Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues XM Satellite Radio
skayell writes "The RIAA is suing XM Satellite radio contending that the ability to store songs in memory makes it similar to an iPod, but with no income involved for the RIAA." From the article: "XM said it will vigorously defend this lawsuit on behalf of consumers and also called the lawsuit a bargaining tactic. [...] The labels are currently in talks with XM and its rival Sirius Satellite Radio, to renegotiate digital royalty contracts for broadcasts."
this makes me laugh... way to go riaa, sue a legitimate radio service
?giS
So why aren't they suing every radio station in the country, and why haven't they been doing this for decades?
Digital = terrorist?
i am a soviet space shuttle
Yeah sometimes the truth hurts...If it happened, I don't think I'd be hurt too much though.
... a worthy opponent against the RIAA.
I hope XM tears em a new one.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
...but we don't get to make extra money off it (note: the artists / label were already paid for the song being aired, and recording off-air for personal use is covered by fair use law).
Wah! It isn't fair that we don't get to make more money, so it must be illegal.
Or does a picture of a snake eating its tail come to mind?
Here is a choice quote:
"...Because XM makes available vast catalogues of music in every genre, XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings,"
I can store songs in my memory and play them back at will fairly accurately. Am I at risk of being sued by the RIAA?
I think the one broken leg that RIAA has is songs are recorded in the memory, so it's not a traditional radio broadcast.
I wonder if RIAA won this case, would it affect MP3 players which allow recording of radio?
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
Hide all those songs you've got stored illegally in your head.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
"XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings" - I don't think the music industry needs any help persuading people never again to buy their music - they're already doing such a fine job of that by themselves.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
truth of it is that when speaking of device memory this is no current method of tranfering the 30 min - 5 hrs of recording to any other device based upon the two devices capable of utilizing this capability. When speaking of softwares that record via Direct PCR or XMPCR we are off topic and off correct entity to sue. This is quite frivolous...
Let's see if the RIAA can manhandle XM Radio as well as they can bully and terrorize single mothers on fixed incomes. A market cap of 4.5B and 520M cash on hand sort of evens the playing field.
"Everything is changing and the industry is petrified"
That just about sums it up.
Just another frivolous lawsuit to keep RIAA in the headlines. So that regular mainstream people will be hesitant to keep downloading. At least that is what I believe.
It's time someone declared a monopoly lawsuit against the RIAA. They have been pushing their weight around with impunity because they're the only major recording industry, and they get nearly 100% of the profits made on almost, if not every major label in North America. They have no competition, no will to provide a better service to its customers or its labels/musicians, and they seem to have gone insane with the power this has granted them. That seems like enough of a case to me.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
Variations on wavelengths, amplified and broadcast, take approximately 3 seconds from source audio to the listener. This cumilatively creates a 'storage medium' where anyone with a reciever can illegally intercept music. This of course can be resolved by renegotiated royalty payments.
Infinity is overrated, Infinity+1, now that's cool!
It used to be RIAA members giving Ratio station producers and DJ's gifts, holidays and other fancy toys to promote and play their music.
Now everythings on digital it seems the RIAA is doing all it can to prevent anyone getting access to their artist products.
Its a strange world we live in.
This is plain silly. First off, they aren't upset at XM Service. They are upset at hardware that works like a radio-Tivo. However, TV companies aren't suing Tivo. They're adapting advertising to Tivo.
The RIAA is barking up the wrong tree, and pretty soon everyone and I mean everyone will turn on the RIAA. Many artists in the industry hate their tactics. Having a portion of the radio recorded Tivo like is not the same as illegally downloading music from the internet.
And last time I checked, people were doing recordings from radio for ages.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Everyone burn your cassette recorders and cd writers!!! No radio in teh country should be allowed to do this illegal timeshifting nonsense!!! Recordings of our recordings are piracy, theft, and treason!!! /end sarcasm
/me out
The reaction of the RIAA and MPAA to technology should be in the mode of adaptation. The business model of these industries was founded on the difficulty of end users to effectively make use of their fair rights provided for by copyright law. No one treats books like the RIAA and MPAA treat music and movies, yet the publishing industry still does well. We are even seeing online publishing become more and more profitable (as the industry is adapting to the times).
The RIAA and MPAA only exisit because it used to be difficult to create the media used to distribute copyrighted works of music or film. They dumped money into media creation and distribution and rightfully got a good chunk of the pie when consumers purchased their products. But creation and distribution of any type of copyrighted work is no longer a factor. The RIAA and MPAA serve no real purpose anymore.
