Slashdot Log In
XM+MP3 Going to Trial
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jan 19, 2007 04:12 PM
from the everyone-loves-a-court-date dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
News: RIAA Sues XM Satellite Radio 402 comments
skayell writes "The RIAA is suing XM Satellite radio contending that the ability to store songs in memory makes it similar to an iPod, but with no income involved for the RIAA." From the article: "XM said it will vigorously defend this lawsuit on behalf of consumers and also called the lawsuit a bargaining tactic. [...] The labels are currently in talks with XM and its rival Sirius Satellite Radio, to renegotiate digital royalty contracts for broadcasts."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
This is a case... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a case... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:This is a case... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason they are going after XM is because under the updated Home Audio Recording Act [wikipedia.org] 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.
Parent
Re:This is a case... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:This is a case... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is a case... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It might affect the ability of Cable/Satellite TV providers to provide DVR equipment and service as part of their subscription packages.
Protection (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Neither are good examples. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Neither are good examples. (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrovision [wikipedia.org]
Parent
A quick Macrovision primer (Score:3, Informative)
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 vertic
Re:Protection (Score:4, Informative)
"Where do you get that from? The cassette recorder on my home stereo has no such feature neither does the VCR in the attic."
He's referring to the AHRA. He referenced it in his note; it's also in the writeup. Specifically he's referring to the AHRA's requirement that digital audio recording devices have serial copy management systems in place. He was pretty terse; he made the (obviously incorrect) assumption that readers are familiar with the AHRA.
At any rate, the devices you mention aren't likely defined as digital audio recording devices by the AHRA. While you're 100% correct that they don't have SCMS, it's not germane to the discussion.
Parent
Re:Protection (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Protection (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 stor
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Protection (Score:4, Informative)
Well, from that very article, we find this paragraph
Which, if I read it correctly, a "device marketed primarily for making copies of music" (ie, a sattelite receiver with a record feature) might, in fact, be an infringing device because that is it's primary function. It also isn't a device whose primary function is recording of non-music.
As I read this, XM may be in deep doo doo here. The protection you reference isn't a blanket permission, but it has restrictions on it. XM may be running afoul of those restrictions.
Cheers
Parent
Re:Protection (Score:4, Interesting)
And wouldn't that apply to tivos, since most people get tivos from their cable company?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about GE [wikipedia.org]? They own NBC and make VCRs [amazon.com].
Same thing, right?
Judge is obligated to explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 distribut
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 reco
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Protection (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Scope of Civil Court questions (Score:2)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
War of attrition (Score:2, Interesting)
Sad really.
This will affect everything (Score:2, Insightful)
I sincerely hope this makes it's way to the supreme court and then they get smacked down and told to STFU.
Tape recorders?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time a new recording format comes out, the movie and music industries try to stop fair use from applying to it using various idiotic arguments. This case is no different.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sony IS the RIAA. They would be suing themselves in effect.
Shoot this foot (Score:3, Interesting)
The MP3 acronym terrifies Luddites (Score:2)
This is just a negotiating tactic (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Do you mean to tell me... (Score:3, Funny)
Someone actually screwed the RIAA for once?
Wow. I thought the RIAA would be able to recognize such an inequitable and one-sided deal...
According to Wikipedia... (Score:5, Informative)
From The U.S. Copyright Office [copyright.gov]:
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?
Re:According to Wikipedia... (Score:4, Informative)
First, it does stop you from suing the consumer, which was rather the point of the media tax and the AHRA in the first place.
Second, the RIAA's claim is that XM isn't being sued for manufacturing the equipment, they are being sued for illegal "distribution" of copyrighted content because the combination of equipment and service they provide makes them a distributor, not merely a broadcaster, and they've only paid for a license to broadcast.
If it succeeds, the RIAA probably won't have struck a lasting blow against recording satellite-broadcast music, but may strike an unintentional blow against integration of content delivery services with recording services and hardware, which might indirectly promote interoperability and open standards.
Parent
We should look back to the Copyright Act of 1976 (Score:3, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org].
But does it matter if in MP3 (w/ reguards to SCMS) (Score:3, Informative)
One question for the recording industry: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am not a lawyer, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well it looks as the RIAA got one of the best judges that money can buy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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, assu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)