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.'"
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 ----
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
If it goes to the Supreme Court it might be a good thing. At least we might see some clarification of what is/is not permissible. There some to be some gray areas in copyright law.
Actually this would not effect TiVo or other home recording devices.
The reason the Judge said this case is different is because XM not only acts as a braodcaster of music, but also as a distributor. TiVo is different because a TiVo just records content, it does not determine what is broadcasted.
Will this make a difference in court? I don't know, I hope the case is thrown out though.
I think this is a slightly different scenario.
In the case of radio broadcasting, the radio station did not give you the technology to make the recording. They just made the broadcast.
In this case, 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/
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.
(And, I guess the standard: "IANAL, void where prohibited, prohibited where void, consult your own lawyer, etc" all apply here)
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And wouldn't that apply to tivos, since most people get tivos from their cable company?
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
The home user is. XM can't sell the ability to recieve(broadcast) + record signals. They can sell the ability to recieve, but not to record them at the same time. Only individuals are allowed to record, and apparantly only by using third party hardware.
In the world of licensing, they've paid for the rights to broadcast that music, the same as FM/AM stations. However, they're also selling the ability to record that same music, which isn't something they have license to do. The end-user has that right, but not the broadcaster
That would be like iPods allowing streaming music (which you can do on a network), and then also allowing you to record that music for your personal playlist without paying for it. That's not something that's allowed under their licensing
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."
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.
You have to look at how the AHRA defines a digital recording device. All digital analog recording devices are included, but digital audio recording devices are defined in the ACT as limited to devices for which a royalty is to be paid. If the device qualifies, then the device manufacturer is supposed to be paying royalties.
The AHRA isn't going to work. They'd be better off using a Sony type significant non-infringing use with the added argument that they don't induce infringement.
Distribution service? From where to where? From the car's MP3 unit to the vehicle occupant's ears? An earlier poster who has this service says that the MP3s are DRM'ed, can't be removed from the device, and have expiration dates. And how is this any different from the built-in Tivo-clone in my DISH Network satellite box? My guess is the DISH legal guys are probably tracking this case very carefully, if not actually planning to file an amicus brief.
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
The important distinction relevant to why this case was sent to trial rather than being barred by the AHRA from square one is not that the tape recorder is not MP3. The important distinction is that the tape recorder is not provided to you by the subscription-only radio station whose songs you are recording, who has paid for a license to "broadcast" ephemeral copies of music to subscribers, but not a more expensive license to "distribute" fixed copies.
Seriously, we need to give every supreme court judge a TiVo,SlingBox,broadband,video iPod,and laptop, pronto. As they may not have adopted any modern digital/multiformat tastes. They are a kinda old and crusty bunch, being 10 years behind the tech curve could seriously effect the way they view this case.
We are all just people.
"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 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