They are afraid and are kicking and screaming their way to bank. Why? because they have so much money for lobbyists and lawyers.
Bastards.
I've got to stop or there will be pages and pages of text about how screwed up the recording industry is.
$150.000 per song, 160.000 distinct song offered per month... That $24.000.000.000 in potential damages. I think this day can be mark as the day when the RIAA finally lost it.
Doesn't the MyFi already save content? Why doesn't the RIAA go after the manufacturer, Delphi? There is a reason
You must be new here...
I'd like to see how this holds up. From my understanding the RIAA has only been suing people it knows can't afford to go to court offering them "settlements" of large fines, though reduced from what they'd have to pay if they lost. Every time someone has stood up to them they've just tried to get the case dismissed.
If they're finally suing someone with an equal amount of lawyers and money, it should be an interesting legal precedent.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
fairly new but no excuse
The war between sheet music publishers and piano roll makers, all over again...
The more they sue, they stupider they look. Then more people will realize how greedy they are.
Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
Unless someone invented some sort of new way of compressing and storing broadcasts, by my quick math, figuring an average of 4 minutes per song, a user would need 214 Inno's to record the "vast catalog" and never have to buy music again. And this doesn't include any new music that comes out from this day forward.
Only in RIAA-world do the suits think the average consumer has $77,000+ (for 214 Inno's at $360 each) to plunk down right now, plus 63+ weeks to spend 24/7, recording entire catalogs of music.
It's a limited storage device with even more restrictions on moving content than cassette/CD have now, and they're already proven legal in piles of court cases. You almost have to wonder if RIAA has any income stream, given how hard they're trying to make money through the legal system.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
my number's lower than your number! loser!
j/k.
trolling is almost more slashdot than slashdot is slashdot. thats just how its been for the past 6 or so years.
I pay $13/month for the right to listen to music free of adverts. If I choose to route my receiver through the car stereo, through the A/V equipment in the living room or just through the boombox in the computer- or bedroom, I am able to. If I choose to record something being broadcast, whether it's an NFL game or an hour's worth of Channel 20 "Octane", I'm doing nothing different from those individuals who record advertisement-sponsored over-the-air radio. OTA listeners are paying by listening to the adverts; I'm paying actual MONEY.
If the RIAA doesn't wany me listening to it's content when and where I like, it should stop releasing material, and I'll be happy to keep listening to the indie artists I do listen to, and I'll be happy to go in search of others.
How dare TiVo allow its users to digitally record and play back not only music, but music videos, without even paying the RIAA a dime! Not to mention the countless television shows, movies, and commercials that did not license their music to be played back whenever the viewer chooses. TiVo must burn!
Insert self-referential sig here.
actually, you have that in reverse.
"illegally" downloading music from the internet is functionally no different the recording radio to cassette tapes, and therefore should not be "illegal".
to paraphrase the argument they made to make it illegal "ZOMG!!11one1, there are millions of people doing this (just like there are millions of people using vcrs to 'steal' tv), QUICK, OUTLAW IT"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
So why aren't they suing every radio station in the country, and why haven't they been doing this for decades?
The last thing the RIAA wants is a level playing field, because if one existed, their leverage would disappear. With radio, they can still engage in payola practices. With XM and Sirius, they're dealing with entities that would rather control their own destinies, rather than suck on the RIAA's teat. It's not that XM and Sirius are digital, but that they are nation-wide and multi-channel. The RIAA can bully individual stations with impunity, and even the big guys like Clear Channel play along because they've essentially bought into the cartel. But XM and Sirius aren't part of the cartel, so the RIAA is giving them a shot across the bow. The message is: "Join the club, or we'll take you down."
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
However, when we were all kids we were taught right from wrong. If you're telling me that downloading music from the internet that you didn't pay for isn't stealing, then I don't know what to say. I can't say I haven't done it. Sure, I've stolen music. And I also make the decision to purchase CDs from certain labels and artists. I consider it a willing decision to support certain companies, and to screw the music industry on the whole when I do decide to steal. I don't understand those who are for some reason in denial that this is stealing.
Ideally, artists should provide a few tracks online just like they release singles for radio stations. We can sample their music and decide if we want to buy it. But quick searches on P2P networks and BitTorrents will show you that fairly often people are sharing full movies, full albums, hell, full collections. The spirit there is not to promote by samples, but to steal and circumvent the companies that want to sell these things to you.
