The record labels just can't get enough of that ol' timey regulation:

The "Perform Act," or the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006," would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters to pay fair market value for the performance of digital music. Additionally, the bill would require the use of readily available and cost-effective technological means to prevent music theft.

"The birth of the digital music place has been a boon for businesses and consumers. However, these new technologies and business models have become so advanced that the clear lines between a listening service and a distribution service have been blurred," Feinstein said. "I believe that the Perform Act would help strike a balance between fostering the development of new technologies and ensuring that songwriters and performers continue to be fairly compensated for their works."

Once again, IPCentral's James DeLong argues that we need to regulate the market to liberate it and make it work. This bill has no business mandating technological measures because as the copyright holders, the record labels can choose who to license their works to. What's that? It's a burden on the poor record labels to have to find out what sort of protection their works would enjoy as they are streamed across the network? Why it's simply obscene that the onus should be on them, and not the software engineers who write the streaming media software, to ensure that they are streaming their music securely.

The problem with this bill is that there are many small bands who don't care whether their works are restricted or not. They are so hungry for airtime that they'll gladly take an opportunity to get their music out there, and I see no reason why the market cannot settle this. Once again, the record labels are too lazy to actually negotiate contracts based on technical merits so they resort to having the government do it for them:

Record industry executives want so-called "parity" among the different download platforms. They argue that the new devices XM Radio is bringing to the market that allow customers to save songs on the receivers without paying for the download rip off the copyright holder.

They are free to pack up their bags and leave at anytime. Isn't that what IPCentral has been arguing they would do without DRM? Or is it that in the real world they cannot do that because without that money, they would be one step closer to not being able to operate their business?