STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BIDEN, and Mr. ALEXANDER):

S. 256. A bill to harmonize rate setting standards for copyright licenses under section
112 and 114 of title 17, United States Code, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Platform Equality and
Remedies for Rights-holders in Music Act along with Senators GRAHAM, BIDEN, and ALEXANDER.

The need to protect creative works has been an important principle recognized in our


First, the bill I am introducing today, the PERFORM Act, would create rate parity. All
companies covered by the government license created in section 114 of title 17 would be required to
pay a "fair market value" for use of music libraries rather than having different rate
standards apply based on what medium is being used to transmit the music.

The bill would also establish content protection. All companies would be required to use
reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to
prevent music theft. In addition, a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that
would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated
and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty.

This does not mean such devices cannot be made or distributed. It simply means that the
business must negotiate the payment for the music outside of the statutory license.

The bill also contains language to make sure that consumers' current recording habits are
not inhibited. Therefore, any recording the consumer chooses to do manually will still be
allowed.

In addition, if the device allows the consumer to manipulate music by program, channel,
or time period that would still be permitted under the statutory license.

For example, if a listener chooses to automatically record a news station every morning
at 9:00 a.m.; a jazz station every afternoon at 2:00 p.m., a blues station every Friday at 3:00
p.m., and a talk radio show every Saturday at 4:00 p.m., that would be allowable. In addition,
that listener could then use their recording device to move these programs so that each
program of the same genre would be back to back.

What a listener cannot do is set a recording device to find all the Frank Sinatra songs
being played on the radio service and only record those songs. By making these distinctions
this bill supports new business models and technologies without harming the songwriters and
performers in the process.

Unfortunately, this bill was unable to move last Congress primarily because of
misinformation about what the bill does and does not do.

However, there were also some questions that were raised, not about problems with the
bill, but about ways to expand its reach. For example, currently the bill does not apply to
traditional radio distributed by the broadcasters. This legislation only covers businesses that are
under the section 114 license: Internet, cable, and satellite. Yet, some of my Republican
colleagues argued that the bill should apply the same recording limitations to over-the-air
broadcasters as
are applied to Internet, cable, and satellite. While this change has not been made in the
version of the bill I am introducing today, I believe it is an issue we should look at in
the
110th Congress.

Also, the bill as introduced does not address the other conditions applied to Internet,
cable,
and satellite services in order for them to get the benefit of the statutory license. The
one
that I am most concerned with is interactivity.

I think there is real confusion about what is and what is not allowed under the current
statute: how much personalization and customization may these new services offer?

Currently, licensing rates are higher for interactive services. However, there are clear
disagreements as to what constitutes an "interactive" service. I tried to have the
parties meet
to negotiate a solution to this issue so that we could include new language in this bill;
however, the parties were so far apart that a solution could not be reached.

Despite this, I still believe this is an important issue that must be addressed. As
introduced,
the bill calls for the Copyright Office to make recommendations to Congress, but I am
hopeful
that through the process of moving this bill through the Senate we can develop a solution
sooner
rather than rely on a study.

Finally, some have raised concerns that applying content protection to all providers is
unfair.
They argue that if there is no connection between the distributor of the music and the
technology provider that allows for copying and manipulating of performances then they
should
not be required to protect the music that they broadcast. In general, I do not agree. We
know
that there are websites out there now that provide so-called stream-ripping services that
allow
an individual to steal music off an Internet webcast.

It is not enough to turn a blind eye to this type of piracy and do nothing simply because
there
is no formal connection between the businesses. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the
concerns that if the type of technology a company uses is inadequate or ineffective,
through no
fault of their own, they should not be saddled with huge mandatory penalties.

I am interested in looking at this issue more closely to see if there is some way to
address
this concern and find a compromise solution.

To be clear, I see this as the beginning of the process. I think this legislation is a
good step
forward in addressing a real problem that is occurring in the music industry. Changes or
additions may be necessary as the bill moves forward, but I believe to wait and do
nothing does
a disservice to all involved.

