Slashdot Mirror
XM+MP3 Going to Trial
fistfullast33l writes "A federal judge has ruled that Music Companies can take XM Radio to trial over the XM+MP3 device that allows users to record songs off the Satellite Radio Company's network for playback later. The lawsuit, which was filed last year, asserts that XM is violating the Music publishers' sole distribution rights. From the article: 'XM has argued it is protected from infringement lawsuits by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which permits individuals to record music off the radio for private use. The judge said she did not believe the company was protected in this instance by the act.'"
That I believe WILL go to the supreme court and have a lasting effect on the private usage rights of citizens with regards to music. This could also effect Tivo in the long run as well as any other home recording devices.
If they're not protected, who is?
It isn't as if XM was stretching the rules to fit their case, this situation is exactly what the law is about: individuals recording music off of the radio.
Can you demand a trial by jury in Civil court? And do Civil trials set precedence?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Basic tactics of war, overpower your enemy to the extent sthat even if they are right, they cant outlast you.
Sad really.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"The judge said she did not believe the company was protected in this instance by the act."
Do judges normally give their opinions about a case before it has begun? This seems biased.
If the music industry gets it's way, then the content producers could sue the cable companies for distributing DVR products...Say goodbye to Tivo...MythTV...etc.
I sincerely hope this makes it's way to the supreme court and then they get smacked down and told to STFU.
So... when are they gonna sue Sony et al for producing those wonderful boom boxes with tape decks from the early 90s? I mean, practically the same concept here.
I got nothin'
Satellite radio may have been the big music companies salvation. If they hurt them with actions like this it may finally be over. The only non independent music we have bought in the last two years were things that we heard on satellite and "had to have".
The best way to ruin your hobby is to try to make a living at it. Waiting on the paperless office since 1997
Would this be such a big deal if the story was about plugging your tape recorder into the line out on your XM radio?
"When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
The reason XM isn't protected by the 1992 act is because they are allowing users to store songs on the device? Does this mean if they gave the user a way to retrieve the music from the device and store it elsewhere, it would be fine?
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
How can the judge say that the AHRA does not apply here? Digital recording is to digital radio as analog recording is to analog radio. It's so clearly related that one could even use the example to define what an analogy is.
Yeah. We really need people downloading porn and posting to MySpace while driving. It's not like it's bad enough with people watch TV and talk on cell phones.
They're reasoning is that music is the biggest draw for XM listeners. So if XM can afford to pay Jimmie Johnson a million a year for one radio show, then the music cartel deserves at least 60 times that much (for sixty channels of music). But currently, the muisc mafia is locked into a ten year contract for a total of 60 million dollars.
This was all explained in a letter to XM subscribers a couple of months ago.
From The U.S. Copyright Office:
1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
It looks like this is saying that you can't sue the makers of any recording device based no the noncommercial use of an infringing consumer. (Not it doesn't stop them from suing the consumer).
I may be missing something... any ideas?
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Here is a link to the some of the act. http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm
The wording in the act just furthers my belief that we need to get lawyers out of office so they do not write such BS drivel. I have seen VB code that is written better and more clearly.
So the only question is whether or not the device was marketed for the purpose of recording off the radio, or if it's primary function was for just listening to the radio.
If they buy Sealand we can download anything we f'n want from a sovereign nation. Wouldn't life be grand?
Basically, the amendment says that digital recording devices must abide by a Serial Copy management System Basically an SCMS will allow you to make as many first generation copies of the original source but this copy will not allow copies to be made from it. (No second generation.)
Maybe the judge sees that this XM+MP3 does not have this copy-bit protection and will allow the lawsuit to continue. I didn't see anymore information in the TFA to tell why she ruled. But if XM+MP3 can show that it only allows for first generation copying only, then there should be no case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Managemen t_System.
Funny how 1010wins.com, an old-fashioned terrestrial radio station, is so absorbed in this that they had to repost that AP article. Perhaps if they bothered to make a station with some real content and worth listening to less people, like myself, would bother to actually pay for satellite radio content. Heck we might even stop using our car radios as short-range FM receivers for our satellite radios, foregoing any outside broadcasts. Not likely. Thanks for the FUD 1010wins, but your days are numbered and you could give two shits about the "recording industry" getting "stiffed" by people abusing that mean old "fair use" concept. Rather, me thinks you are hot to get some industry and government officials riled at your direct, and superiour, competition.
