Big Music goes after XM Satellite
p2pnet.net News:- Three words apply to Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), the members of the Organized Music cartel.
Greedy, greedy, greedy.
And to name but three reasons for the assessment, they’re already grossly over-charging in the wholesale prices they expect for their low quality digital files, and they want even more; they’re suing their own customers to try to force them to buy ‘product’; and, they’re putting “devastating” revenue losses down to file sharing when their problems, all of them, are entirely of their own making.
Now they’re suing XM Satellite Radio Holdings over a receiver it offers with a built-in mp3 player.
“The suit alleges that XM is cheating the recording companies by allowing consumers to store songs they hear over satellite radio,” says the CBC. “XM’s use of copyrighted material such as music is solely for broadcast and selling an MP3 player amounts to a means of distribution, the record distributors argue in the lawsuit.”
Originally filed May 2006 in New York federal court, the case alleges XM’s portable Inno, which can store music, infringes on copyrights and, “transforms a passive radio experience into the equivalent of a digital download service,” says Reuters.
XM argues it’s protected under the US Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which allows consumers to record music off the radio for private use, says the CBC story.
But a US district judge disagrees, backing up the Big 4.
According to Deborah A. Batts, selling the mp3 player that can record a digital signal is different from allowing consumers to tape songs from traditional radio with an audio cassette, says the CBC, which also has her stating
“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.”
Also See:
CBC - Record firms sue XM satellite radio over MP3 recordings, January 19, 2007
Reuters - Court denies XM request to dismiss music label suit, January 19, 2007
Want to subscribe to p2pnet by email with Feedburner? Just click here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use our own p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“But a US district judge disagrees, backing up the Big 4.”
We really need to start up a master list of all government officials either suspected or known for a fact to be crooked. This one clearly is.
“XM argues it’s protected under the US Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which allows consumers to record music off the radio for private use, says the CBC story.”
Honestly, I don’t see what the big deal is either way. Isn’t XM just AAC encoded music at a low(ish) bitrate? Why would anyone want to record that? Sure, it’s good for listening in the car or on ear buds, where the low audio quality and compression artifacts tend to be masked, but wanting to add it as part of your actual library? Doesn’t make any sense. I don’t really know much about the XM player itself. Does it simply save the stream itself, or does it recompress it into another lossy format, like MP3? If it’s the latter, then the recording industry has nothing to worry about because audio cassettes, despite all it’s warble and hiss, would be about the same quality-wise, and perhaps even better if using the higher end cassettes. If the audio was variable bitrate, say around 224k, then they might have a right to be concerned.
Would be interesting to see the actual wording of the law in question. If it indeed says a person can record material off of the radio for private use, but doesn’t limit the means with which to make said recording, then XM should have no trouble winning this case. However, if the law specifically prohibits using anything other than a cassette deck with which to record, then XM is screwed. I suppose one can’t overlook the fact that XM is the one providing the technology which enables the recording of their broadcasts. Kind of like if radio stations were to hand out cassette decks back in the day. Since fair use is a big part of this, expect XM to lose on that basis alone. It is something that the entire entertainment industry would love to see eliminated at all costs, and I’m sure they’ll do anything they can think of whether legal or not to achieve that end.
Meh, what was I thinking. Forget all that I just said. This is obviously about greed and nothing else. The recording industry sees an opportunity to sue someone for a hell of a lot of money. Logical thought has nothing to do with this case. It’s the American way don’t ya know!
January 20th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
if you want to!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
and
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_10/Section_1001
“Would be interesting to see the actual wording of the law in question. If it indeed says a person can record material off of the radio for private use, but doesn’t limit the means with which to make said recording, then XM should have no trouble winning this case. However, if the law specifically prohibits using anything other than a cassette deck with which to record, then XM is screwed.”
I haven’t read the code yet, but what do you expect from a 60 year old african american female? Sufficient Knowledge about modern technology that she is competent enough to rule on such an issue? Come on!
January 20th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
It’s a sad fact in United States law that digital copyright cases love, love, love, love, love, love the plaintiff. Through clever twists in the language of statutes and the history of case law, advantages for the plaintiff are now built right into what is supposed to be a fair system.
One such advantage shows its silent mark in this article. It may appear on first glance that we’re dealing with a technologically inept judge or a conspiracy of corruption, but the reality is both simpler and farther reaching.
The simple cause of what we’re seeing is that the plaintiff in a digital copyright case can file its lawsuit just about anywhere. The Internet (and satellite radio too, for that matter) is everywhere, so as long as a plaintiff goes through the procedural song and dance of part of the alleged damages occurring in this or that district, it’s plaintiff’s choice of district.
Does this result in an advantage to the plaintiff? You better believe it. Some circuits, like the Ninth, pave the way in reverse engineering exceptions (e. g. Sega v. Accolade), strict interpretation of secondary liability (e. g. in re Napster), and other limits on copyright. Other circuits, like the Second–or at least their lower district courts–are receptive to the ever-widening gyre of industry copyright expansionism (e. g. pretty much any case you see on Recording Industry vs the People–Ray Beckerman is, in my estimation, deep behind enemy lines).
Now, Second Circuit judges aren’t stupid. They aren’t corrupt. They’re just human beings working in a close-knit culture of like human beings. That culture has, through the intricate workings of sociopolitical motion, just happened to lean pro-copyright.
So, coming back to the case at hand. No surprise: this trial is taking place in the Second Circuit. Far, far away from XM Satellite Radio’s corporate headquarters (down in the Fourth).
Unfair? Perhaps. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But also consider: if the RIAA’s lawyers had filed this suit in San Francisco, heart of the Ninth Circuit, neighbor to Silicon Valley, which was built on technological innovation, that would be more stupid than fair.
Anyway… there are more ways that digital copyright law loves, loves, loves, loves, loves, loves the plaintiff, but that’s another post for another day.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am
…but not for the reasons that they state.
The reason that XM’s mp3 recording device isn’t protected by the Home Audio Recording Act is because is doesn’t abide by that act. The act explicitly says that digital audio devices must implement the Serial Copy Management System (something that the MP3 format inherently lacks) and that they must pay a statuary payment to the US Copyright Office as compensation. It has nothing to do with the fact that XM is a subscription service. In fact, this is as false as saying that people aren’t allowed to record off of HBO or some other premium channel, but they are free to record off of basic cable or over-the-air channels (I’m sure that HBO and related channels broadcast Macrovision to keep people from recording off of those channels, but they are not required to use Macrovision by law, even if VCRs and DVD recorders are required to recognize it).
In summary, XM’s product will fall under the AHRA and its liability exemptions if the product implements the SCMS and pays royalties. However, in a time when DRM implementations cause incompatibility, it’s not either unusual or even unwise for XM to not implement SCMS, even if it causes the device to not be protected by the AHRA. Indeed, it may very well be ILLEGAL by the AHRA.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
FM Analog Radio has better quality than this satellite radio low bitrate stuff. The RIAA are just greedy assholes.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
What do you expect? Who do you think bought and paid for these draconian laws? Millions and millions spent on lobbying gets them what they want in the lawbooks. It was never a fair system when the MAFIAA can write whatever the hell they wanna as laws and buy their way into the lawbooks. They pretty much are the lawmakers here.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
They probably were not thinking of the legal perspective, but I wonder if the case would be different if XM set the mp3 player so that it recorded from the analog output of the radio. It would of course have to re-convert that to digital, but the argument could be made that the initial signal being recorded was analog.