"New Front: Recording of Digital Broadcasts" or "Warmed-over cold soup"*?
The Washington Post reports:
"Technologies that let people record satellite and Internet radio broadcasts digitally are opening a new front in the recording industry's war on music piracy. Until recently, the music industry focused its efforts on the widespread sharing of music files online. But a proliferation of software that make recording radio streams a breeze now has recording companies worried."
Actually, this development is not altogether novel. Music fans have long used a variety of software programs to capture audio streams from internet broadcasts and other sources played through their computers. Plus, the recording industry set it sights on the webcasting industry early on (despite the generally pitiful quality) and effectively pulled a *DAT* maneuver on it. It'd be nice if the media actually connected the dots between past and "new" fronts in the Music Wars. But I digress.
The TimeTrax vendor, Maclean, argues that his software "simply record[s] music off the analog XM signal." WP doesn't clarify whether the XM signal is indeed analog or if TimeTrax simply captures the inevitable analog output (as human ears are "analog devices", "digital audio" has to be converted to analog sound waves if it is to be heard by human beings).
This distinction could be crucial, depending on how you read the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. However, the WP article further states, without clarifying whether the captured streams began as digital broadcasts or not (they probably did start out digital): "Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America...distinguished between the manual recording of radio done for decades on a cassette player and the systematic, mass recording of digital radio broadcasts. "What we're concerned about are programs that essentially transform what are intended to be performances of music into a music library for somebody," Marks said."
Marks' dubious "distinction" aside (it's okay that the RIAA is concerned, otherwise we'd have to do a post-Hilary Rosen pulse check), what does the law say? Under one interpretation of AHRA, the actions of TimeTrax users would almost certainly not constitute infringing acts. As the recording ends up on the computer hard drive (and computers are not digital recording devices under AHRA), it would also appear that TimeTrax itself, like the XM PCR receiver, could not be considered an infringing device. What a pickle for the recording industry. Since they lost the *Diamond Rio case*, this wouldn't seem like a promising battle to fight. RIAA major label hint - music needs to be ubiquitous, focus on ways to *add value* to a music fan's experience and maybe you wouldn't have to seek increasingly *desperate mergers*.
Thanks to N-N for drawing my attention to this article.
* A favorite metaphor since I heard it delivered in a lilting Bajan accent by the opposition leader in response to an early 2000s (singles?/zeros?) budget speech in Barbados.
"Technologies that let people record satellite and Internet radio broadcasts digitally are opening a new front in the recording industry's war on music piracy. Until recently, the music industry focused its efforts on the widespread sharing of music files online. But a proliferation of software that make recording radio streams a breeze now has recording companies worried."
Actually, this development is not altogether novel. Music fans have long used a variety of software programs to capture audio streams from internet broadcasts and other sources played through their computers. Plus, the recording industry set it sights on the webcasting industry early on (despite the generally pitiful quality) and effectively pulled a *DAT* maneuver on it. It'd be nice if the media actually connected the dots between past and "new" fronts in the Music Wars. But I digress.
The TimeTrax vendor, Maclean, argues that his software "simply record[s] music off the analog XM signal." WP doesn't clarify whether the XM signal is indeed analog or if TimeTrax simply captures the inevitable analog output (as human ears are "analog devices", "digital audio" has to be converted to analog sound waves if it is to be heard by human beings).
This distinction could be crucial, depending on how you read the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. However, the WP article further states, without clarifying whether the captured streams began as digital broadcasts or not (they probably did start out digital): "Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America...distinguished between the manual recording of radio done for decades on a cassette player and the systematic, mass recording of digital radio broadcasts. "What we're concerned about are programs that essentially transform what are intended to be performances of music into a music library for somebody," Marks said."
Marks' dubious "distinction" aside (it's okay that the RIAA is concerned, otherwise we'd have to do a post-Hilary Rosen pulse check), what does the law say? Under one interpretation of AHRA, the actions of TimeTrax users would almost certainly not constitute infringing acts. As the recording ends up on the computer hard drive (and computers are not digital recording devices under AHRA), it would also appear that TimeTrax itself, like the XM PCR receiver, could not be considered an infringing device. What a pickle for the recording industry. Since they lost the *Diamond Rio case*, this wouldn't seem like a promising battle to fight. RIAA major label hint - music needs to be ubiquitous, focus on ways to *add value* to a music fan's experience and maybe you wouldn't have to seek increasingly *desperate mergers*.
Thanks to N-N for drawing my attention to this article.
* A favorite metaphor since I heard it delivered in a lilting Bajan accent by the opposition leader in response to an early 2000s (singles?/zeros?) budget speech in Barbados.
posted by DO at 4:36 AM
0 comments