Not that satellite radio could ever be fair competition to crappy, watered down, commercial-full, non-digital terrestrial radio. That was unintentional and unfortunate.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
1. Is the device primarily marketed as a means to record digital audio? Sounds like it.
2. Are they paying the royalty fees associated with such devices? Essentially a tax. Not sure.
3. Does the device implement the SCMS (serial copyright management system to prevent copying beyond the first duplication? Probably not if they are storing in MP3 format.
4. Lastly, the Act goes into detail about recording mediums and that they must also have the royalty paid (this is why blank CD's for MUSIC cost more than CD-R). I would assume that the recording medium is some kind of reusable flash memory and that the royalty is not paid.
Their lawyers should know better, as the Act itself is really pretty clear on what can be used to make digital copies of audio recordings. If they had made a set-top box that stored the recordings and then let you edit and burn them to a music-cd, they probably would have had a leg to stand on, but the decision to use MP3's while popular with the public is probably a death knell to the device.
This act is why you can go into Best Buy and purchase a CD-Recorder, although they are becoming scarcer, with which to make legal copies of copyrighted CD's for your own personal use. With those devices, upon which the royalties have been paid and by using the Music-cd's for which royalties have been paid, you can not be prosecuted for copyright infringement. At least, that is the way I read the law. NOTE IANAL!!!
That would be nice. My favorite music station is Radio Paradise, a listener-supported station out of Paradise California. It is my great pleasure to support them for all the enjoyment I get from listening to commercial-free music at work and at home. They are also responsible for the majority of my music purchases (hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per year), which makes things like the PERRORM Act particularly offensive.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Well, you can't say I didn't gave them the benefit of the doubt. I'm getting back into the "Down with the RIAA" mob. Where's my torch and pitchfork?
So you can get the trial by jury, but if you do, the case will not hold precedence?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My XM Radio is RIAA crippled. I can record up to 5 hours of XMRadio on it, but I can not take it off of the device. Of course, nothing stops a lineout recording, but that's true on any device like this. Macromedia's not in these type of devices yet.
Where do you get that from? The cassette recorder on my home stereo has no such feature neither does the VCR in the attic.
I think the assumption was that cassette recorders were inherently such a lossy, low-quality recording, that their "copy protection" was in the generation loss that would naturally occur if a person made a copy of a recorded tape. Within a few generations, it would become unlistenable, or at least severely degraded.
Now, that's not exactly a "second generation" block, but it seemed to suit the courts and the music industry fine.
As far as video, there they were more stringent. Depending on how old that VCR is, it probably has Macrovision, which is essentially a mandatory "analog DRM" (ARM?) system that causes the recorder's tracking to go haywire if it detects a copyrighted signal. It's admittedly not present on early VCRs, but most of them don't produce a particularly good recording (don't have HiFi sound, etc.) unless they're professional models, so it's not a big risk.
Not sure either of those cases are really good ones to be bringing up.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It physically keeps the MP3's on that device, and that device alone. Without access to being able to get the recording off the device, there is no need to create other methods to protect 2nd generation copying as there is no ability to copy it anywhere else. The copy never leaves the recording device to be distributable. The only way to do that would be to connect an analog recorder to the output of the device, which by the way, would also defeat the copy protections on any other SCMS device (hence the analog hole).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
This decision was in response to XM's motion to dismiss, which requires the court to accept all allegations in the recording industry's complaint as true. Therefore, all this decision is saying is that if what the recording companies say in their complaint is correct, they at least state a claim under the law.
This does NOT mean it is going to trial. It just means the case isn't thrown out immediately. It could go to trial, but first it will have to go through discovery and summary judgment motions, where the parties actually present evidence to the court.
Oh, and IAAL, hence the AC.
...why an individual recording music from XM radio to MP3s should be legally differentiated from recording music from FM radio to cassettes--for personal use only on both cases.