People break laws all the time. They jaywalk, litter, speed, etc. Downloading music is stealing. As much as I hate the RIAA, that doesn't change the fact that stealing remains stealing.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Despite frequent anti-lawyer postings on Slashdot (I confess, I do it too) lawyers are better than guns; they destroy greenbacks and leave people standing. Paradoxically, the RIAA is an example of why we actually need lawyers. Or would you prefer Apple HQ to be taken out by the RIAA's Somali IP department? Or downloaders to be taken out in drive-by shootings.
The business of lawyers is to be cheap enough that "businessmen" go to them rather than to hit-men, and expensive enough that "businessmen" have to be at least partly selective about who they sue.
Pining for the fjords
Coming from an XM Subscriber, I wouldn't WANT to record the content from the service, as it is far from CD Quality. In fact, FM sounds better in a lot of scenerios... and I've been able to tape from FM for as long as I can remember.
Despite its quality issues, I like the XM service and am sorry to hear about this. XM is in enough financial trouble, so I've read in recent articles, and I don't think they need this. I doubt the RIAA will make them go under, but this certainly can't be good for the service.
As far as the RIAA, I'm wondering what's next. I'm thinking they're going to sue Amazon for those 30-second 32kbps sample clips they have from CDs. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if some smart-ass exec at RIAA is reading this right now, and just yelped "BRILLIANT!" at the top of his lungs.
This is crazy. My response to the article is going to be to immediately start illegally downloading albums in protest.... of course I'm going to post as an anonymous coward so the RIAA doesn't read this post and sue me.
" I don't understand those who are for some reason in denial that this is stealing."
because it's not, and if you own a vcr/PVR/audio cassette recorder then you are a hyppocrite.
The spirit there is...to steal and circumvent the companies that want to sell these things to you.
(sarcasm)Quick!, there are billions of people "downpouring" water from their faucets, this must be made illegal because theyre "stealing" from evian.. how will evian survive! If a company sells you air under this philosophy then youre "stealing" by breathing. (/sarcasm)
A company with an unviable business model does not have a right to exist.. this is taught in the most basic economics classes.
to go further however, more advanced economics courses teach you how to think in terms of overall growth, give and take, and opportunity costs.
By giving people on the internet the same rights they had with tapes, dual cassette decks, vcr's, and radio this gives rise to tremendous markets for electronic devices, software, media editing suites, you name it. Even if it does put a slight drain on hollywood's precious revenue streams (history shows this to be negligible if at all), it gives rise to growth in the economy and overall wealth.
Furthermore, it can't be called 'free'. People who want to participate in p2p have to buy computers, subscribe to broadband, get removable storage, buy portable devices, other accessories. So for the "potential" loss of $15 a month in riaa revenues, the overall economy gets boosted by some $500 a year on average per capita.
I call that a good trade in my book, but go ahead and defend the now ineffective laws which don't do anything to stem this activity, but bankrupt college students, teens, and their families, and in the case of DMCA section 1201 deny developers of other IP which doesnt involve music or movies their right to market their product.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
especially stay away from public performances of such songs as "Happy Birthday"
Is the RIAA on acid? They have apparently taken leave of their senses.
What is the difference between XM radio being able to store a few songs and anybody being able to make a tape with a tuner and a casette deck?
Is that a SCSI connector or are you just glad to see me?
So, the RIAA is angry at people producing hardware to record XM radio, right? Isn't it impossible to get rid of this hardware? I mean, the radio has to have a speaker of some kind, right? So can't you always just cut the wires going to the speaker, wire them to an audio jack, and plug that into your sound card? Theres always a way.
According to the article, XM's device does not allow on-demand downloading, nor does it allow content transfers. Sony, a member of RIAA, should remember the results of the Betamax case.
XM recorder is just a dvr for the radio. It should fall under the sony vs univseral court decision.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
It seems that EMI, Sony-BMG, Universal Music and Warner don't give a shit about the market. The market wants downloadable/streamable quickly selectable music. The market wants to know the music before paying for it. The demand is there, get to work and satisfy it. All this lawsuit-circus is about forcing people to buy CDs. People want no more CDs. Is it so hard to understand?
or why would they otherwise sue a gadget that makes it actually possible to play the great piece of music you just heard back to the record shop assistant?
Nobody writes jokes in base 13. - DNA
Evian doesn't produce your tapwater. By pulling water out of the tap, you haven't removed a product from Evian.
