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.'"

Comments

Re:I am not a lawyer, but..

[fishybell]

"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.

The statement was given in a hearing about whether or not this case will go to trial. Both sides gave an argument, and the judge decided that the RIAA's argument was compelling enough to move to a full trial. This type of opinion is normal in a ruling, be it a hearing or trial.

This is just a negotiating tactic

[Jack Pallance]

The music industry knows that they don't have a leg to stand on. What they want is a way out of their contract to license music to satellite radio. When the radio companies started paying big money for on-air personalities (Think Howard Stern, Oprah, etc), the music companies wanted a bigger piece of the pie.

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.

According to Wikipedia...

[paladinwannabe2]

The Audio Home Recording Act only applies to analog recordings made off the radio. However, looking at the act itself I don't see that.

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?

Re:According to Wikipedia...

[DragonWriter]

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).

First, it does stop you from suing the consumer, which was rather the point of the media tax and the AHRA in the first place.

Second, the RIAA's claim is that XM isn't being sued for manufacturing the equipment, they are being sued for illegal "distribution" of copyrighted content because the combination of equipment and service they provide makes them a distributor, not merely a broadcaster, and they've only paid for a license to broadcast.

If it succeeds, the RIAA probably won't have struck a lasting blow against recording satellite-broadcast music, but may strike an unintentional blow against integration of content delivery services with recording services and hardware, which might indirectly promote interoperability and open standards.

We should look back to the Copyright Act of 1976

[monkeyboythom]

We have the amendment, The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, of the original, COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, because of concerns over digital audio tape (DAT).

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.

Re:Protection

[gstoddart]

I could understand that if the copying of the music from the broadcast was illegal, however it is not and is protected under the Home Audio Recording Act.

Well, from that very article, we find this paragraph ...

In each case, the principal distinction between what is and is not covered by the AHRA is determined by whether or not the device is marketed or designed (or in the case of media, commonly used by consumers) to make audio recordings, not the device's capabilities. For consumers this means that copies of copyrighted works made with two technically identical media or devices may or may not be subject to civil penalties, depending on how the device was marketed. A CD-R recorder included as part of a personal computer would not be a digital audio recording device under the Act, since the personal computer was not marketed primarily for making copies of music. The same recorder, sold as a peripheral and marketed for the express purpose of making digital audio recordings, would fall under the Act's definition of a recording device.

Which, if I read it correctly, a "device marketed primarily for making copies of music" (ie, a sattelite receiver with a record feature) might, in fact, be an infringing device because that is it's primary function. It also isn't a device whose primary function is recording of non-music.

As I read this, XM may be in deep doo doo here. The protection you reference isn't a blanket permission, but it has restrictions on it. XM may be running afoul of those restrictions.

Cheers

Re:Protection

[mmacdona86]

Having one of the devices in question, I can say that it definitively does have copy protection. There's no way to get the recorded songs off the device: hook the device up to a PC, and you can see the songs are there but you can't play or copy them.

Re:This is a case...

[IAmTheDave]

I've never understood how a protected right - my right to record music off of a device streaming it to me - be it radio or satellite radio or internet radio - does not in turn make it legal for companies to offer devices that allow me to exercise those rights.

It's like "it's legal for minors to possess, but not purchase, cigarettes."

If I have a right to record music, denying me any device that allows me to exercise that right denies me that right - and so having an act that protects that right is useless to begin with.

Re:Protection

[shark72]

"Where do you get that from? The cassette recorder on my home stereo has no such feature neither does the VCR in the attic."

He's referring to the AHRA. He referenced it in his note; it's also in the writeup. Specifically he's referring to the AHRA's requirement that digital audio recording devices have serial copy management systems in place. He was pretty terse; he made the (obviously incorrect) assumption that readers are familiar with the AHRA.

At any rate, the devices you mention aren't likely defined as digital audio recording devices by the AHRA. While you're 100% correct that they don't have SCMS, it's not germane to the discussion.