already have the "choice" to use DRM or not without needing a law making things more difficult. However, it's really hard to square the idea that this is all about giving the content creators a "choice" when new laws come out that do things like requiring the use of copy protection technologies. The latest is the so-called PERFORM Act, which Gary Shapiro (of the Consumer Electronics Association) pointed out was problematic in his discussion this morning. The bill tries to add new license fees to satellite radio -- even though these broadcasters already pay for the content they broadcast. The specific issue is that since the broadcast is also streamable and recordable on computers, the industry wants a second license beyond the broadcast one. The second one is to cover the potential for someone to record the stream and keep a version of the content. It's basically a way to double dip from the satellite radio providers. That's not all the bill does, however. The EFF is pointing out that among the provisions of the bill there's one that would effectively require any streaming music provider to use copy protection. While some do so already, many others stream (legally) using MP3 streaming. These aren't downloads of MP3s, but streams. These streams are basically just as recordable as traditional terrestrial radio -- which hasn't been much of a problem in the past. However, this bill would require anyone who uses the standard SoundExchange licenses to pay for the rights to stream music would then be required to ditch MP3 streams and replace them with proprietary DRM-encrusted streams to make it more difficult to record the stream (which, last we checked was still perfectly legal fair use). In other words, the "choice" aspect goes away and the DRM is effectively required by law. Once again, it's looking like this is less about "choice" and much more about protecting one industry's increasingly obsolete business model.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chris, 26 Apr 2006 @ 1:38pm

This is like the CDR tax...
Let them tack on a new fee because I could potentially record the satellite radio stream... then in turn the XM/Sirius folk pass that fee onto me. Since I'm paying to record the stream, I can and will do so, willingly, sans and DRM or any other restriction they think they can impose... because I am paying for it... and they're forcing me to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2006 @ 1:44pm

I dont listen to satellite radio but if I did and the price went up because of the possibility that I may reocord the streams then I most certainly would start recording. No way am I gonna pay for something that I wont use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phil Jackson, 26 Apr 2006 @ 1:48pm

DRM and Copy Protection
I seem to recall in the early 80's all the software guys tried copy protection. They abandonded it for the most part in a couple of years - it was soundly rejected by the market. Years later, registration and confirmation came to the front. However, copy protection is pretty much gone and software is copied freely. Too bas the media industries don't take a look at something along these lines instead of this government mandated DRM preventent even those who wish to stream their own music from doing so. Talk about legislation for protection of status quo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2006 @ 3:05pm

"(which, last we checked was still perfectly legal fair use)"

Out of curiosity, where did you check this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
m0rd3r, 26 Apr 2006 @ 6:20pm

Streaming Music DRM
I dont listen to streaming music so I couldn't care less but charging satellite radio extra because someone "might" record the music is complete bullshit. They dont do that for terrestrial radio do they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2006 @ 6:22pm

So this law requires that if I were to stream my own content for free, I have to wrap it in DRM? They can send me to jail then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2006 @ 7:03pm

in other news, george bush finally admited that he is the worst president in this nations history and all of hollywood admited they are gay.

tell us news that we dont already expect to hear. i saw this coming for some time now.

(Score: 1, Flaimbait).... oh, wrong site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin, 26 Apr 2006 @ 7:12pm

Today's todo list...
MEMO:

DRM, can't sell it, call George Bush and have it wrapped in law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2006 @ 7:46pm

George Bush? You guys crack me up blaming everything on him. If you did just an ounce of research you'll see that this bill is by Dianne Feinstein. You can't get anymore opposite and socialistic than her people.

But hey, my condom broke last night, I blame Bush too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mary, 27 Apr 2006 @ 4:38am
  
  Re: Anonymous Coward
  "George Bush? You guys crack me up blaming everything on him. If you did just an ounce of research you'll see that this bill is by Dianne Feinstein. You can't get anymore opposite and socialistic than her people. But hey, my condom broke last night, I blame Bush too."
  