The case might be made that by providing the means of making the copy, XM played a more active role in the process -- they were both distrbuting, and aiding the copying by the user. That might be why the judge indicated that ruling may not be applicable here.
That case CANNOT be made. Big conglomerates like Sony and GE both distribute media content (they own publishing, broadcasting, etc. businesses) and manufacture/sell recording devices that aid in the copying of content that is owned both by themselves and their competitors. The act applies to them...so why can't it apply to XM Radio?
XM gave the consumer a device which could have the technology to grab any broadcast music directly from the receiver and store it in MP3. In effect, they are essentially handing you MP3s of the songs they broadcast
GE gives the consumer a device which could have the technology to grab any broadcast television signal directly from a receiver and store it in VHS tapes. In effect, they are essentially handing you videotapes of the shows they broadcast. Sony is the same thing. I fail to see the legal difference that makes GE more special than XM.
So, I'd be curious to hear the REAL reason the judge thinks this is different from a legal standpoint...or perhaps money is talking?
As long as the device doesn't just start recording automatically, XM will be safe. If a device that records audio is deemed illegal, the lawsuits are going to be crazy.
I guess it doesn't matter that MP3 does not provide a perfect digital copy of the master recording and/or the commercially available CDs/DVDA/SACD? In fact, the MP3s obtained from satellite radio are generally inferior to anything circulating over the internet via bittorrent/kazaa/what-have-you.
I would submit that while technicalities over being copyright infringement or not can be debated, it should not cause nearly the stir that DAT did, as it results in a much inferior product that does not stand up in quality to the original sources. I could compare it to someone making a VHS tape copy of a DVD then being able to make perfect copies of that VHS tape...
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
I have my old 80's dual deck tape recorder....
Will I get sued too? Will Sony? I mean, they sold me the recorder in the first place.... hey, with my dual deck TR i can even mix my own music (imagine that)
NO SIG
My cut and paste didn't work and pasted something from another thread.
I meant to paste:
The truth shall set you free!
When was it decided that digital recording is exempt from the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992? I see that the reasoning behind your argument is that when these digital recorders make a recording, it will not degrade - but when was it decided that personal recordings must degrade in order to be deemed acceptable for the consumer to posssess? Why can your customers not take measures to guarantee that the recordings they make do not fall victim to the ravages of time? If what you've said on many occasions is true and you are indeed selling us the license to the content, not the media, and that license has no expiration date, then why does the longevity of the format have any bearing on its legality? If you want to sell us licenses to the content, give us the ability to recover all of the content in event of loss. If you want us to have to re-purchase the content upon its loss, allow us to take the appropriate measures to protect our investments. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Next thing you know the music industry will come after you if you own a musical instrument because you could reproduce copyrighted music. I better lock up my guitar...ah hell they're already knocking at my door, nice knowing you guys.
XM has argued it is protected from infringement lawsuits by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which permits individuals to record music off the radio for private use. The judge said she did not believe the company was protected in this instance by the act.'"
They took the wrong arguement. The device in question has full DRM protection. It is not a way to record and keep XM songs.
They need to look at the Rio music player for an example that already has been in the court and prevailed. The XM device is a playback device, It is not a recording device. Look up the Rio case for good lawyer fodder. The device in question is just like the Rio in it's function. It's a playback device, not a copying device.
With that arguement, it should be an open and shut case which has already been decided.
The truth shall set you free!
Maybe the judge did this to get it to the courts. Knowing XM, even hurting financially, will defend there product and services. With the higher profile of XM to say Joe Doe from nowheresville, would put this more in the news and peoples mind and votes. Most of use grew up recording music and tv and expect to do so for the rest of our lives. Just because the media changed does not change the fact that it is legal to do so by fair use. I don't know maybe I am just getting senile.
A lawyer for XM responded, "Is too!"
(Quote from the washington post AP version of the story)
Someone actually screwed the RIAA for once?