Using a VCR to record what was freely broadcast in your homes is different from making an illegal copy of a song, uploading to the internet and sharing it with others. If you can't see the difference, then either you are in denial or quite frankly a bit dense. When someone sells a CD, it clearly says you cannot make copies and distribute them. This is against the law. When you download these copies, you are downloading illegal music.
Willingly taking in stolen property is against the law. You can remain in denial all day long if you wish. (I prefer to assume denial over stupidity). However sarcasm and piss-poor analogies don't make you in the least bit right.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Now will RIAA sue me?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I think your right from wrong lesson got a little garbled.
Sharing is good, not bad.
Stealing is, of course, very bad. But sharing does not mean stealing.
I've never stolen music, and I very much doubt you have either. You just bought an illogical load of horse pucky from some people that regard it as stealing because they somehow feel entitled to a monopoly on making copies, and a nice fat monopoly rent-check everytime anyone does that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Just sue each and every person they can see. I know they can sue me. I have one of these tunes in my head that I can't get rid off it and I know I have not payed for it.
As I apparently am able to store music, I must be sueable under the same rules.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
And we can just share the bank's money as well? Making an illegal copy, distributing and downloading it is stealing. The reason that people don't have a problem with it usually is that they feel it is "okay" to steal from certain sources. For instance, stealing from a casino is acceptable. Stealing from the recording industry is acceptable. However, saying that isn't stealing bothers me from a purely rhetorical standpoint. I don't mind stealing music. I'm not arguing against the behavior. I'm arguing against what we call the behavior.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
How many times...
Downloading copyrighted material without the copyright owners permission might, might, be copyright infringement. Copyright is a legal concoction which only exists because it is supposed to enhance the public domain. It is not a right that is comparable to the right to own property. Why? Because the right to own property has a moral basis. We agree collectively that people can own property, things, stuff. Objects you can touch with you hand.
You cant own general relativity. You cant own the designs to you new death ray. You cant own that song you wrote. You can keep them secret if you want. But if you go public with them, then you cant complain when people copy them. You might be granted a limited monopoly in some way to encourage you to produce and release this information, but that is not a moral right you are entitled to, it is just an economic device.
Downloading is not stealing, and copyright legislation needs to take into account again that fact.
The letter of the law is often muddled. Legal and right are rarely one in the same. It is clearly illegal, while you can argue whether or not it is right.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
He's not in denial, and he's not stupid. He's just conforming his morals to the RIAA's: he's willing to say anything to conceal the true nature of what he's doing from the thoughtless.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Last week there was a bill before congress that would make it illegal for you to keep in your memory any method for circumventing copyright.
I'm sure the RIAA would love to be able to collect royalties for you retaining a song in your head.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
Understand, I'm not arguing whether or not he should download music. I'm just arguing the rhetoric of whether or not to call this behavior stealing. I'm advocating that we make willing, conscience decisions. If we don't like the music industry and wish to steal from them to spite them, then so be it. If we choose to purchase certain CDs to support artists, so be it. But why lie to ourselves about what we are doing?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Just like anal sex doesn't work on MY ass, java doesn't run on MY OS
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"If you're telling me that downloading music from the internet that you didn't pay for isn't stealing, then I don't know what to say. "
And if you tell me that anyone can "own" music, then I'm going to tell you that you need to buy air from me. If you're breathing than you'd better be paying me, buster. See how easy it is to claim something is wrong just because you're not making money from it?
How can you "own" sounds? Nobody owned music until the technology existed to record it and record companies suddenly had the rights to the music and managed to take away everyone else's rights. It wasn't illegal or wrong until someone decided it was. Before then you could play any song you wanted without getting sued and no one considered that stealing. You've been brainwashed into thinking that not promoting their greed and power is wrong. It's no different than a religious tenet to obey the priests or not to worship other gods -- just because they say it's wrong doesn't change the fact that this issue actually has no bearing on right or wrong. Please stop pretending it does. If you're gonna get preachy about right and wrong, you need a far beter subject to start with. Maybe try giving a damn about others instead of worrying about the greed of corporations not being accomodated in every little way they want.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
XM might have some problems here, but it's not with normal copyright infringement. They may (or may not - I don't know XM's technology well enough) have violated the provisions of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which specifies certain requirements for digital recorders (including royalties) and also specifically grants particular recording privileges to individuals for private noncommercial use.
Unfortunately for the RIAA, they aren't the ones with standing to file such a suit. Various author and artist associations receive (and presumably distribute to their members) royalties enforced and collected by the US Copyright Office, and the RIAA is not among these.
