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: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.