  You partisan troll, you couldn't recognize figure of speech if it bit you in the ass. Yeah sure he could of said "call government" instead of George Bush. But now that you mention it, it does seem fitting to tie every piece of nasty BIG GOVERNMENT legislation and to his name.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- derfaust, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:21am
  
  Re: yes george bush...
  they were not trying to be funny...i dont think..... he IS the worst leader this country has ever seen.... he doesnt care about you as long as you pay for the taxation without representation.... or would actually see that all these greedy companies are ripping us off and do something about it......and dont get me started about the terrorism bullshite..... just trying to scare the be-jeezies out of us.... do not defend him.... he is a rich, uncaring, draft-dodging, silver spoon fed, getting richer(and supporting those who get richer off the opne who get poorer) SOB...
  
  thats all....
  
  tax cuts....HA!.... all those do is pay for the tax write-offs for the rich..... if you are an average joe....and you support bush.... brother, you have no idea what you are taling about.....
  
  VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!......quit being so lazy america.....quit letting everybody else(who dont give one crap about you) tell what to do..
  
  yikes.... sorry about the soap box.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jack, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:49am
    
    Re: Re: yes george bush...
    People did vote, as I remember more people voted FOR George Bush than ever voted for Bill Clinton.
    
    Don't blame him for your problems. The problem is this is a capatilist government, if people want to charge $100 for a CD or DRM there stuff let them, I don't have to buy it, and I won't!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathan, 26 Apr 2006 @ 7:47pm

I say...
HERE HERE.

In with the new, out with the old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 26 Apr 2006 @ 7:55pm

Reason to be a revolutionist.
Thing that pisses me off about this the most is that once agian we're seeing legislation trying to get passed that has the word MIGHT in it. Why the hell does anyone involved with this case still have a dayjob? Trying to pass a law that requires someone to do something because someone else MIGHT do something is just utter bullshit, not to mention unconstitutional. That's like requiring a car dealership to charge anyone who buys a sportscar $500 because they might speed. Or throwing people in jail becuase they got drunk and started swearing in public and acting aggressivley even though they didnt cause harm to anyone, but they MIGHT have, and MIGHT do so in the future. WTF?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 27 Apr 2006 @ 5:51am
  
  Re: Reason to be a revolutionist.
  Dallas is arresting people that they deem to be drunk because they *might* go out and drive while intoxicated. There has even been arrests of people drinking in a hotel bar. WTF is right--it looks like MIGHT is enough reason for some.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris H, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Re: Reason to be a revolutionist.
    Dallas has stopped arresting people for this and is revieweing the cases. Someone got a little carried away in their government and will have to pay the piper for it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lion XL, 27 Apr 2006 @ 8:40am
  
  Re: Reason to be a revolutionist.
  Ehh???!
  
  (That's like requiring a car dealership to charge anyone who buys a sportscar $500 because they might speed)
  
  maybe not the dealership, but where I live it's called car insurance.....I pay about $700 more for my BMW M5 than my brother who drives a Volvo. He's totalled three cars and had his liscense suspended about 5-6 times, I may have had about 3 speeding tickets (they can't catch me)....but Its all because my car is classed as a sports car and his a family vehicle....
  
  (Or throwing people in jail becuase they got drunk and started swearing in public and acting aggressivley even though they didnt cause harm to anyone, but they MIGHT have, and MIGHT do so in the future. WTF?!)
  
  again I don't know where you live, but in NYC that's called being a public nusince(sp?) and is a misdemeanor and wll get you a night in jail.....
  
  not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but bad examples......
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deathman_2000, 26 Apr 2006 @ 10:01pm

Those DRM f**kers are at it again…
Let me get this straight:

OK so music CD prices haven’t dropped like they (the recording industry) said they would. (To curb downloading.)

You’ve stopped (or at least slowed) your P2P MP3 downloading because that's been deemed illegal and you don't want some over-paid music lawyer sueing you for downloading a COPY of a copy of a copy(?)...

But you still won't buy very many music CDs because there's still the problem of getting that one GOOD song and the TEN shi**y ones the "one hit wonders" put on their albums as filler...

OK so then you decide to buy an Ipod and actually PAY for the one good song! Well that doesn't work either because the music industry DRM fanatics already buggered that whole deal...

So you decided to be happy(?) with listening to commercial free (relatively) music in the genre you want online for free...

