--- Forwarded Message from "Dente, Edmund" <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Subject: RE: #7707.5 DISH Network (!) and Radio Cops
>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:32:43 -0500
>Thread-topic: #7707.5 DISH Network (!) and Radio Cops
>Thread-index: AcTMxTj/BqJFbrpJSbO5FFOWMpwIrAApsdMA
>From: "Dente, Edmund" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum"
<[log in to unmask]>


 Tom says:
> Although Dish Network may seem less expensive, they do not allow you
to
> copy
> any of the programming.  Copying and Archiving the programming off of
Dish
> Network
> is probably Illegal


Given Tom's and our concerns about this, and in light of
our previous discussion about recording MP3 audio streams, I want to
note the following article by the Boston Globe columnist whom I quoted
in the stream-recording email I sent to this list previously.
This is a chilling report, so take note.
Especially see these lines citing Steven Marks, lawyer for the RIAA:

"Marks contacted me to declare that making a music library from captured
Internet music streams is just as illegal as downloading pirated MP3
tunes over a file-swapping network.
...
"What about the 1984 Betamax case, in which the US Supreme Court upheld
our right to record TV programs? Marks replied that people have a right
to record TV shows in order to watch them later, but the Supremes did
not grant the right to create a permanent library of favorite shows. In
other words, people who've taped and saved every episode of "Seinfeld"
or "Sex and the City" are thieves."

Since the column I am quoting is time sensitive - it will disappear from
the publicly accessible web site within a day or so - I am quoting it
below rather than giving a URL:
Cheers,
Ed Dente
(PS - Don't ask about copyright on this reprint.)

Music industry aims to send in radio cops
By Hiawatha Bray  |  November 15, 2004

You can learn a lot from writing a newspaper column, especially when a
reader calls in to say that you're wrong. I've just received a revealing
critique that foreshadows a nasty new escalation in the battle over our
digital rights.

It all began with a recent column about software that lets Internet
users record incoming audio streams. There are thousands of these
Internet radio stations, featuring everything from 1940s radio dramas to
klezmer music. Millions of people worldwide listen to Internet audio,
but many don't realize how easy it is to record the stuff. With the
right software, you can program a PC to connect to a favorite stream and
copy it to your hard drive.

Given the indifferent quality of most Internet audio, few serious music
lovers would add these recordings to their libraries. But a few stations
broadcast at 160 kilobits per second or higher, resulting in audio
that's as good as those popular MP3 music files we all love to collect.
So it's possible to build up a library of decent-quality music simply by
capturing these Internet streams. It's easy, it's fun, and it's legal,
as long as you don't share your recordings with others. That's because
the law recognizes your right to make copies of audio or video programs
for personal use.

Except it doesn't. At least, that's the claim of Steven Marks, the top
lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade
group representing the big record companies. Horrified by my article,
Marks contacted me to declare that making a music library from captured
Internet music streams is just as illegal as downloading pirated MP3
tunes over a file-swapping network.

"It is not legal for anybody to make a copy of something they don't
own," Marks said. You can legally make MP3 copies of CDs you've
purchased, said Marks, because you paid for the disk and can do what you
like with it. But you never paid for the music on the radio, and so you
have no right to copy it.

What about the 1984 Betamax case, in which the US Supreme Court upheld
our right to record TV programs? Marks replied that people have a right
to record TV shows in order to watch them later, but the Supremes did
not grant the right to create a permanent library of favorite shows. In
other words, people who've taped and saved every episode of "Seinfeld"
or "Sex and the City" are thieves.

Marks applied the same logic to Internet audio. It might be OK to record
the Internet broadcast of a favorite opera, so you can listen to it next
week. But once the fat lady sings, you're legally obliged to press the
delete button.
Sounds nutty, yes? After all, there's no way the record industry can
enforce its opinion. You can copy Internet audio in total secrecy. It's
not like the file-swapping systems, where each user leaves a digital
fingerprint on the Internet, so the record companies can identify and
sue them. Behind closed doors, you can record whatever you like, with
nobody the wiser, unless the music companies assign a cop to watch every
computer in every home.

That may be just what the record industry has in mind, to judge by its
discussions with the Federal Communications Commission over a new kind
of radio broadcasting.

It's called "high-definition radio," digital broadcasting that relies on
some currently unused chunks of the FM frequency band. A handful of
stations offer these broadcasts, and a few radios are capable of
receiving them. Music producers are terrified that listeners will be
able to make high-quality music recordings simply by copying the digital
broadcasts. So they're demanding that the FCC order the high-definition
radio broadcasters to add a "broadcast flag," an antipiracy system
similar to the kind mandated for high-definition television broadcasts.
In addition, all high-definition radio receivers would have to recognize
the broadcast flag and limit the listener's ability to make copies.

So your high-definition radio would contain a built-in piracy cop that
would prevent your copying the songs broadcast over the air. You might
be allowed to record all of the music a station plays between noon and 4
p.m. But if you tried to make copies of each individual song, the
broadcast flag technology would prevent it. It doesn't matter that the
copies are for your personal use only, said Marks. If you want a
permanent copy of the song, you pay. No exceptions.

The FCC is even now deciding whether to approve the limits on
high-definition radio broadcasting. If the music companies get their
way, Internet radio will be their next target. As more of us get
broadband connections, Internet broadcasters will jack up their stream
quality, delivering sound as good as any CD recording. Consumers will
eagerly copy these streams, engaging in a practice most of us have long
considered as legal as breathing.

To prevent this, the music industry begins by asserting that there has
never been a right to copy Internet audio. Next comes the effort to
require built-in audio anti-copying chips in all computers. Similar
efforts in Congress were met with outrage and derision, but the record
moguls hope for a friendly reception from the unelected commissioners of
the FCC.

In essence, the music companies want to control the design of all future
home computers. It's been their fondest hope for years, but I never
understood the scope of their ambitions until I got Marks's phone call.
He intended it as a correction. I consider it a warning of yet another
threat to our right to listen as we like.

Hiawatha Bray can be reached at [log in to unmask]