GridStream Productions

Thanks to Lyzor for picking up on this:

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/27/1757204&from=rss

Whee!

Pirate radio, here I come. I did it in my broadcast radio days, and if it comes to it I'll gladly do it with internet radio as well.

You can encrypt music all you want to the highest degree....but as long as you hear it through your speakers, you can record it and put it into MP3. There is no way that they can stop people recording music in real-time....DRM is a load of shit and I think this stupid idea for a new law is complete bullshit. Radio stations (online or FM/AM) put the music out to mass amounts of people and THAT's how the artists make their money....by getting popular...and actually having to go on tour and play shows.....what a frigg'n concept! Actually work for your damn money!

Why does it feel like Exxon and the RIAA are passing me from one to the other, attempting to sodomize me with the broomstick that is the Senate?

Once again I'm damn glad I'm not American. Maybe y'all should just claim to operate under Swedish law since you've got a Swede (X) running the website...

Help, I need a translator:

Under the bill, the statutory license would only be available to a webcaster if: [114(d)(2)(C)(vi)] the transmitting entity takes no affirmative steps to authorize, enable, cause or induce the making of a copy or phonorecord by or for the transmission recipient and uses technology that is reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making of copies or phonorecords embodying the transmission in whole or in part, except for reasonable recording as defined in this subsection.

ValliKat wrote:Help, I need a translator:

Under the bill, the statutory license would only be available to a webcaster if: [114(d)(2)(C)(vi)] the transmitting entity takes no affirmative steps to authorize, enable, cause or induce the making of a copy or phonorecord by or for the transmission recipient and uses technology that is reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making of copies or phonorecords embodying the transmission in whole or in part, except for reasonable recording as defined in this subsection.

You can not record in the same quality as what is being broadcasted if I understand correctly

ValliKat wrote:Help, I need a translator:

Under the bill, the statutory license would only be available to a webcaster if: [114(d)(2)(C)(vi)] the transmitting entity takes no affirmative steps to authorize, enable, cause or induce the making of a copy or phonorecord by or for the transmission recipient and uses technology that is reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making of copies or phonorecords embodying the transmission in whole or in part, except for reasonable recording as defined in this subsection.

Loosely translated:

You may only acquire a license if you don't say "hey! record this!" or otherwise make it apparent that people can freely record. And, if two equally convenient methods of netcasting are available, you are obligated to take whichever method is more secure from recording.

I dunno, this limitation seems to be a bit unconstitutional. In designated two types of data format, they're trying to cover their arses with the Monopoly policies we've had in place for decades. But, I dont see how it's fair that they should dictate to us what companies we should go through in order to be entertained (i.e. Microshaft & Real Audio, both of which provide formats I despise). What happened to freedom of speech and press? If the artists are entitled to create whatever gibberish they want, then shouldn't we be able to listen to it however we please as well? What next? Will they decide that movies from any other companys but Buena Vista and Universal are also illegal to watch?

It's assinine to try to control something that the government has already authorized as public domain, as well. But, I suppose I'm just another blade of grass blowing in the field of futile citizen opinion.

Jactin wrote:I dunno, this limitation seems to be a bit unconstitutional.

It is, but that hasn't stopped or even slowed the MPAA and RIAA in the past. It certainly won't now.

Jactin wrote:What happened to freedom of speech and press?

Most recently, the Patriot Act/Patriot Act II and the DMCA happened. Before that, MPAA and RIAA mulit-million dollar lobbying happened.

No ammount of consumer complaints, letters to our government or even votes will make a dent in things like this. The only thing they'll understand is their profit margin, and the only way to get this shit to stop is to just -not- buy anything from RIAA associated labels. Find out who's in and who isn't here.

Good lord. It seems like anything mainstream I can think of goes through them. Teddy "Trustbuster" roosevelt must be spinning in his grave.

h00t for Dark Tranquillity and Iced Earth!

Rock, meet Hard Place.

It's easy to state a boycott on something when you don't run headfirst into the details of the situation. I agree that in every sense of strict honor, RIAA should be boycotted by the world. I hate them with a seething passion, but many of my favorite bands (righteously so) are signed through major labels, and I can hardly blame them. They were given door number 1 in which lay a nine-to-five with a side-project of uploading music and a wide open door number 2 which contains millions of dollars, massive tours, and long-term record contracts.

I can act altruistic til the cows come home, but damn right I'm going to take door #2 if it's offered, so I can't rightly blame Taproot or Korn or KMFDM.

lose-lose. *sigh*

Tarryk wrote:Rock, meet Hard Place.

It's easy to state a boycott on something when you don't run headfirst into the details of the situation. I agree that in every sense of strict honor, RIAA should be boycotted by the world. I hate them with a seething passion, but many of my favorite bands (righteously so) are signed through major labels, and I can hardly blame them. They were given door number 1 in which lay a nine-to-five with a side-project of uploading music and a wide open door number 2 which contains millions of dollars, massive tours, and long-term record contracts.

I can act altruistic til the cows come home, but damn right I'm going to take door #2 if it's offered, so I can't rightly blame Taproot or Korn or KMFDM.

lose-lose. *sigh*

It helps them advance in notoriety, but it really suprises me just how far this rabbit hole goes down. I'm a fan of world music, and even some far off ones, like "The Rough Guide to the Music of Central Asia" (And assumably all other of this series, from turkish music to thai to whatever) is released by a member of the RIAA. It seems like even indigenous music of Nepal is under their claws. And this isn't the easy to torrent material, where mainstream typical genre music is.

You would expect it for mainstream pop and rock and rap, but that a lot of the more 'out there music' are under their rule, even soundtracks, is suprising.

Here's a quick nod to the folks like Tarryk who put their work up for view, and other such artists. I'd call a visual artist who charged to see his or her work on Deviant art an Anal-jackass, and I can't help but feel a similiar way with music, even though you did highlight good points regarding why they sign with the RIAA.

It is funny laws in USA i see.

Id assume its always some ways to argue Gridstream is required to use Shoutcast as an method, since its technical limitations within the group of users who limit whats awailable of choosen formats.

The gamers who play in Linux could have problems using Media player, as example. But AO runs perfect in linux, or WERY good, if its an multicore machine. So, just claim the usergroup demands an "available format"

Psyloche wrote:Id assume its always some ways to argue Gridstream is required to use Shoutcast as an method, since its technical limitations within the group of users who limit whats awailable of choosen formats.

The gamers who play in Linux could have problems using Media player, as example. But AO runs perfect in linux, or WERY good, if its an multicore machine. So, just claim the usergroup demands an "available format"

No, I don't see as how we're required to use Shoutcast, but I'm really not understanding your complaint with it. Since when is it not possible to receive a shoutcast stream in linux? Our last shoutcast server ran on a linux box. For that matter, since when is crappy Media Player required to listen to a shoutcast stream? Neither of those theories have ever been the case, my friend.

We haven't switched because there's simply no reason to. Shoutcast is an accepted "unofficial" standard for internet radio, and has more support and a wider user base than any other format. That's enough to keep us on it, setting aside the fact that it can be received by and sent from just about every platform, and still retains good security features.