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.
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'
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
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.
><));>
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.
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?
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
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.
Only if they sue for anything over $20.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
No. The burden of proof still lies with the music company: the judge's verdict only affirmed their right to their day in court. It basically said, "there is a possibility of fault that a court can decide." The possibility of fault does NOT prejudice the case: a parallel would be a criminal trial in which the DA has enough evidence to suggest guilt - perhaps not enough to convict - but the issue of guilt is still in doubt. The trial judge will be a different judge than the one seated at the hearing.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
That would be nice. My favorite music station is Radio Paradise, a listener-supported station out of Paradise California. It is my great pleasure to support them for all the enjoyment I get from listening to commercial-free music at work and at home. They are also responsible for the majority of my music purchases (hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per year), which makes things like the PERRORM Act particularly offensive.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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."
It physically keeps the MP3's on that device, and that device alone. Without access to being able to get the recording off the device, there is no need to create other methods to protect 2nd generation copying as there is no ability to copy it anywhere else. The copy never leaves the recording device to be distributable. The only way to do that would be to connect an analog recorder to the output of the device, which by the way, would also defeat the copy protections on any other SCMS device (hence the analog hole).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
...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?
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.
The case "began" as soon as it was filed, this ruling is not before the case began. Judges often are called upon to make legal rulings before a case proceeds to trial, as here, which would include determining whether or not, on the facts alleged, the entire cause of action is prohibited by a statute and therefore the case must be thrown out.
Now, admittedly, the summary would have been more accurate if it said "The judge held that, assuming the truth of the factual allegations made by the RIAA, the suit was not clearly barred, as a matter of law, by the AHRA."
This does not mean that the judge agrees with the RIAA's fact claims: presenting evidence to controvert fact claims and resolving the truth of those is a matter for trial.
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
Someone actually screwed the RIAA for once?
Wow. I thought the RIAA would be able to recognize such an inequitable and one-sided deal...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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.
"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
Not true. Macrovision works (as I understand it) by making the auto-brightness-adjust of the VCR go nuts.
Pretty close. It's actually the record level, which affects all aspects of the video signal stored on the tape.
Magnetic tape recording devices need to set their record levels so that the tape comes as close as possible to being saturated. Too low, bad signal to noise ratio. Too high, distortion - clipping in audio, and "white clip" (a lack of contrast on bright objects) in video.
VHS uses the vertical blanking interval (that black horizontal bar when the vertical hold control is set wrong) to set the record level - the video is a known state in this bar; it should be black. Some older VHS VCRs did it in other ways, and Betamax/U-Matic also set the record level in other ways. Most professional machines use a manual record level adjustment.
Macrovision simply adds flickering white blocks into the vertical blanking interval. As a result, the VCR's record levels are set wrong. Flashing and flickering are easily implemented by playing with the Macrovision pulse levels during the movie - the VCR's record levels go way off and the recording becomes unwatchable.
When you're simply feeding the signal through the VCR, chances are that the VCR is adjusting the video levels to the TV by using its record level setting mechanism, but since the TV is a lot less sensitive to the variations in signal strength (thanks to an AGC circuit built into the TV), it is not affected anywhere near as drastically as the magnetic tape. This is why you *might* be able to use your VCR as a modulator for your DVD player, but it is by no means guaranteed.
Some older TVs (typically pre-1980) will be affected by Macrovision, typically because their sync separator circuits require the black lines to "recalibrate" after the vertical sync pulse - this is the reason why the NTSC system had such a large vertical blanking interval in the first place. With the advent of non-professional and sometimes unstable video sources (VCRs are notoriously unstable, since the sync they generate depends on tape speed and other mechanical factros), TV set designers were forced to improve sync circuits.
Macrovision is easy enough to remove - after the vertical sync pulse, ensure that there are 22 lines of blackness separated only by horizontal sync pulses, then pass all lines until the next vertical sync pulse completely transparently. An LM1881 sync separator IC, a simple TTL counter and an op-amp are all that is required to scrub Macrovision. My own reason for doing this is to be able to watch DVDs on my collection of 1950s TV sets, most of which lose vertical sync with a Macrovision signal. You could also use a TBC (TimeBase Corrector), since the TBC re-draws all the NTSC sync features as well as compensating for VCR jitter (even a professional analog VTR doesn't produce broadcast-quality sync or timing). I scored a used broadcast quality TBC a few years ago and it does wonders for the stability of my TV collection, especially being able to switch video sources and having the TBC ensure rock-solid sync through the transition.
Oh, and your DVD player actually inserts it when it generates the sync. DVD video files do not include either the horizontal or vertical blanking interval (for one thing, it would waste space on the disc); these NTSC requirements are generated by the DVD player's electronics, and the Macrovision signal in the vertical blanking interval is instead enabled or disabled by an instruction from the disc. I'd also imagine that DVD recorders are susceptible to Macrovision; to enforce copy protection and for design convenience, it would be easy enough to use the vertical blanking interval to set their own black levels just like a VHS VCR.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.