Think again. Those DRM f**kers are at it again…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pj, 26 Apr 2006 @ 11:19pm

I Might!
I got a ticket the other day. It is funny. I did not actually run the the stop sign for which I received my ticket, I just thought about. It is part of some new law enacted the other day called the "Feinstein Might Law". I guess this also makes me married because I told my friend I might propose to my girlfriend soon.

You know politicians in America have their head up in the area where the son does not shine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frankie, 27 Apr 2006 @ 5:42am
  
  Re: I Might!
  Thoughtcrime?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will Power, 27 Apr 2006 @ 3:41am

Might makes Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
throbi, 27 Apr 2006 @ 4:40am

WHAT THE FUCK!?
And guns are still legal to own in your country? Those MIGHT kill people!!!

Ooops, they actually do kill people! Just watch the news!

You must be the stupidest nation on Earth by abusing the second amendment but enforcing this DRM bullshit! Or do we have to wait for those 15 bucks per gallon to finally see a revolution in the usa?

... okay, now I went too far. But it felt good :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert, 27 Apr 2006 @ 5:20am

Google, judging from this link, believes in neither DRM nor copyright.
However, Criterion and Universal Studios might deem this to be "evil."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W00TF, 27 Apr 2006 @ 5:38am

Once they realize that whenever they come up with technology to thwart what they deem "illegal" we will come up with counter-technology to circumvent theirs, they will stop trying.

In the meantime I suppose I should hand in my mixed tapes recorded from the radio in the 80's and beg for amnesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
doubledoh, 27 Apr 2006 @ 5:41am

vote libertarian
These kinds of BS laws will always come up until we start voting for Libertarians. Don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they think you want them to do because you voted for them. You may have voted for them because they are the "lesser of two evils" but that's not how they take the vote. They take your vote to mean a full endorsement of all their invasive big brother schemes and policies.
Vote for a Libertarian next time and you will be voting for what so many of you apparently believe in:
Libertarian platform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- derfaust, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:32am
  
  Re: vote libertarian
  no..... they just have thier own agenda..... the conservitives just care about money....and the best way to make money is by using us as sheep in the grinder......
  
  libertarianism is a great concept, but at the moment it is not strong enough....it is kind of like when teddy rossevelt, grover cleveland, and calvin coolage all ran for president.....what lost teddy the vote was the split his new party had caused....so coolage won....libertarianism causes to much of a split....
  
  liberalism/socialism is more where we want to be.....a government that cares about the people....i mean...look at france and england, for example.... when the government does something stupid....then...BAM!.....the next day there is like 2 million people storming the streets in protest...
  
  those goverments listen to those people because they are suppossed to.....that is governments job.....
  
  here the governments job is making money and making sure the companies out there making money can make even more money!
  
  damn soapbox!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy, 27 Apr 2006 @ 7:23am
    
    Re: Re: vote libertarian
    and the best way to make money is by using us as sheep in the grinder......
    
    I don't know where you people get this idea. That is most certainly not the best way to make money. If that was the best way to make money America would never have become one of the richest nations on earth. The best way to make money is to offer the best product for the best price. Period.
    
    But if your politics are driven by the kind of thinking you show above then yes before too long using us as sheep in the grinder IS going to be the best way to make money. So please do us all a favor and learn a little about how free market economics actually work and start voting appropriately.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chris (profile), 27 Apr 2006 @ 9:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: vote libertarian
      "so please do us all a favor and learn a little about how free market economics actually work and start voting appropriately"
      
      a free market economy is an economy where markets are free from government control. the US is NOT a free market economy. we have the fed, interest rates, sales tax, business licensing, and of course taxes. these are all government tools for controlling the direction of the market and by proxy, the US economy.
      
      if you truly could make money by offering the best product for the best price, then companies like telcos, cable providers, utilities, and the airlines would have to compete with eachother. but they don't, thanks to the FTC, the FAA, the FCC, you name it. there is a lot of government control over the market and the economy.
      
      the US is a lot of things, but it is not a free market economy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wolfger, 27 Apr 2006 @ 7:00am
  
