PDA

View Full Version : End for internet-radio!?! !@#$ing law makers!



StarWarsGalaxies
05-29-2006, 04:31 PM
I hate this government.
I hate it.
Before I even go on ranting about what they did this time, can I ask how manny times we have made threads in here about how law makers screw over us individuals in support of big bisness?
...!@#$ it, I dont even wanna think about it.....



Anyways, Iv been listening to japan-a-radio for a long time now. I enjoyed their internet-radio. But now, the front page of their website (http://www.japanaradio.com/) warns us of a possable future. That a bill being passed will force internet radio braudcasters to use this shitty non-opensource and expencive crap by MS and/or RealMedia. wtf! This is only a ploy to force the little ppl to spend big bucks on things in order to broudcast. Why cant ppl just use open source free things?!?

Here's a quote from the website (http://www.stoptheperformact.com/)

STOP THE PERFORM ACT. - WEBSITE IN PRODUCTION

A new bill introduced into the U.S. Senate punishes Satellite Radio for allowing their customers FAIR USE Recording of their content, and will kill Internet Radio broadcasting, forcing webcasters to use expensive DRM-laden formats like Windows Media and RealAudio. This bill is identified by it's number, S. 2644, Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006, or dubbed the "PERFORM Act".

Please stop this from happening! Please write to your senators and representitives and ask them to oppose the "PERFORM Act". Please do this now! Don't wait!

Link to the act (gpo.gov): S.2644 (PERFORM Act) (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S3510&dbname=2006_record)


News Stories regarding The PERFORM ACT
EFF News Story (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004587.php)
DailyTech (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=4453b6f133440f75&ei=KblTRNe9MYfyoQL6otiICA&url=http%3A//www.dailytech.com/article.aspx%3Fnewsid%3D2022%26ref%3Dy&cid=0)
Ars Technica (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=4453b6f133440f75&ei=KblTRNe9MYfyoQL6otiICA&url=http%3A//arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060426-6679.html&cid=0)
TMCnet (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/2-0&fp=4453b6f133440f75&ei=KblTRNe9MYfyoQL6otiICA&url=http%3A//www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-hrrc-opposes-proposed-perform-act-legislation-would-send-/2006/04/26/1611603.htm&cid=0)

Pedobear
05-29-2006, 04:34 PM
Wow... That's really messed up. =/ I like Japan-A-Radio too. >_<

But, I don't really listen to it much. I mostly listen to the music that I have downloaded...

But, I really agree about the Government... They're big time f*ck ups... -_-

jokermausland
05-29-2006, 04:34 PM
Why Capitalism sucks.:st:

solarenemy
05-29-2006, 04:40 PM
If you read that actual bill it only effects US broadcasters. So SWG your japan radio is safe. This bill is to force American braodcasters to charge for their services and to include a securtiy encode in the stream so it cant be played except by subscribing users. Most mani stream ISP's in the US include one of these services as part of your package. Comcast has Rhapsody included at no extra charge so they say. Rhapsody is part of the Realmedia network. The only outcome is if you listen to US based streams then you will most likely have to start paying for them.

StarWarsGalaxies
05-29-2006, 04:45 PM
Actully, japan-a-radio is hosted inside America... :|
Yeah, kinda throws u off by the name, kinda like HongFire, which isnt realy hosted in HongKong, but in Texas :\

but it just bothers me because Japan-a-radio has been begging for money for a long time now. They have a low budget as it is, and now they godda pay more money for this crap! They almost went off the air b 4, and if his bill is passed, l0l, yeah, they will probably just give up.

solarenemy
05-29-2006, 04:52 PM
Well the good news is since it is in the US and it is a US bill then your letters and complaints to your senator could actually have some baering on it passing or not. Your best option would be to get a petition to gether and submit it to your senator and show him how many people are against theis bill. Just complaining about it will only allow the politicians to pass it. A bill that isnt fought usually gets passed. But one that meets opposition will usually be looked at harder and may actually get voted on more equally and might not be passed.