And I think you kinda missed the humour part...
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yeah, see, here's the problem:
RIAA can't control what gets downloaded/played. And this is all about controlling what the public hears.
It's much better for the RIAA's members if only a few top-selling artists are made each year, instead of a bunch of mediocre-selling ones. Never mind that the top-selling artists usually suck fish ass (yeah, I'm talking about you, Mary J. Blige), and the good ones hardly sell at all. The music producers want maximum selling potential with minimum work. Never mind I have to bust my ass to get my $3.50/hr (speaking of which-- do you want fries with that?), and they get to screw the mediocre-selling artists royally.
Finally, the digital medium kind of cuts out the middleman, and they are the middleman. Up 'til now, they've been able to control the distribution channels. Now they can't do that. They see a bleak, bleak future, without Sony and WB deciding what people can hear.
And you know what I say? Line 'em up and fuck 'em. The RIAA is dying. Netcraft's list of top lawsuits proves it. Those commercial pap-pushers are on their last gasp, and I will laugh like a maniac at a firestorm when they are finally gone. The world will be a better place with them dead and in the grave (the companies, I mean).
So, fuck 'em gently with a chainsaw.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Dont get me wrong... I think the suit is bogus, but I think I see what ill formed logic that RIAA is opperating under. The XM2GO units that the RIAA are complaining about are an all-in-one solution for storing music. XM is the broadcaster, sells the receiver and thus is the only party responsible for the viloation. In the old days, you could not sue a tape deck manufacture for music piracy because you needed to buy tapes from someone to do the crime. With XM2GO there is only one person "at fault" in the eyes of RIAA.
XM pays to broadcast those songs. They can't sue the customers if they then rebroadcast it on their own. I thought "home recordings and private showings" were already accepted in Amerika?
:-)
I pirate music. I also pay a levy on recording media. So screw you SOCANN
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The RIAA puts the finishing touches to its' upcoming suit against the entire population of the world, citing "ears" and "memory" as devices which render the owner capable of not only listening to material for which they have not paid royalties, but committing to memory said material for later playback.
"One stumbling block has been in determining how much the deaf should pay, since clearly much of the material will be unavailable to them, but they can still feel the beat"... "We are not without heart, however, and we are seriously considering waiving any fees for those who are deaf AND blind, but only for those afflicted since birth" an RIAA spokesman said Wednesday.
Because the 0.5 million would be just the down payment on a total sum that's much more than any legal expenses would be. The reasoning goes both ways, would the RIAA be willing to spend 10 million in court if all they could get in the end were 0.5 million in re-negotiated royalty fees?
People think he cut off his ear because he was insane. Really, he was just trying to keep the RIAA from suing him. Can't listen to music without ears.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
How is this different from any other cartel, say, the mafia? Seriously, substitute "RIAA" with "Fat Tony" and "XM Radio" with "Acme Waste Management" and it's hard to see any difference between them and any other cartel. What will it take to break up the RIAA? Government intervention? A RICO suit? What?
Why don't we just gather up all of the *AA's lawyers and executives, then ship them over to Iraq and Afganastan. This would perform a two-fold service: 1) relieve some soldiers and Marines so they could be sent home to be with their families and 2) change the way music and movies are handled in the United States.
:-)
Of course, they would have to be assigned to their own units, far away from "real" soldiers. Wouldn't want any collateral damage.
Who knows, if it worked out, maybe we could apply the same tactic to corrupt corporate executives and patent trolls!
No matter where you go... there you are.
Here's the deal... The RIAA disapproves of the idea of storing media in an electronic format. It makes it harder to control.
What about Internet radio stations? Ever hear of streamripper? You can rip streams for later use all day and all night. Why not sue all Internet radio stations?
Pop a cassette in the stereo. Who would you sue then? The radio stations of the radio manufacturers?
So XM gives you the opportunity to record songs for later playback. If it's anything like the Sirius devices, you can't get the music off of the device. Kinda like Tivo for a subcription paid for service? This is ultimately going to hurt the artists more than help them.
One day the toilets of the world will rise up... And I'm going to nuke them.
If you give a gun to a monkey, and the monkey shoots himself, who's fault is it?
So, just because the capability exists to record music from the live stream makes XM liable? That is stupid. Why doesn't the RIAA go after the people recording the music, like they did with users of Kazaa?
