Yet another bill aimed at restricting the rights of entertainment consumers was introduced to the US Senate yesterday. Dubbed the PERFORM Act ("Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006") and sponsored by the cross-party team of Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and majority leader Bill Frist (R-TN), the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would force the use of protected formats for all streaming media services, whether online, on cable, or through satellite radio and TV. Not surprisingly, the EFF and the Home Recording Rights Coalition (HRRC) have already voiced their opposition to the measure.

"The birth of the digital music place has been a boon for businesses and consumers. However, these new technologies and business models have become so advanced that the clear lines between a listening service and a distribution service have been blurred," Feinstein said at the introduction of the bill. "I believe that the PERFORM Act would help strike a balance between fostering the development of new technologies and ensuring that songwriters and performers continue to be fairly compensated for their works."

Having seen ways to use satellite radio as a distribution service à la iTMS, RIAA representatives were standing by and ready to lend enthusiastic support to the PERFORM Act:

"When I see a device that permits consumers to identify the specific tracks they want from a satellite broadcast, record them and library them for future use, I call that device an iPod and I call the satellite service making that device available a download service," said Warner Music Group chairman and CEO Edgar Bronfman. "What is clear to everyone is that these services no longer resemble and will increasingly stray from our collective understanding of what constitutes a traditional radio service."

So, caught in a classic "fight or flight" situation in the face of new technology that they fear will "blow a hole" in the digital business models we have today, the recording industry is going berserk on consumer rights. With a dull bandsaw.

It seems like the catalyst for this proposal was XM Satellite Radio supporting devices from Samsung and Pioneer that allow automated recording of XM content (not that XM seems too fond of the idea of recording their content to begin with). The PERFORM Act seeks to allow that kind of recording under the condition that the user cannot choose which recorded song (or other piece of content) she wants to listen to, other than selecting a channel. In other words, recording songs off the radio the way kids have done for 40 years would be illegal now, despite the fact that this practice is explicitly protected by previous amendments to the Copyright Act.

Under the rules set forth in the Act, you would be able to make automated sound recordings, but only based on "specific programs, time periods, or channels as selected by or for the user," but not on "specific sound recordings, albums, or artists." Once recorded, it would be illegal to process the recorded data in order to extract separate songs for later use. Further, none of the recorded material can be put on removable media or other devices, and only "a secure in-home network that also complies with each of the requirements prescribed in this paragraph," i.e., a properly DRM-compliant network, would be allowed to transmit or transport the media in any form.

Sirius has had recording devices available for some time now, but the RIAA isn't angry at them, because there is a license agreement between the two parties that tacks on some more license fees whenever the recording-capable S-50 receiver is used. Caught in the crossfire between the RIAA and XM, online broadcasters would need to switch from DRM-less MP3 streaming to protected formats such as PlaysForSure-laden WMA or good old Real Audio. And somewhere in the state of Washington (home to both Microsoft and RealNetworks), someone is cheering softly.

The RIAA is getting innovative when it comes to ways to squeeze every last cent out of the homogenized, soul-destroying invigorating and original content it controls. Sometimes they go after consumers directly, sometimes they're looking for pirates—real or imagined—and they obviously keep finding ways to reach into the pockets of content distributors too. Fair Use seems to be a swiftly fading memory, despite all the talk about giving us our entertainment "whenever, wherever, and however" we want it.

Ulgokiem sounds like the name of an anal STD. Why anyone even listens to that douche bag is beyond me.

i love how half of this thread is about racism in america and the other half is pictures of kittens

someone summarize it please

Ulgokiem sounds like the name of an anal STD. Why anyone even listens to that douche bag is beyond me.

i love how half of this thread is about racism in america and the other half is pictures of kittens

And somewhere in the state of Washington (home to both Microsoft and RealNetworks), someone is cheering softly.

The government is stupiddddd, there are other greater issues at the moment. I don't even see it as an issue..

Governments can usually multitask a bit, dear

Ulgokiem sounds like the name of an anal STD. Why anyone even listens to that douche bag is beyond me.

i love how half of this thread is about racism in america and the other half is pictures of kittens

Well they need to get their priorities straight instead of worrying about the rich people they could worry about getting those kids out of Iraq and helping out with the hurricane people.

Well they need to get their priorities straight instead of worrying about the rich people they could worry about getting those kids out of Iraq and helping out with the hurricane people.