  Re: vote libertarian
  Yes! And don't let any brainwashed scmuck tell you you're "throwing your vote away", because that's an outright lie. If people actually voted their conscience instead of for one of the two major parties, I think this would be a lot better country than it is now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA Pirate, 27 Apr 2006 @ 5:52am

NOOOO!!! MORE PROTECTION!
Come get some you money grubbing shits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mbuel76, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:22am

the oligarchs are upset that they are losing money. Money is power, and they need power.

it won't be long before the oligarchs lose power and money. How long will the people be okay with guest worker programs, increasingly stringent "fair use" clauses and trying to sell off our ports for the sake of the almighty dollar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zeroth404, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:38am

I'm putting up the ultimate Boycott. I won't listen to any music except what I already own (illegally :-).

thats not hard :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kerry, 27 Apr 2006 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  I'm in. Screw all of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:40am

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!......quit being so lazy america.....quit letting everybody else(who dont give one crap about you) tell what to do..

Sure, voting is the answer! Thats why George W. Bush is still our president even after our country spoke out and voted the other guy (al gore) by majority popular vote. We have no say and thats the way they like it. Sorry, that the USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Network Admin, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:40am

I have to agree with what one person said at least. It's pretty pathetic that our country has such problems as starvation, poverty, diseases, and such global issues or at least national as we have. But the news toppers are Microsoft and DRM. Sad, very sad. Music is meant to be heard, you tell me those rich fuckers living in their *cribs* can't afford to have their cds dropped in price to something people actually dont mind paying for. Please. RIAA calls us greedy because we don't want to pay 15$ for a CD with one or two good songs on it yet the music industry lives in million dollar houses. I get the feeling the greed is not on my end for downloading music that is tolerable at best.

So sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curious Guy, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:43am

Penalized for what you *might* do?
This is as bad as the bullshit "hate crime" agenda. In "hate crimes" you're penalized for what you [b]*think*[/b]. Now you're going to be penalized for what you [b]*might*[/b] do.

Pretty soon we'll be getting penalized for what we [b]*might think*[/b] ... how much fun will that be?

Politicians are so busy keeping their jobs that they are not doing their jobs ... which is legislating and representing the PEOPLE ... not the corporations.

I don't even recognize our country anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lion XL, 27 Apr 2006 @ 8:51am
  
  Re: Penalized for what you *might* do?
  OK I think Im done here...looks like the ignaorant moron crowd has found it's way to this blog......
  
  Curious Guy:
  your comparing DRM to HATE CRIMES? When are we gonna get those immersive monitors so I can reach in and bitch slap you for being so completey stupid? was gonna call you ignorant, but your not ignorant, you stupid!!!! Ignorant people sometimes don't know any better, stupid people are just stupid. your stupid.
  
  I apoligize to everyone else who reads this, but he is stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Curious Guy, 28 Apr 2006 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re: Penalized for what you *might* do?
    No, I believe the ignorant one would be you. I won't go to your childish level of name calling. For what it's worth, it's called an analogy. When you compare 2 things that are in most respects very dissimilar but have SOME similar characteristics. No, I am not saying that DRM is equal to Hate Crimes. I'm saying that in MY opinion, both are very stupid. There is a similarity (hence the analogy) in what the government is trying to enforce. In one case, it's penalizing you for what your are thinking. In the other, for what you might do. Thinking bad thinks is NOT illegal but you will get penalized further for doing the exact same thing as somebody else if you're thinking bad thoughts. DRM is attempting to do the same thing (except instead of jail time it's a monetary penalty) for what you MIGHT do.
    
    You might want to try thinking things through before shouting that somebody is stupid simply because they look at things a little differently than you do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Network Admin, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:46am

Almost Forgot
Since im ranting i almost forgot....

The MPAA is also crying about the same thing with movie piraters. Here is what i say to them.