So, maybe it's time that we started letting our favorite artists know that unless they break ties with this ridiculous farce of an organization, we simply will not provide them with any income by buying their music or attending their concerts.
You can only be a bully for so long before someone fights back or someone bigger than you kicks your ass.
First off, they get no money from it? I thought you had to pay for XM. Wouldn't XM have to pay it's dues to RIAA for playing the music? So you're recording a broadcast you are paying for. So that's like DVR-ing pay-per-view?
So RIAA and the MPAA can eventually have a lawsuit that retros pack to the beginning of the VHS/cassette era because, hell, SLP on VHS I could get 3 movies per VHS cassette and I could have an easy 2 hours of music on a music tape. Oh wait, even further back because you could record to vinyl if you had the cash for the machine.
So now it comes to the iPod. I suppose that every device and it's makers can get sued if any of their devices can record. That means the RIAA should target companies such as Sony, Clarion, Kenwood, Philips, Toshiba, Magnavox, and Eclipse (which is family with Toyota). Yeah, good luck with that RIAA. I'm sure Sony or Toyota would give you a reach around when they're done.
One has to think... Are they only targeting XM because XM is in a somewhat battered state right now?
They want to monetize EVERYTHING that has to do with music. Before long, they will write laws that require us to have implants that charge us every time we even THINK of a song. What, you mean you didn't know that the corporations write the laws in this country now?
Psssst, RIAA.... XM encourages users of the Inno (and other new XM2Go models) to purchase music that they like through Napster. http://www.xmradio.com/napster/
Farnsworth: "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in... get the hell off my property!"
Free Waterfall Junior: "You can't own property, man."
Farnsworth: "I can. But that's because I'm not a penniless hippie."
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Everyone start your RIAA piggy banks now, because in the not to distant future, the RIAA will be knocking on your door asking for their pennies because you were whistling a song.
This would be more like duplicating the Bank's money with a photocopier and "sharing" that. Not technically "stealing", but the same concept. "Counterfeit MP3s" just sounds.. silly.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Buy XM because I hate what the RIAA-holes are trying to do to them? Or keep on using other avenues to get recordings of the music I enjoy, realizing that my subscription/contribution would only be slightly more statistically relevant overall than my vote in federal elections?
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
Your brain is not digital. Hence no, you will not be sued.
...you know, they could actually make a profit if they stopped these stupid lawsuits and stopped paying the lawyers. The legal fees alone must eat away all their profits. Obviously, somebody in the braintrust of the RIAA hasn't looked at this yet.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Wasn't this na issue when casette players became popular? Music industry went crazy as if they were to loose their money. And then again, the same story when radio came.
They've gone from suing other companies, to suing people who share a lot of mp3s to suing people who have shared a few mp3s to suing people who don't even own a computer to suing other companies again....
If XM just moved their HQ and went as an internet based operation to collect their money then the RIAA would have to simply go away... right? oh wait, I'm using the internet and a black van just pulled up out side.. two men are getting out... oh .. what... wait.. no I di...................
Obama = Socialism.
This makes me want to go out and purchase and XM radio. Just because they are willing to stand up to the RIAA wanna be mafia fuhqwads.
RIAA - would you be so kind to let us know when your Salem Witch Trial has reached its conclusion? I managed record stores all throughout college. I own 1200 CDs and half as many DVDs - many of which were purchased in several formats beforehand *sigh*: VHS, Laserdisc, record, Cassette Tape, 8-track track -- or worse, purchased again in the same format because they were scratched, melted, eaten by the dog etc. And now that I can back them up, store them digitially, listen to them on my laptop, my Ipod, or in my car -- basically do the things I am entitled to do when I pay $14.99 (and upwards) to purchase and own a product -- you seem to want to tell me "how" I can own these CDs. I don't understand. Fruit of the Loom isn't suing me over the condition of my underwear drawer. If you are reading this, you should know that I personally, haven't purchased a single brand new CD since you had your pansy boys Metallica march up to the media to defend your honor. If I can't buy it directly from the artist or USED or grab it from some other source, then I do without. You're not getting a dime of my money that I haven't already given to you in the past. And besides, I have 1200 others to listen to. They are mine. I can listen to them on my Ipod, covert them to various media types, balance them on my nose... and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Understand? Go get stuffed.
Subpoena Apple for the names & addresses of everyone who ever purchased an iPod and individually sue every iPod owner, force Apple to patch iTunes so that it deletes every non-DRM'ed tune from their iPod, break into people homes and burn tapes that they might have.
there's no place like ~
Except you're not stealing (unless you're taking a physical CD or tape). You are infringing a copyright.
