RIAA Sues XM Satellite Radio 402
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."
The last sentence... (Score:5, Informative)
That just about sums it up.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Why would they? If it's going to cost them 10 million to "tear em a new one" in court, or 0.5 million in re-negotiated royalty fees, the choice is pretty clear. I'm not too up on corporate law, but it may be possible for shareholders to sue the directors if they tried to fight this when it was more economical to cave in. Warchest or no, companies are made to be profitable. It doesn't matter if they're the RIAA, XM, or Wallmart, they're not going to pay to fight someone else's battle.
Expect this to be over very shortly as XM and the RIAA sort out a new licensing deal. The legal threat is just a strong-arm political tactic by the RIAA.
Re:Digital = infringing? (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like the Betamax case (Score:2, Informative)
ignoring the market? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Your product resembles a legal product... (Score:3, Informative)
Audio Home Recording Act (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately for the RIAA, they aren't the ones with standing to file such a suit. Various author and artist associations receive (and presumably distribute to their members) royalties enforced and collected by the US Copyright Office, and the RIAA is not among these.
Re:Digital = infringing? (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, the legal rationale behind the right to record off-the-air broadcasts was a Fair Use because the broadcasts were made over the public airwaves. Since XM is sent encrypted, and they can/do control the delivery of the content, that Fair Use provision may not apply. (which doesn't mean that the RIAA aren't a bunch of asshats)
Dear RIAA, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Finally (Score:2, Informative)
Who's Next? (Score:2, Informative)
So RIAA and the MPAA can eventually have a lawsuit that retros pack to the beginning of the VHS/cassette era because, hell, SLP on VHS I could get 3 movies per VHS cassette and I could have an easy 2 hours of music on a music tape. Oh wait, even further back because you could record to vinyl if you had the cash for the machine.
So now it comes to the iPod. I suppose that every device and it's makers can get sued if any of their devices can record. That means the RIAA should target companies such as Sony, Clarion, Kenwood, Philips, Toshiba, Magnavox, and Eclipse (which is family with Toyota). Yeah, good luck with that RIAA. I'm sure Sony or Toyota would give you a reach around when they're done.
One has to think... Are they only targeting XM because XM is in a somewhat battered state right now?
XM + Napster (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's about leverage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Digital = infringing? (Score:2, Informative)
Some Inno ownwers think that XM should borrow language from this suit for it's advertising campaign -- it is that good.
A few facts I've gleaned from Inno owners:
The Inno's music can't be downloaded to your computers so it can't be shared -- it stays with the unit.
If you cancel your XM subscription, you can no longer play the stored music.
IANAL, but the Inno's record function appears to be totally in compliance with the Home Recording Act. Many believe that weighs heavily in favor of XM being able to win the case.
For the record, I don't own the Inno, I have an AirWare, which can also store but not download the stored content to the computer.
I don't know why the RIAA doesn't force everyone in the US to have little meters surgically implanted in their ears that will automatically send off whatever amount the RIAA decides the listner should be dinged each time he or she hears a piece of music. I hope they come in coordinating colors to the meters the MPAA wants to implant on our eyes.
Re:It's about leverage (Score:1, Informative)
This is incorrect. Clear Channel owns only 3.4% of XM, that is hardly a big stake. They were part of the original ownership of XM before it went public and well before it launched. Clear Channel hedged their 8.9 million shares in a forward sales agreement 3 years ago. When they did that, XM gave them the boot and kicked them off their board. Clear Channel sued. The arbitration settlement allowed them to keep their bandwidth as part of their original agreement, as well as run advertising on those channels. However it also ruled that XM can keep them locked out of the building, which they are.
The forward sales agreement ends in 2008, when Clear Channels delivers their shares, they will be completely pushed out the door for good.
To say that Clear Channel owns a big stake in XM is misleading and in fact, wrong.
Re:Digital = infringing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Digital = infringing? (Score:2, Informative)
The RIAA doesn't have the rights to all music. I strongly suggest people listen to and support groups that share their music and avoid selling out to the RIAA (read sig). However, I seriously doubt it's the Slashdot crowd buying the crap music, it's those damn kids.
I'm not against pirating music or anything; I wouldn't feel bad no matter what terrible things happen to the RIAA and those that are a part of it. It got ridiculous a long time ago.
Re:Is it just me (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Digital = infringing? (Score:2, Informative)