Put a movie in the theater worth paying 10$ for and i will pay 10$ to see it, but when your chart toppers are movies like *Date Movie* Don't expect me to even download trash like that. I have seen maybe 3 good movies this year, and yes i saw them in theaters because nothing beats the big screen with a great movie. But as for the ones i downloaded, and oh yea i download a lot, most of them werent worth wasting 50 cents to buy a dvd to put them on ;) Its a shame because i remember a lot of great movies growing up, and well, you just don't see many of those anymore. For shame!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Panic, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:55am

Don't get started on the ports, those operations were sold off YEARS ago, and had nothing to with Bush and his administration. Dubai Ports World would actually have been a good thing, but stupid whiners blew it out of racism and an inability to look at the big picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian A., 27 Apr 2006 @ 9:14am

The DRM Legacy
It's become incredibly obvious that these companies have no interest in providing a useful service to customers and instead would rather focus on generating revenue by extracting settlement fees from ex-customers. I for one can not fathom how an industry such as this can expect to survive in the long term. While the companies may fade away I'm still apprehensive about the fact that their ill conceived laws and regulations will continue to haunt us long after their demise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex, 27 Apr 2006 @ 9:34am

This pisses me off to no end. I like to listen to Coast to Coast AM interviews on my computer, but they "have to" truncate the MP3 downloads (which I pay for) to remove the bumper music. I don't care about missing out on 30 seconds of bumper music, but I do miss out on some interview time. Truncating the interview often results in my missing some critical information at each half our break. My workaround is to download the stream (which includes the complete music) with some third party software (an action that is completely within my rights since I am paying to get these interviews in their entirety) and it's the only way that I can get them since I can't listen to streams at work, nor in my car. But if they implement this DRM crap, I'm going to be totally stuck out listening to the chopped up interviews.

The RIAA is actually making Coast break the law here. I have an agreement with Coast that allows me to download the entire interview for a set cost per month. But truncating the MP3s breaks that contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2006 @ 10:15am

Once again, it's looking like this is less about "choice" and much more about protecting one industry's increasingly obsolete business model.
Mike, I believe you have misunderstood that industry's business model. Their true business model is that of using money to corrupt lawmakers. And far from being obsolete, business is better than ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monsuco, 25 May 2006 @ 9:52pm

If ya wanna blame anyone
If you want to blame someone, the Clinton administration would be the ones to blame. Bush doesn't care one way or another about copyrights. Clinton's administration is the one that signed the DMCA into law. Also Bush is nowere near the biggest "big government" administration. Oddly, that was the FDR administration during our depression, which had several of its laws ruled unconstitutional and after the supream court made those rulings, FDR tried to pass a law to bypass the courts. Bush aint the problem, the RIAA is the problem. Also, anyone who wants socialism, is, no offence, a moron. Look at Canada. Their healthcare is socialized, and I know several hospital nurses that became nurses in canada and said that their healthcare system was in such awful shape that they couldnt stand it. America needs to take Hong Kongs aproch. The nation of Hong Kong (which is independant of their commie neighbors) has little to no welfare, no subsidized healthcare, no social security, little regulation at all of buisnesses and they set taxes at about 15%. Their government makes a net profit, and they are one of the few governments that do. I think America needs to become more capitalist.

The government isnt the problem here though, the problem here is the RIAA. I would say the best thing you can do is pirate music and use an OS like Linux which does not support trecherous computing based digital restictions managment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monsuco, 25 May 2006 @ 9:54pm

If ya wanna blame anyone
If you want to blame someone, the Clinton administration would be the ones to blame. Bush doesn't care one way or another about copyrights. Clinton's administration is the one that signed the DMCA into law. Also Bush is nowere near the biggest "big government" administration. Oddly, that was the FDR administration during our depression, which had several of its laws ruled unconstitutional and after the supream court made those rulings, FDR tried to pass a law to bypass the courts. Bush aint the problem, the RIAA is the problem. Also, anyone who wants socialism, is, no offence, a moron. Look at Canada. Their healthcare is socialized, and I know several hospital nurses that became nurses in canada and said that their healthcare system was in such awful shape that they couldnt stand it. America needs to take Hong Kongs aproch. The nation of Hong Kong (which is independant of their commie neighbors) has little to no welfare, no subsidized healthcare, no social security, little regulation at all of buisnesses and they set taxes at about 15%. Their government makes a net profit, and they are one of the few governments that do. I think America needs to become more capitalist.

The government isnt the problem here though, the problem here is the RIAA. I would say the best thing you can do is pirate music and use an OS like Linux which does not support trecherous computing based digital restictions managment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]