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
... 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.
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?
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
Oh boo hoo hoo, cry me a river. RIAA, not everything has to give you money. Not everything is GOING to give you money. Give it a rest.
... why didn't the RIAA sue decades ago?
To the poster I'm responding to: yes, I thought of that; a lot of radios out there can record from radio to tape, or maybe some can record to hard drive (like the RadioShark) or to removable media of some kind. But if being able to store part of the broadcast is a bad thing, as said
I think it's because they know the suit is baseless. It was ruled legal decades ago to timeshift, after all, and being able to record broadcasts for later playback is nothing more than that.
The RIAA is just trying to capitalize on the technical illiteracy (overall) of judges and juries, I think.
Hey, can I start suing random companies now because their business models don't involve giving me money?
i am a soviet space shuttle
"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.
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.
>Hey, can I start suing random companies now because their business models don't involve giving me money?
No. You're not rich enough. It would be illegal.
"...XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings,"
With the quality of the Plaintiff's music, I think that's a given.
The ______ Agenda
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...
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.
15 minutes ago, I took a shit. I am concerned that I may be sued becuase of course, there was no income involved for the RIAA.
This space available.
As FM and AM broadcasts become digital a "lossless" technology to record them will be just around the corner (if not already). I wonder how the RIAA plans to stop /that/? Also, can TV stations sue my cable company becasue I can save stuff to my DVR and watch it over and over again without buying a DVD of it? I think once they cross into this gray area it will be difficult to figure out exactly where to draw the line.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Now will RIAA sue me?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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. It's hard to tell thousands of people to go practice the frenchfry question. Nobody wants to do that. Nobody. So we leave niches open for them. They can play War on Some Drugs, or be Direct Marketers. "Deficits are meaningless. Reagan proved that." That's one of the guys running our sock puppet. Translation: at the level of national policy, money has long since been utterly decoupled from value. The name of the game has become musical rice-bowls, and most politicians are rice-bowl manufacturers. The RIAA are hoping they can get another before the music stops.
There's no question that recording a copyrighted broadcast is legal. It's legal. Distributing that recording isn't; performing that recording in public isn't. That attempt to categorize the mere possibility of recording off a broadcast as "disseminating" is another reframing attempt, exactly like you're trying to do with "legitimate".
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Not only was there no income, by producing shit you are competing directly with the RIAA! Prepare to be boarded!!!
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
"I wonder how the RIAA plans to stop /that/?"
It's called broadcast flag.
"becasue I can save stuff to my DVR"
Again, they want to be able to sue the cable company if it doesnt implement broadcast flags, and they want to be able to sue your DVR maker if your DVR doesnt honor them.
"it will be difficult to figure out exactly where to draw the line."
It is impossible to draw the line simply because it's not based on specific logical grounds founded in reality. It's simply not a physical product, and there is no line between transmission, conversion, duplication and storage.
Basically, the RIAA wants to get paid for anything and everything. They'd like to get paid for you hearing a song in the background of a phone conversation, they'd even like to get paid for you whistling a song. The only limitation is what technological means exist to enforce it.
I suspect this type of sociopathic behaviour is more or less unavoidable when you hand over state-protected monopoly powers to private parties.
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
IIRC, the legal rationale behind the right to record off-the-air broadcasts was a Fair Use because the broadcasts were made over the public airwaves. Since XM is sent encrypted, and they can/do control the delivery of the content, that Fair Use provision may not apply. (which doesn't mean that the RIAA aren't a bunch of asshats)
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
It's simple: originally, we would "partake" of that activity (partake in defecating, partake in napping, etc.). The word "partake" diminished into a homonym with the existing word "take" (i.e. the existing, seperate, verb), and then after that became common the original distinction was lost and existing grammatical rules for the verb "to take" were applied.
"Stumble before you crawl"
It's called broadcast flag.
:)
Honestly, I welcome the broadcast flag. Odds are it will be cracked in less than one week and it will give us an easier way to record content _without_ commercials.
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
A while ago, I was against "stealing" music and whatnot. It doesn't too much affect me because I don't listen to the latest pop hit wonder, so I can quickly and easily buy quality music at the used record store or download mostly legal recordings of live concerts as allowed by the musicians.
But, honestly, I've changed my mind, and I actively encourage people to "steal" music at their will. I'm not going to get into the stealing vs infringement thing. In fact, why not go to your local brick and mortar store like say, Walmart, and fill up a shopping cart and just leave with it full of CDs. If you like MP3s, I suggest USENET. There are excellent binary downloaders for USENET postings for all platforms (Linux, OS X, Winders), and with a broadband connection that you can steal from your neighbors unsecured WAP, you can download about 1-2 gigs of MP3s in 24 hours. I have personally downloaded 1.8 gigs worth overnight. Its much better than torrent or other p2p sites. You may have to pay for a USENET access, but I believe that those are only about $10/mo. Much less than the cost of one CD.
The thing that sucks is that everybody knows that XM will not lose this case, but it will cost them unnecessary funds for probably 2+ years worth of legal bills. I wish our legal system had a similar gotcha that others do where in a civil suit if the plaintiff loses, they have to pay the defendant's legal bills, or some similar punishment for abusing the system. Being that the lawyers always win in such cases regardless of the outcome, as the system is set up now, its in their best interest to sue anybody and everybody. I mean, on their CVs they only talk about their wins, right?
Just think of the day when you talk to a younger person at a quiet public place, and talk about the "good old days" where it was allowed for people to listen to music. Just imagine the look on their face.