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.'"

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.

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.

I am not a lawyer, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

This will affect everything

[adamstew]

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.

Tape recorders??

[StarvingSE]

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.

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: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 [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.

Re:This is a case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price." [gnu.org]

It takes time (and money) to learn proprietary software too.

Re:Protection

[headkase]

It's no different than my Media Center PC. It has one click recording, and XM is complicated so they provide you with a "one button" recording device. It's not how you go about recording off the radio that should be the issue - the case should not be muddled by focusing on the technology used to achieve a goal of recording a song but instead it should be viewed that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 absolutely does apply here when you remove the technology of the day and instead focus on what people are doing. I believe the real motivation for this suit is obviously greed; RIAA hates to see any content become part of any library without paying them money - so they will pursue every avenue to shut out everything but them.

Re:Protection

[fatboy]

In the case of radio broadcasting, the radio station did not give you the technology to make the recording. They just made the broadcast.

How about GE [wikipedia.org]? They own NBC and make VCRs [amazon.com].

Same thing, right?

Re:This is a case...

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

How about cable and satellite DVR devices?

Re:Protection

[GigG]

Where do you get that from? The cassette recorder on my home stereo has no such feature neither does the VCR in the attic.

Re:This is a case...

[davek]

IMHO, the US will only revoke laws if BOTH a) the law is unenforceable and b)it can be proven to be morally/ethically wrong. I cite slavery and prohibition as proof of that.

This is what we've got here. The law supposedly protecting the copyright holders "distribution rights" is unenforceable (if one person posts it to the internet, everyone in the world can get it instantly), AND ethically dubious (I don't have the right to personal property anymore with regard to music?).

If we think these statements are true, then this case (or one like it) will eventually go to the highest American court, and they will rule these statements _as_ true. After that the legislators will have to battle it out.

America has a lot of problems, but one thing it cannot accept FOREVER is legal contradictions. They can go on for years, even generations, but not forever.

-dave

Judge is obligated to explain...

[WebCowboy]

...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?

Re:This is a case...

[DragonWriter]

Actually this would not effect TiVo or other home recording devices.

It might affect the ability of Cable/Satellite TV providers to provide DVR equipment and service as part of their subscription packages.

Re:Neither are good examples.

[profplump]

MacroVision is not an aspect of the player, it's an aspect of the media (though in digital media the signal is often inserted by the player, as it would not surive the encoding process). Studio-produced tapes may be MacroVision "protected", to prevent that particular piece of media from being cleanly copied (without a MacroVision supressor). Tapes that you record at home do not include the MacroVision signal, no matter how new your VCR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrovision [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is a case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to America. You have the right to speak freely but you don't have the right to be heard. This same pattern comes up over and over, any time the vision of the founding fathers is "inconvenient" for our modern rulers. Right to Privacy? Supreme Court decisions have decided that your right to a private life is based on "reasonable expectations", however their definition of "reasonable" has little to no bearing with reality, and many of the expectations they have ruled out are actually encoded in existing laws as expected (for example, if you are in your house but can be seen with "conventional" equipment, you have "no expectation" of privacy. But the law says if I look in your window while you're changing, I'm a sex offender. Or their decision that if you're in a public place, you have no privacy, yet if I were to follow a young woman around all day, I'd be arrested as a stalker.)

In the end, our modern rulers hope to nibble down those rights until they are, as you pointed out, completely worthless. At that point, being an American will have no meaning whatsoever.

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.

Re:xm

[hairygenes]

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.