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.
"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'
...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?
MacroVision is not an aspect of the player, it's an aspect of the media (though in digital media the signal is often inserted by the player, as it would not surive the encoding process). Studio-produced tapes may be MacroVision "protected", to prevent that particular piece of media from being cleanly copied (without a MacroVision supressor). Tapes that you record at home do not include the MacroVision signal, no matter how new your VCR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrovision
The device of concern is the Pioneer Inno (also sold as Samsung Helix). The device allows one to record more than just the current broadcast until the tags change, rather you can record a song, a channel for as long as you want, or you can schedule a recording to start at a particular time and end at a particular time. You can record the music channels or talk. You can hook the Inno up to your computer to manage the recordings (delete commercials, songs, etc.) and it is done inside the XM+Napster software. If I want to own a song or download a track to my computer, the XM-approved method is to click on the song and buy it from Napster (hence the integration). I use my Inno's recording feature mostly to record Opie and Anthony, an XM original talk program that RIAA has nothing to do with. Yet those bastards in RIAA put the whole industry sector at risk with this nuisance lawsuit. XM paid their licensing fees to have the right to broadcast RIAA content. They pay dearly. Napster paid their licensing fees to sell RIAA content. What RIAA is suing for is not the problem of recording in and of itself, it's the fact that once it is recorded, you have the track on your player for as long as you have an XM account. They want XM to pay the same license that Napster and iTunes pay to sell the music, arguing that they are in essence selling the music to the users, yet that is not the case and that is why they partnered with Napster. The recording is temporary and not easily transferred to another device (you can use the line out to a PC or something, but you can do that with an iPod too) which should be covered under fair use. XM is duly licensed to broadcast, Napster is licensed to sell. RIAA is just bitter that they couldn't see the future of digital music until it was way, way too late. Ultimately, the problem is two-fold: One, these tech-based lawsuits are being decided by judges wearing Depends and looking forward to just a couple more years to a government pension. They are completely out of touch with the technology and how it is used. And two, RIAA is greed incarnate and want to blame digital music on the fall of the music industry instead of owning up to the fact that all they produce anymore is pure shit and that is why CD's don't sell.