Music is an invaluable part of all of our lives. The new technologies and changing
delivery
systems provide exciting new options for all consumers. As we continue to move forward
into new
frontiers we must ensure that our laws can stand the test of time.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:

S.256
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in
Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music
Act of
2007" or the "Perform Act of 2007".
SEC. 2. RATE SETTING STANDARDS.
(a) SECTION 112 LICENSES.-Section 112(e)(4) of title 17, United States Code, is amended
in the
third sentence by striking "fees that would have been negotiated in the marketplace
between a
willing buyer and a willing seller" and inserting "the fair market value of the rights
licensed
under this subsection".
(b) SECTION 114 LICENSES.-Section 114(f) of title 17, United States Code, is amended -
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and
(4),
respectively; and
(3) in paragraph (1) (as redesignated under this subsection) -
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking all after "Proceedings" and inserting "under chapter
8
shall determine reasonable rates and terms of royalty payments for transmissions during
5-year
periods beginning on January 1 of the second year following the year in which the
proceedings
are to be commenced, except where a different transitional period is provided under
section
6(b)(3) of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, or such other
period as
the parties may agree.";
(B) in subparagraph (B) -
(i) in the first sentence, by striking "affected by this paragraph" and inserting
"under
this section";
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking "eligible nonsubscription transmission"; and
(iii) in the third sentence -
(I) by striking "eligible nonsubscription services and new subscription"; and
(II) by striking "rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace
between a
willing buyer and a willing seller" and inserting "the fair market value of the rights
licensed
under this section";
(iv) in the fourth sentence, by striking "base its" and inserting "base their";
(v) in clause (i), by striking "and" after the semicolon;
(vi) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting "; and";
(vii) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
"(iii) the degree to which reasonable recording affects the potential market for sound
recordings, and the additional fees that are required to be paid by services for
compensation.";
and
(viii) in the matter following clause (ii), by striking "described in subparagraph (A)";
and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:
"(C) The procedures under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall also be initiated pursuant to
a
petition filed by any copyright owners of sound recordings or any transmitting entity
indicating
that a new type of service on which sound recordings are performed is or is about to
become
operational, for the purpose of determining reasonable terms and rates of royalty
payments with
respect to such new type of service for the period beginning with the inception of such
new type
of service and ending on the date on which the royalty rates and terms for preexisting
subscription digital audio transmission services, eligible nonsubscription services, or
new
subscription services, as the case may be, most recently determined under subparagraph
(A) or
(B) and chapter 8 expire, or such other period as the parties may agree.".

(c) CONTENT PROTECTION.- Section 114(d)(2) of title 17, United States Code, is amended -
(1) in subparagraph (A)-
(A) in clause (ii), by striking "and" after the semicolon;
(B) in clause (iii), by adding "and" after the semicolon; and
(C) by adding after clause (iii) the following:

"(iv) 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;";
(2) in subparagraph (C) -
(A) by striking clause (vi); and
(B) by redesignating clauses (vii) through (ix) as clauses (vi) through (viii),
respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:

