Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

XM+MP3 Going to Trial

Posted by Zonk on from the everyone-loves-a-court-date dept.

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.'"

13 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. This is a case... by IflyRC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is a case... by hasbeard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:This is a case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:This is a case... by IflyRC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:This is a case... by IAmTheDave · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
  2. Protection by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Protection by LoadStar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Protection by mmacdona86 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Protection by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
  3. Re:I am not a lawyer, but.. by fishybell · · Score: 4, Informative
    "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.

    --
    ><));>
  4. This is just a negotiating tactic by Jack+Pallance · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  5. According to Wikipedia... by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 4, Informative
    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?
    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  6. Neither are good examples. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."