Wow. I thought the RIAA would be able to recognize such an inequitable and one-sided deal...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
some of you obviously don't have xm. how the device records depends on the radio. i have one of the newer ones. when you record, you record whatever has the tag. what i mean is that if i hit record at the begining of.....say....... lacuna coil - swamped.....then it will record until that song is done playing and the tag changes to the next song. now, if i record...say...the oreilly factor.....then it will record until the first commercial (the tag changes to the commercial tag). when the oreilly factor resumes (same oreilly tag) it will not record until you tell it to begin again. the other option is to record a channel constantly, but it clutters the memory with all of the commercials. it saves everything as a seperate file regardless of how you record, even commercials.
i just wanted to clear some of the recording features up. all if they take away my xm/mp3 player, i don't know what i'll do. i'll burn cali down or something. oh wait, it's always on fire......
right?
For what its worth, the XM recorder I have makes this requirement moot. You can not copy the content off the device. They have a segemented memory partition that keeps the recordings away from your PC. Its certainly possible that someone could debug the hardware and find a way to the content, but out of the box there is no way to copy anything digital off the recorder. You could only make analog copies, which you can do now with any radio on earth, XM or not. So it seems that they are in compliance with that requirement, and for what its worth the feature in the XM recorders has nothing to do with "illegal copying", as you can't copy the content off the device. This is just RIAA whining about "replay", which should be covered by fair use. The RIAA is just trying to battle for a bigger cut with XM, this is just a negotiating ploy pure and simple.
Python
Differnece being that the ones he appointed had to be approved, whereas the ones Bush has appointed actually don;t even have to be approved, due to a provision he had Spector sneak in.
This space available.
The XM device is basically an iPod where you don't have to pay $0.99 for the music. You can't give people music and then only pay the record companies a couple cents for broadcast. The home recording act has been made obsolete. When it was written, recording music didn't threaten album sales. This device competes directly with Apple, etc.
As for Tivo, they need to distinguish between time shifting and archiving so that you have a permanent copy. The former should be legal while the latter should be illegal.
"It is manifestly apparent that the use of a radio-cassette player to record songs played over free radio does not threaten the market for copyrighted works as does the use of a recorder which stores songs from private radio broadcasts on a subscription fee basis," she said.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines /D8MOFEGO0.html
qz
The case might be made that by providing the means of making the copy, XM played a more active role in the process -- they were both distrbuting, and aiding the copying by the user. That might be why the judge indicated that ruling may not be applicable here. I'm not entirely sure how the content available over XM works. I'm related to someone who works for a radio network that also has a channel on XM, so I know that not all of the content is made in-house by XM. Is any of it? Does that make any difference? If what they do mainly is make the receivers(and provide the satellites for broadcast), wouldn't this case be like suing a radio maker for including cassette recorders in their radios?(... possibly provided said radio maker also owned the broadcast towers from which it can pick up signals)
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
The AHRA does cover digital content. Specifically, it says that things like digital audiotapes and minidiscs, or else their players, must be made with DRM to prevent people from making digital copies of digital copies. It allows any consumer to copy any content, but it requires manufactureres to limit the number of copies possible. That's why you see so few DATs and minidiscs.
The record labels tries to prevent their customers from preserving music beyond a certain point because they believe they're allowed to prevent such things. They hold the copyrights; that's why they think they can control the copying.
The record labels do not sell licenses for content to ordinary consumers. They sell actual content fixed in given formats. But current copyright laws allow the labels to limit the creation of new copies of any content their artists authored, no matter who owns any given fixed manifestation.
The longevity of the format isn't the issue--CDs and their copy-controlled relatives last a long time. The RIAA just wants to control all future formats. And yes, this is a problem for us.
The record labels do sell licenses for content to radio broadcasters,, inc. XM. But they object to devices that record broadcast content into a digital fixed form. Most of those devices are already exempted by the AHRA, but if XM made one that wasn't--ouch.
Listeners to XM radio are not buying anything directly from the labels. Nor do they pay for those self-destructing MP3s any further after they buy the recorder, presuming that XM service isn't more expensive for that thing. That is what has the RIAA steamed.
Disclaimers:
I am not a lawyer.
I am not directly involved in the music industry. My interest in the RIAA's mindset came organically.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
This case does not apply to consumers.
Consumers can legally record any content they want as long as they don't break the DMCA doing it. Your recording cable programs with your VCR is fine.