"For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iv), the mere offering of a transmission and
accompanying metadata does not in itself authorize, enable, cause, or induce the making of a
phonorecord.
Nothing shall preclude or prevent a performing rights society or a mechanical rights
organization, or any entity owned in whole or in part by, or acting on behalf of, such
organizations or entities, from monitoring public performances or other uses of
copyrighted works contained in such transmissions. Any such organization or entity shall be granted a
license on either a gratuitous basis or for a de minimus fee to cover only the reasonable
costs to the licensor of providing the license, and on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, to
access and retransmit as necessary any content contained in such transmissions protected by
content protection or similar technologies, if such licenses are for purposes of carrying out the
activities of such organizations or entities in monitoring the public performance or
other uses of copyrighted works, and such organizations or entities employ reasonable methods to
protect any such content accessed from further distribution.".
(d) DEFINITION.-Section 114(j) of title 17, United States Code, is amended -
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (15) as paragraphs (11) through (16),
respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
"(10)(A) A 'reasonable recording' means the making of a phonorecord embodying all or part
of a performance licensed under this section for private, noncommercial use where technological
measures used by the transmitting entity, and which are incorporated into a recording
device -
"(i) permit automated recording or playback based on specific programs, time periods, or
channels as selected by or for the user;
"(ii) do not permit automated recording or playback based on specific sound recordings,
albums, or artists;
"(iii) do not permit the separation of component segments of the copyrighted material
contained in the transmission program which results in the playback of a manipulated sequence; and
"(iv) do not permit the redistribution, transmission or other exporting of a phonorecord
embodying all or part of a performance licensed under this section from the device by
digital outputs or removable media unless the destination device is part of a secure in-home
network that also complies with each of the requirements prescribed in this paragraph.
"(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a consumer from engaging in non-automated
manual recording and playback in a manner that is not an infringement of copyright.".
(e) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. -
(1) SECTION 114.- Section 114(f) of title United States Code (as amended by subsection
(b) of this section), is further amended -
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), in the first sentence, by striking "paragraph (3)" and inserting
"paragraph (2)"; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking "under paragraph (4)" and inserting "under paragraph
(3)".
(2) SECTION 8O4.-Section 804(b)(3)(C) of title 17, United States Code, is amended -
(A) in clause (i), by striking" 114(f)(2)(C)"; and
(B) in clause (iv), by striking 114(f)(2)(C), as the case may be".

SEC. 3. REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS MEETING AND REPORT.

(a) MEETING.- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Register of Copyrights shall convene a meeting among affected parties to discuss whether to recommend
creating a new category of limited interactive services, including an appropriate premium
rate for such services, within the statutory license contained in section 114 of title 17,
United States Code.

(b) REPORT.- Not later than 90 days after the convening of the meeting under subsection
(a), the Register of Copyrights shall submit a report on the discussions at that meeting to the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives.

Mrs. Feinstein: "Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights-holders in Music Act, along with Senators Graham, Biden, and Alexander."

re: "I am pleased to introduce ..."
WHY does it please her to sponsor another copyright law to screw consumers?
Hint: The content cartel has been financially supportive of her political campaigns.
Some people are dismayed by that fact for more than one reason: What major music label is actually a part of her constituency (with headquarters in her state)? NONE.
(But that doesn't stop her from accepting their campaign bribes ... oops, I mean campaign contributions (my bad).

This story from P2Pnet sums it up nicely.

The greedy only know one lesson.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11001?PHPSESSID=4b6ec4da4b2116311a6583834ca06b6a

Here's a stab at correcting this thing. Read it carefully and feel free (as always) to correct/expand/add as needed:

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Platform Equality and Remedies for Music Lovers.

The need to protect creative works has been an important principle recognized in our
corporations since the time when our Constitution was first drafted.

However, the founding fathers could not have predicted the path that greed and corruption would eventually lead us down, nor the amazing new technologies that could be stolen from the public.

While many of us still enjoy traditional radio, this too is rapidly changing.

Recently, radio stations have begun advertising for a national campaign to switch to High
Definition, or RD, radio. This new platform is changing the way music is transmitted and,
according to its promoters, "radio has never sounded better."

In addition, we can now have music radio programs provided not just in our cars, or on
traditional home stereos, but radio programs have expanded to be available through
Internet, cable, and satellite music stations. And radio services are looking to use the new digital transmissions and new technologies to change how music is delivered so that the audience can not only listen but also record, manipulate, collect and create individual music play lists.

Thus, what was once a captive listening experience has turned into a forum where
consumers can choose their own personalized music libraries.

As the modes of distribution change and the technologies change to allow more competition, so must our laws change.

The government granted a compulsory license for radio-like services by Internet, cable,
and satellite providers in order to squeeze out competition and create new sources of revenue for a few corporations.