Pedobear
05-29-2006, 04:55 PM
Yeah, I'm going to write about it. Because it really, really is stupid. -_-;;

ChaozXIII
05-29-2006, 05:07 PM
thats is why i dont live in america

Mai Tokiha
05-29-2006, 05:12 PM
Why Capitalism sucks.:st:
Indeed, yet another sick law... :rolleyes:

Pedobear
05-29-2006, 05:19 PM
Land of the Brave, home of the FEE.

Starkadder
05-29-2006, 05:41 PM
To some degree you can blame big business, but you have to balance it with their justified piracy concerns.

I disagree with this bill, because they shouldn't force Internet radio to be a pay service.

There is some other group you should explicitly blame, as they are the most vocal in pushing all these anti-piracy concerns.

The music stars and groups themselves. Only a few music stars and groups have embraced the digital age, the rest see the internet as the domain of evil music pirates.

StarWarsGalaxies
05-29-2006, 06:05 PM
wtf? What do they care? Didnt they always make more money off concerts anyways?

Starkadder
05-29-2006, 06:06 PM
wtf? What do they care? Didnt they always make more money off concerts anyways?

The rich 'always' like to make more money. These music stars are the public face of the industry's anti-piracy campaign.

Dan Chan
05-29-2006, 07:11 PM
Mmmmm...

I think America's due for a revolution....dont'cha think?

MrWiseman
05-31-2006, 11:33 AM
Why Capitalism sucks.:st:It's not a flaw of capitalism, but rather, the current political system (political party-based democracy and lobbyism/corporativism).

In the USA, the media industry is way too powerful, yet this is not what people wants. This does not have much to do with the economic system; if it were a dictatorship it would be even easier to get this kind of law approved.

I guess the fastest way to fight this crap back is to consistently boycott the media industry and corporations. In fact, capitalism (not letting them make money) could give you a solution faster than today's democracy ever will.

kuropon
05-31-2006, 10:42 PM
It's not a flaw of capitalism, but rather, the current political system (political party-based democracy and lobbyism/corporativism).

In the USA, the media industry is way too powerful, yet this is not what people wants. This does not have much to do with the economic system; if it were a dictatorship it would be even easier to get this kind of law approved.

I guess the fastest way to fight this crap back is to consistently boycott the media industry and corporations. In fact, capitalism (not letting them make money) could give you a solution faster than today's democracy ever will.

Ah, you are indeed a wise man, mister. I don't know why people always say that capitalism sucks. Capitalism is good!
Here's a definition of capitalism for you:
"an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned, and prices are chiefly determined by open competition in a free market."

Let's contrast that with socialism:
"Economic system centered on the belief that the means of production (such as land) should be collectively owned and that market exchange should be replaced by collectively controlled distribution (usually by the state or government) based on social needs."

And for fun, here's communism:
"a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society"

The problem we actually have is too much Government interference. People keep electing representatives like Dianne Feinstein(D) and Lindsey Graham(R), who clearly have their eyes set on appeasing the lobbyist groups who contribute monies to their campaigns. It has nothing to do with being a capitalistic society, and everything to do with a corrupted political system. Neither the republican nor the democratic party have our best interests in mind, they only care about expanding the role of government in our lives. These parties only want more: more laws, more taxes, more dependence on government, more power, more, more, more...

Free trade is good... privately owned business competing with each other can only help to lower the prices we pay for stuff. Big government is what is bad.

I don't think any current political party's got it 100% right, but these guys (http://www.lp.org/) have a good start.

Hayeate
06-01-2006, 05:02 PM
I don't think any current political party's got it 100% right, but these guys have a good start.

What makes you so sure that these guys are the best choice? From what I heard, Libertarianism is a moderate branch of Socialism that advocates for expanded rights towards the public. It all sounds nice and dandy, but is giving too much power to the people really what a nation like America needs right now? I think that Libertarianism may work in nations like Canada or Sweden, but for a major world power that has such a heavy responsibility to carry on its shoulders, this would be inplausible, don't you think?

gogetter21
06-01-2006, 05:28 PM
This is a very dumbass move to do ....

Starkadder
06-01-2006, 05:39 PM
Not really. From their point of view this will net them some more income, also they believe you do not have the power to stop them.

The internet radio companies may be able to fight it in court and if pushed they may be able to push it into the Supreme Court.

There will not no guarantee's in Court though.