Now, the makers of VCRs might be pressured to stop making VCRs that record content off cable so freely. In fact, there's a shortage of new VCRs these days.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
... where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars... I've wanted to look this up before, but finally have internet access:What cost $20 in 1800 would cost $216.86 in 2005.
Actually, not as bad as I thought it would be...
conversion done here
-metric
This is ironic. Didn't Sony originally DEFEND the concept of personal recording with their Betamax VCRs? I believe that was a landmark case. I'll bet they (Sony) don't even remember they did that.
And what happens when the court is contemptible?
Not true. Macrovision works (as I understand it) by making the auto-brightness-adjust of the VCR go nuts.
Pretty close. It's actually the record level, which affects all aspects of the video signal stored on the tape.
Magnetic tape recording devices need to set their record levels so that the tape comes as close as possible to being saturated. Too low, bad signal to noise ratio. Too high, distortion - clipping in audio, and "white clip" (a lack of contrast on bright objects) in video.
VHS uses the vertical blanking interval (that black horizontal bar when the vertical hold control is set wrong) to set the record level - the video is a known state in this bar; it should be black. Some older VHS VCRs did it in other ways, and Betamax/U-Matic also set the record level in other ways. Most professional machines use a manual record level adjustment.
Macrovision simply adds flickering white blocks into the vertical blanking interval. As a result, the VCR's record levels are set wrong. Flashing and flickering are easily implemented by playing with the Macrovision pulse levels during the movie - the VCR's record levels go way off and the recording becomes unwatchable.
When you're simply feeding the signal through the VCR, chances are that the VCR is adjusting the video levels to the TV by using its record level setting mechanism, but since the TV is a lot less sensitive to the variations in signal strength (thanks to an AGC circuit built into the TV), it is not affected anywhere near as drastically as the magnetic tape. This is why you *might* be able to use your VCR as a modulator for your DVD player, but it is by no means guaranteed.
Some older TVs (typically pre-1980) will be affected by Macrovision, typically because their sync separator circuits require the black lines to "recalibrate" after the vertical sync pulse - this is the reason why the NTSC system had such a large vertical blanking interval in the first place. With the advent of non-professional and sometimes unstable video sources (VCRs are notoriously unstable, since the sync they generate depends on tape speed and other mechanical factros), TV set designers were forced to improve sync circuits.
Macrovision is easy enough to remove - after the vertical sync pulse, ensure that there are 22 lines of blackness separated only by horizontal sync pulses, then pass all lines until the next vertical sync pulse completely transparently. An LM1881 sync separator IC, a simple TTL counter and an op-amp are all that is required to scrub Macrovision. My own reason for doing this is to be able to watch DVDs on my collection of 1950s TV sets, most of which lose vertical sync with a Macrovision signal. You could also use a TBC (TimeBase Corrector), since the TBC re-draws all the NTSC sync features as well as compensating for VCR jitter (even a professional analog VTR doesn't produce broadcast-quality sync or timing). I scored a used broadcast quality TBC a few years ago and it does wonders for the stability of my TV collection, especially being able to switch video sources and having the TBC ensure rock-solid sync through the transition.
Oh, and your DVD player actually inserts it when it generates the sync. DVD video files do not include either the horizontal or vertical blanking interval (for one thing, it would waste space on the disc); these NTSC requirements are generated by the DVD player's electronics, and the Macrovision signal in the vertical blanking interval is instead enabled or disabled by an instruction from the disc. I'd also imagine that DVD recorders are susceptible to Macrovision; to enforce copy protection and for design convenience, it would be easy enough to use the vertical blanking interval to set their own black levels just like a VHS VCR.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Overzealous moderators again... Right when I run out of points. Please mod parent up. Nothing trollish.
XM is now using 24-32kb aacPlus for most of their channels. This is much more lossy and low-quality than a cassette. :-)
Ha, what a joke. I have a Nexus 50. I record XM overnight and listen to it while I'm at work and can't get reception in this cave they call the IT department. The sound quality is pretty bad for the XM recordings so I don't know what the problem is. If a song/artist is something I really want to hear more of, then hell I'll go looking for torrents. Sheesh... Can't wait for them to tell me I can't use my vhs recorder and cassete deck too...