However, as new innovations alter these services to allow distribution of works from sources other than the few corporations who donate heavily to political fundraisers,
the law must respond. In addition, as the changing technology evolves the distinctions between commercially sponsored and independent music offerings become less and less significant, and the differences in how they are treated under the statutory license make less and less sense.

Therefore, I am introducing a bill that will begin to fix the inequities currently in the
statute and open the door for real competition between producers, equity for artists and protection for the public interests.

First, the bill I am introducing today would create rate parity. All companies covered by the government license created in section 114 of title 17 would be required to pay a
back the public domain for use of its music libraries by reestablishing a reasonable copyright length and only allowing for a single copyright to only the author as our Constitution originally intended rather than having different standards apply based on who has the best lobbyist.

The bill would also abolish content protection. All companies would be required to use
reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to
publish music. In addition, a company may provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty.

The bill contains language to make sure that consumers' current recording habits are
not inhibited. Therefore, any recording the consumer chooses to do will still be
allowed.

In addition, the device can allow the consumer to manipulate music by program, channel,
genre or time period that would still be permitted without additional license.

What a listener can do is set a recording device to find all the Frank Sinatra songs
being played on the radio service and only record those songs. By making these distinctions this bill supports new business models and technologies without harming the songwriters and performers in the process.

Unfortunately, this bill was unable to move last Congress primarily because of
misinformation about what the bill does and does not do for the media conglomerates. However, there were also some questions that were raised, not about problems with the bill, but about ways to expand the reach of multi-national corporations with all these provisions in place. For example, currently the bill does not apply any pay per play payments for content distributed by the broadcasters.

Also, the bill as introduced does not address the other conditions applied to Internet, cable, and satellite services in order for them to get the benefit of the statutory license. The one that I am most concerned with is usability.

I think there is real confusion about what is and what is not allowed under the current
statute: how much personalization and customization may these new services offer?

Currently, licensing rates are higher for interactive services. However, there are clear
disagreements as to what constitutes an "interactive" service. I tried to have the
parties meet to negotiate a solution to this issue so that we could include new language in this bill; however, the parties were so far apart that a solution could not be reached.
Despite this, I still believe this is an important issue that must be addressed. As introduced, the bill calls for the Copyright Office to make recommendations to Congress, but I am hopeful that through the process of moving this bill through the Senate we can develop a solution sooner rather than rely on a study.

Finally, some have raised concerns that applying content protection to all providers is
unfair. They argue that if there is no connection between the distributor of the music and the technology provider that allows for copying and manipulating of performances then they should not be required to protect the music that they broadcast. In general, I agree.

I am interested in looking at this issue more closely to see if there is some way to
address the concerns of the paying public and find a solution to the profit only approach by media conglomerates. To be clear, I see this as the beginning of the process. I think this legislation is a good step forward in addressing a real problem that is occurring as the result of a greedy music industry. Changes or additions may be necessary as the bill moves forward, but I believe to wait and do nothing does a disservice to all involved.

Music is an invaluable part of all of our lives. The new technologies and changing
delivery systems provide exciting new options for the public and artists. As we continue to move forward into new frontiers we must ensure that our laws can stand the test of time and tyranny.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

I'm working on the actual draft bill itself, so more to come...

My Dear President Bush, Commander in Chief,
As a Copyright Holding Musician, Independant of the RIAA, I am against Bill S. 256. A bill to "price-fix" for copyright licenses under section 112 and 114 of title 17, United States Code.
This bill will make it harder for Independant Musicians (who are out-selling EMI corperation) to compete with the corperate controlled market. This bill is NOT fair to consumers nor the artists who make music. It is only good for 4 giant mega-corperations.
Thank You, Insane Wayne

Note to Dmusicains; in Emails to the White House I use my full name and SS#

"The bill would also establish content protection. All companies would be required to use reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to prevent music theft."

