XM+MP3 Going to Trial 206
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.'"
War of attrition (Score:2, Interesting)
Sad really.
Shoot this foot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is a case... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Protection (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 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
Re:Protection (Score:4, Interesting)
And wouldn't that apply to tivos, since most people get tivos from their cable company?
Re:Protection (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 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
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.
One question for the recording industry: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:According to Wikipedia... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:Am I seeing this correctly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Protection (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 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.
Re:This is a case... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, might as well pack up my VCR (Score:2, Interesting)
"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 [nwsource.com]
qz
Answers? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.