Oh, and no one i know was ever taught that taping something from the radio or TV was wrong. They infact make several devices explicitly to do so.
the fact that the copies are now digital doesn't change anything; its not suddenly immoral to tape a digital signal, where taping an analog is moral.
An ipod you can download the exact songs you want when you want them. Satellite radio you'd have to wait for the song to come up again to record it. Since satellite radio doesn't even cycle the same songs around again as quickly as broadcast radio, if you really want to sit there waiting to grab a particular song off satellite, you'll have to wait longer than you would to record it off broadcast.
And if you have satellite radio that timeshifts, isn't it the case that it's recording whole segments of shows, not segmenting them by individual song? And it has no way to extract individual songs for later, ipod-like replay?
XM would be totally, totally stupid not to follow this through - they just win it so easily.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Evian doesn't produce your tapwater. By pulling water out of the tap, you haven't removed a product from Evian.
No, they distribute it. And they have local water works distributing it as well. If you pull from the local waterworks, you've denied the oppurtunity for Evian to distribute water to you.
His argument makes much more sense then you seem to think.
Well, here's the typical RIAA reaction to anything "new".
OMG! It drains our profits. Kill it! Sue it! Kill it!
The truth is that those who do not learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat them - and are bound to become extinct once they have fallen too far behind.
When tape recorders emerged became popular they claimed it would destroy the music industry - after all, why would people buy music when they could just record it off radio and trade the tapes. Yeah.
It was repeated with television when the VCR emerged.
Same thing with copy-machines.
Cheap CD-burners.
And DVD-burners.
Each and every time one organisation or other claimed this would destory the world as they know it.
Suprisingly they still rack in money like there is no tomorrow (though there have been some decreases through market over-satuaration)
Now it is possible to record stuff from XM - and again the companies scream that their very livelyhood is taken away.
Personally I'd just ignore them, but sadly (and oddly, considering their self-claimed poor profits) they seem to have enough money to sway politicans to their views and cripple every new technology.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
The gangsters at the RIAA are suing people to develop new revenue streams so that their organization, their industry, will survive the death of music CD's. They've the majority of the iTunes revenues; now they want satelite radio, digital local radio and any other mode that pops up to pay up until the end of time. I mean, this is great for them. All the new media players have built in meters. It's like selling electricity, but at whatever price you like, and you don't have any costs.
Artists are already being screwed by the labels for tech switchover costs, stamping costs, to the point where the successful artists are making 4 cents a song sold on iTunes (source: NPR, artist breaking down royalty). That's for old, already-paid for work. The new artists are probably going to get less, as they are still lent the money to pay for studio time, publicity, marketing, and stamping the MP3s, in advance of any sales. As usual, most artists will wind up owing money to the labels, even if the MP3 is successful.
I stopped buying CD's in 1999, when they nuked Napster. Like cockroaches, they will survive the boycott of their products by stealing something else.
Odds are the broadcast flag will only be present on content and not advertisements, so all we have to do is look for the broadcast flag, then record, and when the broadcast flag is not present, stop recording :)
I could be wrong, so it would be nice if someone could verify or prove wrong my claim here, but I'm pretty sure I downloaded a trailer from Apple's site the other day which said it was illegal to copy it. I'm pretty sure it was referring to the actual trailer itself, rather than the film it represented. Which is both scary and silly. Why would anyone want to stop people copying what's essentially an advert? But then again, that's what pop videos are too. Can't you buy those at the iTunes Music Store?
If only the RIAA could invent a time machine and go back to prevent the creatino of the cassette recorder! Vinyl records are a much more controllable medium, there's no reason for consumers to need cassette tapes or CDs. I'm sure they'd admit that CDs sounded good for a time, until CD recorders came to market...
*shhhh. We don't need the RIAA catching wind of THAT. On days I am going to the gym, I use streamripper to grab an hour of music and dump it to my sansa. Beats recycling my own tired collection, and its music I really would only listen to once anyway, so why would I buy it?
As a proud Qwest customer, I know the true reason they didn't hand over the records.
Incompetence.
Every time I've had to deal with Qwest they fuck it up hard. Even turning on a phone line doesn't go well. You'd think they'd be good at that.
I suspect the NSA asked for the info, Qwest tried to comply and failed. Then called it integrity.
Man, you really need that seminar!