There is no content protection that works, much less any that is reasonably available. It is not technologically feasible, therefore it cannot be economically reasonable.

All of the webcasting royalty rates set so far do not apply to independents. We were not represented at any of the hearings. No one negotiated our royalties.

This bill, if passed, would necessitate the removal of RIAA material from all webcasting until they have economically reasonable, technologically feasible and reasonably available copy protection.

I don't have a problem with that.

. . . nor would the rest of us around here!
But I'm sure we could count on the RIAA (and their political lackeys who are not exactly scarce around the country) to supply a convenient type of modification amendment to that issue in a manner favorable to them. Or, perhaps a complicit U.S. judge can rule his interpretation of it (as it exists) in a way that's partial to cartel interests.
See comments posted about the following article: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/default-judgment-entered-against-patti.html

"Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a consumer from engaging in non-automated
manual
recording and playback in a manner that is not an infringement of copyright"

WHAT?? Shows how extreme this political can go...

"This story from P2Pnet sums it up nicely.

The greedy only know one lesson.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11001?PHPSESSID=4b6ec4da4b2116311a6583834ca06b6a"

An advanced race doesn't mean they have alot of technology. It means they have alot of wisdom. I don't care if we were exploring the Galaxy and Patrick Stuart was on board a *REAL* USS Enterprise barking "Make it so, numba one!" ... humans will still be every bit as stupid as they ever were until us dumb humans collectively decide to change that.

"My Dear President Bush, Commander in Chief,
As a Copyright Holding Musician, Independant of the RIAA, I am against Bill S. 256. A bill to "price-fix" for copyright licenses under section 112 and 114 of title 17, United States Code.
This bill will make it harder for Independant Musicians (who are out-selling EMI corperation) to compete with the corperate controlled market. This bill is NOT fair to consumers nor the artists who make music. It is only good for 4 giant mega-corperations.
Thank You, Insane Wayne

Note to Dmusicains; in Emails to the White House I use my full name and SS#"

Perhaps my statement is a bit pre-emptive, but perhaps it needs to be.

None of this will mater as long as WE can get all of the people on our side who really mater -- THE FANS.

If the majority is interested in *US* rather than *THEM* -- no amount of new toys and restrictions on them will stop Indie Bands from tossing up their websites -- and those wbesites being searchable on Google or DMusic, etc... no one will stop people from downloading this free and legal music. No one will stop people from going to the concerts these bands hold.

This is what the RIAA needs to but never will understand. We are the many and they are the few. They're wasting their time if everyone eventually puts their shit on ignore.

"...radio services are looking to use the new digital transmissions and new technologies to change how music is delivered so that the audience can not only listen but also record, manipulate, collect and create individual music play lists.

Thus, what was once a passive listening experience has turned into a forum where
consumers can create their own personalized music libraries."

How is this a bad thing? This is obviously a good thing for consumers.

"...a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and
maintained without paying a reproduction royalty."

So, if I want to create a personalized compilation CD, or a compilation collection on my iPod, FOR MUSIC I ALREADY PAID FOR, I have to pay the RIAA more money? Give me a fucking break. That's nuts.

"This does not mean such devices cannot be made or distributed. It simply means that the business must negotiate the payment for the music outside of the statutory license."

So, lots of consumer electronics companies have to pay the music industry more money because consumers might want to create a "personalized music library"? This is outrageous.

The Consumer Electronics Industry has to get off their collective asses and out-lobby the RIAA. They have the financial ability to do so. The future of their industry hangs in the balance.

" All companies covered by the government license created in section 114 of title 17 would be required to pay a "fair market value" for use of music libraries rather than having different rate standards apply based on what medium is being used to transmit the music."
This sounds to me like price-fixing. Also sounds as if ALL artists will get paid the same weather it's AC/DC or Victor's Skull. What if the new, not-yet-famous, indie artist Victor's Skull wishes to allow his music to be streamed for free (for promotion purposes) on internet radio and AC/DC's label insists upon royalties? Not a fair plan for non-signing bands.