The best bet would be for the music fans to boycott the music industry, thus hurting the industry's pocketbook. But there will never be a large boycott, most people would talk the talk, but they still would buy the CD's and go to the concerts.

kuropon
06-01-2006, 09:00 PM
What makes you so sure that these guys are the best choice? From what I heard, Libertarianism is a moderate branch of Socialism that advocates for expanded rights towards the public. It all sounds nice and dandy, but is giving too much power to the people really what a nation like America needs right now? I think that Libertarianism may work in nations like Canada or Sweden, but for a major world power that has such a heavy responsibility to carry on its shoulders, this would be inplausible, don't you think?

First of all, I didn't say I was so sure, did I? I believe I said they had a good start at being on the right track.

Secondly, LIbertarianism is in no way a branch of Socialism. In fact, I'd say they were more like complete opposites. Socialism means MORE government involvement, not less. Libertarians believe it is the people's right to decide what they want to do as long as these actions do not forcibly interfere with another person's rights to the same.

A lot of the hot topics that plague us hf'ers would be non-issues with the Libertarian party. This very topic of internet-radio for instance... The Libertarian party's stance is simple, the government should not involve itself in the affairs of private companies. There certainly should be no laws governing that a company HAS to employ a certain DRM scheme because their MPAA and RIAA lobbyist buddies say so. Less government, less taxes, more freedom... Why is it that people are so willing to give up their personal freedoms?

Thirdly, when you say "but is giving too much power to the people really what a nation like America needs right now?". I would counter with "is giving more power to a corrupt political system that is already too massive what America needs right now?" It is clear that the only people that our "representatives" will listen to are the many lobbyist groups. What happened to "of the people, by the people, for the people"? Do YOU think there is too much government interference or too little? The answer is clear. America's problem right now is there is less and less personal responsibility and personal freedom.

What's wrong with giving people "the power" to live their lives in a way they see fit, as long as they aren't taking away someone else's right to live their lives in a way THEY see fit?

Is it the government's responsibility to ensure that I don't smoke pot in the living room of my own home? As long as I don't get behind the wheel and kill anyone, or stab some dude to get money to buy the pot, the answer is no. Is it the government's responsibility to ensure that I don't look at loli pictures on my computer in the privacy of my own home? Since loli is entirely computer generated and no minors were actually involved in the making of it, it is a victim-less 'crime'. Is it morally acceptable behavior? No, but it isn't the government's job to be our conscience. Let the church comdemn you for your behaviors. Some people would argue that an affection for loli may lead to an affection for child porn, but there is no proof to back that up. Unless actual child porn is involved, there is no victim.

Quote from the libertarian website:

The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

What's wrong with that?

DK3411
06-02-2006, 05:29 AM
What makes you so sure that these guys are the best choice? From what I heard, Libertarianism is a moderate branch of Socialism that advocates for expanded rights towards the public. It all sounds nice and dandy, but is giving too much power to the people really what a nation like America needs right now? I think that Libertarianism may work in nations like Canada or Sweden, but for a major world power that has such a heavy responsibility to carry on its shoulders, this would be inplausible, don't you think?

If they didn't spend all their time poking their noses into other country's and other people's affairs, they wouldn't have that much of "responsibility", don't you think?

Responsibility is taken upon by oneself. As a major world power, it has the moral obligation to do certain things. But poking their noses into what people can and cannot do is certainly NOT one of their "responsibilities". I'm pretty sure invading another country based on groundless accusations isn't one of their "responsibilities" either...

But I digress... If anything it all boils down to vested interest. Money is what makes the world go round, not "responsibility". Those fat cats sitting up there in power just want more. They've become so greedy that they'd go to the extreme of backstabbing the very ones that put them in power in the 1st place. The irony is that free trade was created to prevent monopoly and what they're doing runs counter to it but they're doing it in that name...

Sigh... I can only hope that such mindless acts will stop (unlikely, cuz those fat cats will still be greedy), or people will find ways to circumvent those stupid laws.

donkeypuncher
06-02-2006, 09:07 AM
exactly like the saying goes the richer get richer the poor get poorer..but the reason they've become so dam greedy is because they have no more fear they sit in there seats of power behind the laws that protect them...grrrr i hate this crap.