When is this dinosaur called the RIAA going to die? I guess they haven't been in the media spotlight lately, so they all sat brainstorming in a staid, stuffy 1950's boardroom, and somebody younger than 40 said "hey, any of you heard about this satellite radio thing?" "No, what is it?" "It's digital and--" "WHAT?? DIGITAL?? SUE THEM!!"
So where are the rest of the lawsuits?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Dear Mr. Coward,
For the unauthorized use of the above lyrics, you owe our client, the RIAA, 24 BILLION dollars. Please imagine us holding our pinky to our mouth as you read the previous sentence.
We take cashier's check, money order, or small unmarked bills.
Sincerely,
Takeda, Monet, and Runne, Attorneys at Law
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
+5 owned.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
The RIAA often make me wish we lived in times where bands of Indians and mass quantites of gold were still common in this country. Having molten gold poured into Cary Sherman's orafices would be suitably karmic, no?
Link to History.
/Sorry for the slight OT-ness of this post. But RIAA greed tactics make me wish that Karma would actually work against them for once.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Counterfeiting isn't stealing either.
Have you ever really thought about what the difference is between a good counterfeit and a 'real' bill, btw? Fascinating, if you follow it through.
You're conflating several quite different things into one lump-all: stealing. But they're very different things, and they deserve to be addressed on their own merits. Counterfeiting != copyright infringement != stealing.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
No, the RIAA figures that's 50 hours of torture they're not getting paid for.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Why? Is there some principle of political economy by which people who find things get 'protection'? What's that, anyway? I found a flea in my desk a minute ago. What do I deserve?
Y'know what, yesterday I found and supported new music, too. My son was in the living room singing a song that he made up. I said "That's a great song". I haven't published it yet, though. What do I "deserve" when I do? Where do I fill out the paperwork?
Having the government decide what people deserve and making sure they get it is called a "planned economy". Here's how we do it in the free market:
Paypal me $1 and I'll email you a cc-licensed mp3 of my son singing. addy is why(Delete this)yousee@yahoo.com
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Downloading is not stealing, and copyright legislation needs to take into account again that fact.
[sarcasm]It does take this into account. That's why the penalties (for uploading really) are much worse than you'll ever get hit with for petty theft.[/sarcasm]
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Is the RIAA going to start suing the manufacturers of RAM because their RAM is used to buffer their content??
Not only does the RIAA get no income from used record and CD sales, but ... such sales are perfectly legal and always have been.
Something must be done.
He did the "take a shit/leave a shit" routine years ago. Can't remember all of it, only:
"I've gotta go take a shit."
"Yeah, well don't take one of mine, I've only got two left and I'm saving them for the weekend!"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's real simple. They're not the only ones caught in this bind. There are too many people on this planet, and not enough useful to do.
Right. There's not enough useful to do.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
XM said it will vigorously defend this lawsuit on behalf of consumers...
I would rather them not defend me. I think what they meant to say is "We will vigorously defend this lawsuit on behalf of shareholders...". Not that I feel that is wrong, but at least be honest about it.
Slashdot +1 funny -4 Insightful +1 informative -2 Redundant
Karma: Somewhere between SCO and Microsoft
Comment removed based on user account deletion
what isn't fair about it, besides the fact that it puts egg on your face.
evian distributes water, we choose to pay another distributor. Evian loses a potential sale, but they dont pay for the infrastructure and labor of getting the water to you.
in the same way we pay for internet, recordable media, writers, etc, and we distribute it. The RIAA doesnt pay for that distribution, and they are not the author of the work so they don't deserve the cut or any say whatsoever.
"Using a VCR to record what was freely broadcast in your homes is different from making an illegal copy of a song"
riiight, radios are used to record freely broadcast music in your home(legal), dual cassette decks are used to "dub" one tape to another to hand off to your friends (legal), but all of a sudden when that "dubbing" involves silicon and wires instead of ribbons of tape and hands it's somehow evil and wrong.
I suggest it's you who is in denial.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Why would anyone record music from XM? The quality is so horrible that it isn't worth even thinking about...
Yet another example of the RIAA's desperation. The internet is destroying their distribution, even some of their promotion. Production can be done almost entirely on the end users' computers. There is no need for major labels to pick who are the big pop bands now. Instead of 10 giant bands making millions, I'd MUCH rather have 1000 good bands making thousands while the LISTENERS actually determine who gets listened to. Not some swashbuckling label who pays radio stations to jam their product in our ears. Apparently XM isn't on the payroll...