Posted on 04/27/2006 2:40:45 AM PDT by prisoner6
MetroSource News
02:28:54
Satellite Recording Ban
(Washington, DC) -- Fearing a wave of illegal distribution of copyrighted music, lawmakers on Capitol Hill will consider legislation that would effectively ban all recording of satellite radio programming. The "Perform Act" circumvents the Audio Home Recording Act, which gives consumers the right to record material for private, non-commercial purposes, by requiring satellite broadcasters to either install equipment that prevents their programs from being recorded, or provide compensation to artists and performers to cover potential financial losses due to illegal distribution of their material.
The Recording Industry Association of America says illegal music downloads via computer are finally in check, and the situation with satellite radio could "blow a hole in the digital marketplace." But a group called the Home Recording Rights Coalition opposes the bill on the grounds "it would appear to block consumers from moving one song from one room to another within their own homes via a digital network."
Watch for a crackdown on illegal singing, humming and whistling as well.
prisoner6
All the banning legislation in the world will not make today's poor music offerings any better.
All the banning legislation in the world will not make today's poor music offerings any better.
The recording industry lobby ponied up with some campaign donations during the Congressional recess.
One trick pony.
I have Sirius satellite radio in my car. The sound quality is OK, but not that great, no better than over the air FM. Why is satellite such a threat? Is it because the signals are digital? I also get a lot of music channels on my cable TV, which I guess is also digital. But if I tried to record either signal, there would be losses. What makes sharing MP3's over the internet a threat is that it is a lossless data transfer.
would you agree that property rights matter?
prisoner6
The RIAA, Orin Hatch and the rest can stick it in their ass.
I think I will download a few songs right now while I read the news just to spite them.
They should end where the rest of our rights end.
____________________________________________________________________
Girl Scouts Change Their Tunes
Licensing order restricts use of favorite songs
Thaai Walker, Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writers
Friday, August 23, 1996
Girl Scouts were sad, callers were mad, and even one of Woody Guthrie's old singing pals was incredulous yesterday at a national songwriting group's order apparently blocking scouts from singing campfire songs without paying copyright fees...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/08/23/MN14140.DTL
Of course property rights matter, but if someone is so afraid that by distributing their product over a certain media, some of it will be "stolen", they have the same right everyone else does - to not use that media. Add the possibility that cable networks are looking at a device to prevent their customers from changing channels when a commercial is playing (about 50% of the time) unless the customer wants to pay for the "privilege" of operating his own property as he sees fit, and this whole media thing is getting way too intrusive.
Who would have imagined that the playing of music or watching of TV would be a huge constraint on our rights?
"and this whole media thing is getting way too intrusive."
I tend to agree. I dont download illegal media..but I do backup my DVD's because Ill be damned if I am gonna pony up another 20 bucks because someone borrowed a movie and lost it or my kid scratches it. I already bought it.
IN general I love technology (I should since that is my career) but industries buying politicans to use technology to invade our homes and our privacy is a dangerous road to go down and I am not at all sympathetic to the industries that do so.
Oh sure we will.
We'll just have to 'join' ASCAP and/or BMI and pay the annual 'dues'.
semi joking ~~off~~
Differences:
The person who owns the copyright in entitled to all rights of property. No if, ands or buts. If I walk through a bad area am I responsible for being mugged? It is my right to go out in public and mind my own business but also to expect that I will not have my rights violated.
The cable industry can do what they want but will likely find that people will turn off stations that force them to watch commercials. But, if customers want to put up with it then so be it.
If you buy the music then you get to play it. If you watch cable you paid for it. You are not allowed to partake in these if you didn't pay the owner of the content for them though.
That's not true. MP3's get their small file size by eliminating the treble and bass sounds that are, ostensibly, undetectable by human ears. The lower the bit rate, the more you lose.
prisoner6
Well, a crackdown would please my wife, who says my Sinatra singing has its moments (I do a good "Strangers in the Night), but also has its limitations.
As she said after my great rendition of "My Way": "No honey, you did it MY way...."
When I say that MP3's are lossless I mean that after a file has been created, perfect duplicates can be made of the digital file, and they will be just as good as the MP3 file that you started with. You are right that, to make the original compressed MP3 file, some of the sound that is encoded in the CD audio file will be lost, and the lower the sampling rate, the more the loss.
Copyright is not a "property right". It is a creation of Congress granted for a public policy purpose. See Article I Section 8.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.