"All companies would be required to use
reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to prevent music theft."
Sounds as if everyone, including Indies, will be forced to use DRM (the Death of Recorded Music). How will this affect sites dealing only in Indie music?

The RIAA can "protect" their content all they wish, but laws like this will only make it harder for Indies to sell and compete.

"So, if I want to create a personalized compilation CD, or a compilation collection on my iPod, FOR MUSIC I ALREADY PAID FOR, I have to pay the RIAA more money? Give me a fucking break. That's nuts."

True. Thats why we need to not focus on RIAA Artists and Focus on Indie. An Artist may not be able to drop a label, but a label can drop an artist. And its not hard for an artist to prevoke this if thats what they wish. The people at the RIAA are over confident. They'll drop more than half their Artists if it suits their ego to do so. The people at the RIAA have made more mistakes, dare I say, than even Enron!

Quoting someone who just asked me:

"Then WHY are they still in POWER?"

"Then WHY are they (the cartel) still in POWER?"

1) mega corporations and cartels rule society because of political corruption (campaign contributions to select Congress-critters);
2) our government's perpetual lust for power (over citizens' lives) is too close in sync with the corporations' craving for control (over consumers) — example, the push for intellectual property rights fits like a glove for the goals of both big business and big government;
3) apathy and/or lack of knowledge by John Q. Public — a culture can be destroyed through lack of knowledge, and the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing about it.

http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#73
http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#74

"Digital Rights Management (DRM)

In preparation for next week's look at how and why Windows Vista has incorporated the most pervasive and invasive system for digital rights management ever created, AACS, Leo and I first take a step back to survey the history and evolution of media property rights and the technologies used to enforce them."
----------------------------------------------

"Peter Gutmann on Vista DRM

Peter Gutmann, the author of the highly controversial white paper detailing the significant cost of Windows Vista's deeply-entrenched digital rights management (DRM) technology, joins Leo and me this week to discuss his paper and his findings."

4) Five mega-corperations in direct or indirect conrol of almost all the TV news we watch; 4 of these 5 are affiliated with the RIAA.
That, plus the unfortunate fact that most people fail to take time to think things through for themselves.


It's quite phenomenal to ponder the impact of the above factors on our society!

"Sounds as if everyone, including Indies, will be forced to use DRM (the Death of Recorded Music). How will this affect sites dealing only in Indie music?"

It doesn't.

July 30, 2002
Independent record label waives webradio fees for one year

Independent label Artemis Records has said that it would waive fees charged to Internet radio stations that play music from the independent label's catalog for one year. Artemis' decision comes after the recent struggle between the recording industry and online radio stations over webradio royalty rates. Conventional radio stations have long been exempt from paying royalties to recording artists and copyright owners of a song, but Congress says that sound-recording owners should get paid for Internet transmissions, which was set on a rate of 0.07 cent per listener per song. The RIAA has no objection to Artemis' move, as copyright holder should have control over how their music is used.

George,

The way I read it, this legislation would force some form of DRM on all music files, including indie:

"The bill would also establish content protection. All companies would be required to use reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to prevent music theft. In addition, a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would
allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty."

I don't know if Feinstein is interpreting the wording of the legislation incorrectly. The way she describes, it sounds nuts. It sounds as if even the iPod + iTunes would be illegal as they allow users to easily make "personalized music libraries", or compilations, by simply draging + dropping files into a new folder. Am I reading this correctly? This sounds completely insane.

"RIAA have made more mistakes, dare I say, than even Enron!"

They ARE the next Enron! Enron and the RIAA have been using unfair business practices that otherwise should be illegal! This includes price fixing, installing and hiding dangerous software on computers, lying about their economic status and ripping off employees (artists) as well as consumers.
The RIAA should share Enron's punishment for this kind of behavior; down and out and forced to shut down. Good riddance!

I'm with you!!