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
... 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?
"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
"Everything is changing and the industry is petrified"
That just about sums it up.
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!
$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.
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.
The war between sheet music publishers and piano roll makers, all over again...
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
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
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?
No, and yes...
MOST XM receivers DO NOT have the ability to store songs, they only buffer a few seconds. The exception is a few of the newer portable units and higher end deck units.
I would esitmate 90% of the XM customer base has the traditional XM Receivers with ANALOG outputs, even though the units are receiving a digital broadcast.
So in this sense, XM is NO different than other radio stations.
The problem I think they are trying to use against XM is that it provides so much music content at single time, that you can usually find a song you like to listen to, or a talk show you want to listen to. So this is where this scares RIAA.
However, Cable & Sat. Companies have provided 100s of music channels in the same capacity, and hence yet, we don't see RIAA fighting them, because they know they would easily lose based on the fair use rulings from VCRs in the 80s.
I can actually record songs from my Sat./Cable easier than from my XM, as we almost all have DVRs for our Cable/Sat. and even companies like Dish Network sell portable players that allow you to offload the shows/songs/content to portable players.
This is really sticky and said that RIAA think they can get away with this. XM isn't even the maker of the portable receivers that allow you to record the songs form their service, that is who the RIAA should try to go after in the first place, but again, this would go back to the VCR rulings because they are 'device' manf. and not content providers.
In an ironic story, Australia just legalized the 'fair use' of VCRs and DVRs this last week (even though people there have used them illegally). And back in the 'land of the free' USA, we are witnessing a regression of persoanl freedom once again.
We now have so much capability both analog and digital, that we all could record every album in CD quality using our computers etc, and this is just by pulling the songs from 'regular' broadcasts.
If the RIAA gets their wish, that is what we will end up doing rather than paying them money. We can then support bands and labels that don't support RIAA or send donations to the bands we like and bypass them all together. Becareful what you wish for, RIAA...
Sad...
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.
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.
Now will RIAA sue me?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
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.
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.
In that environment, I'm no longer buying music as it no longer has high value and has no resale value.
.. I doubt they will cover my iTunes library...
.. but I have bought used CD's and I have given CD's to friends and family after losing interest ..
..
Until recently, I hadn't thought about this point.
I avoid DRM protected music because it forces me to to take backups (CD's don't) and is of far lower quality than CD's. Furthermore, my insurance will cover my CD collection
I've never sold any of the CD's that I've bought
"Resale Value" is definately on the list of reasons not to buy DRMed music
You can only be a bully for so long before someone fights back or someone bigger than you kicks your ass.