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

This is a case...

[IflyRC]

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.

Re:This is a case...

[IflyRC]

I don't think there really are that many grey areas. I think judges are just interpreting things on how they personally feel based on idealism or activism in some cases.

The reason they are going after XM is because under the updated Home Audio Recording Act they cannot go after an individual-

"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."

This, IMHO circumvents the "spirit" of the Home Audio Recording Act.

Protection

[rsmith-mac]

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.

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.

Re:Protection

[LoadStar]

Agreed. The recording industry is claiming that the XM portable units turn the service into a subscription music service, much like Napster et.al. However, this infers that the devices have the capability to segment the recording into seperate songs and listen to them at a later point non-sequentially, which they most certainly do not do (nor does it appear that XM has any plans to implement this). Without this ability, there is practically no difference between this and hooking a tape recorder up to the headphone out jack of an XM receiver.

In fact, XM's device is considerably more limited than recording with a tape recorder, as you can only retain the recording for a limited number of days, and you can't listen to recordings if your subscription lapses, as far as I'm aware. XM really bent over backwards to implement a device that would protect the recording industry's interests.

Re:Protection

[teh_chrizzle]

Without this ability, there is practically no difference between this and hooking a tape recorder up to the headphone out jack of an XM receiver.

you seem to be stuck on the fact that you can't record individual tracks and create your own playlists. you might also think that it matters the songs cannot be copied from or otherwise accessed by any means other than the playback unit. it all seems very logical but i think that you are missing some key music industry logic.

the device records MP3's from music broadcast on satellite radio. according to the music industry, all MP3's are stolen, including those that that are created for fair use and stored on a device that it is physically impossible to copy them from. er go, the machine encourages the theft of music and threatens the very fabric of civilization.

your argument breaks down because tape recorders record to tapes rather than destroying america with mp3's.