Proposed DRM legislation criticized as too harsh

Consumer rights groups have voiced opposition to legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress last week that would require Internet broadcasters to deploy DRM (digital rights management) technology to prevent listeners from making unauthorized copies of music files. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and three other senators introduced the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music (PERFORM) Act on January 11 after the same piece of legislation failed to pass through Congress in 2006. The PERFORM Act would require all satellite, cable, and Internet broadcasters to deploy "reasonably available" copy-protection technology and to prevent listeners from using recording devices to copy specific songs or artists.

The bill would not prevent listeners from recording at specific times, such as a news show at 9 a.m., but it would require broadcasters to use copy-protection technology that would prevent listeners from recording all the songs by one artist played on a broadcast, Feinstein said in a news release. "New radio services are allowing users to do more than simply listen to music," Feinstein said in a statement. "What was once a passive listening experience has turned into a forum where users can record, manipulate, collect, and create personalized music libraries. As the modes of distribution change and the technologies change, so must our laws change."

View: The full story
News source: InfoWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The Anti-Virus Question Answered

Next Story

Motorola makes Linux breakthrough with RIZR Z6

15 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If it makes listening to my internet radio hard, I'll be ticked. That's all I can say. I listen to internet radio at least 5 hours every day.

Oh, and whomever voted for these people can now thank them. We'll be seeing a lot more of this garbage in the coming years, sadly.

"As the modes of distribution change and the technologies change, so must our laws change." - Dianne Feinstein

Couldn't the same be said for the MPAA's and the RIAA's outdated business models?

hvy said,
It just goes to show you that after over 1/2 a century, someone was right all along.

The worst part is that compared to some of the other things that are happening, the RIAA is nothing.

Just wait. Before long, the RIAA will come to the conclusions that they should be able to watch and monitor your files and you 24/7 so they can protect the rights of the record companies. Just wait for it. They will try it soon enough.

"New radio services are allowing users to do more than simply listen to music," Feinstein said in a statement. "What was once a passive listening experience has turned into a forum where users can record, manipulate, collect, and create personalized music libraries. As the modes of distribution change and the technologies change, so must our laws change.”

Technologies changing could mean that radio stations just pay the artists a lot of money to get it on the air, so they get a large source of income that way.

The laws may or may not have to change, but they don't simply have to change because the current industry model needs to be preserved.

If they have to change its because our notion of what intellectual property is and what rights it provides has to be scrutinized. This doesn't necessarily all go in the industry's favor, which is assumed.

All though I believe both parties are on the side of RIAA in a way and try to defend their position; I think Republicans in the position they were in would be squeamish against looking as if they're regulating the market. So the change in power I think does allow for new laws.

As we know all copy protection methods don't work and are easy to bypass. Plus, if you can hear it you can record it. The same goes for video, if you can see it you can record it as well.

Exactly

You can easily open up some type of audio software that lets you record anything coming out of the soundcard and they'll never find a way to stop that. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to get sound cards banned

Consumer rights groups have voiced opposition to legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress last week that would require Internet broadcasters to deploy DRM

well at least, a few, a very few ppl is awake in the u.s.

a forum where users can record, manipulate, collect, and create personalized music libraries.

she doesnt realise thats what the users/consumers want?

Lobbyists aren't the problem, actually they're the smallest problem in government corruption. A congressperson is not going to be swayed by the fact they got a free trip and free dinner to listen to a lobbyist.

They are going to be swayed by groups that give them campaign money. This isn't called lobbying. Lobbying is kid stuff.