Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Sues XM Satellite Radio

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the everyday-evil dept.

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nhahahahahah (5, Funny)

legallyillegal (889865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348523)

this makes me laugh... way to go riaa, sue a legitimate radio service

Digital = infringing? (3, Insightful)

Buran (150348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348524)

So why aren't they suing every radio station in the country, and why haven't they been doing this for decades?

Digital = terrorist?

Re:Digital = infringing? (5, Insightful)

Poppler (822173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348536)

From the summery:
The RIAA is ...contending that the ability to store songs in memory makes it similar to an iPod, but with no income involved for the RIAA.

So this is different, apparantly XM subscribers can store songs on the unit.

Still ridiculous, of coarse, after all anyone with a computer or a cassette deck can accomplish the same thing.

Re:Digital = infringing? (4, Insightful)

Buran (150348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348558)

Oh boo hoo hoo, cry me a river. RIAA, not everything has to give you money. Not everything is GOING to give you money. Give it a rest.

To the poster I'm responding to: yes, I thought of that; a lot of radios out there can record from radio to tape, or maybe some can record to hard drive (like the RadioShark) or to removable media of some kind. But if being able to store part of the broadcast is a bad thing, as said ... why didn't the RIAA sue decades ago?

I think it's because they know the suit is baseless. It was ruled legal decades ago to timeshift, after all, and being able to record broadcasts for later playback is nothing more than that.

The RIAA is just trying to capitalize on the technical illiteracy (overall) of judges and juries, I think.

Hey, can I start suing random companies now because their business models don't involve giving me money?

Re:Digital = infringing? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348632)

>Hey, can I start suing random companies now because their business models don't involve giving me money?

No. You're not rich enough. It would be illegal.

Re:Digital = infringing? (5, Interesting)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348904)

As FM and AM broadcasts become digital a "lossless" technology to record them will be just around the corner (if not already). I wonder how the RIAA plans to stop /that/? Also, can TV stations sue my cable company becasue I can save stuff to my DVR and watch it over and over again without buying a DVD of it? I think once they cross into this gray area it will be difficult to figure out exactly where to draw the line.

Re:Digital = infringing? (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348733)

On the other hand, they are also sueing every computer owner they can get their hands on. The RIAA is nothing if not consistant.

Re:Digital = infringing? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348740)

Because on radio the RIAA have control over what gets played and what is promoted.
sat radio doesn't play by market rules. So RIAA has to crack the whip. It'll only work so long before the lion eats the tamer.

Re:Digital = infringing? (1)

Dausha (546002) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348821)

"Still ridiculous, of coarse, after all anyone with a computer or a cassette deck can accomplish the same thing."

Yes, but you don't pay a subscription to the radio station. Neither do you purchase a proprietary unit from the radio station to listen to their music.

However, I believe the ship will sail on this when it gets through the courts. Not that I'm a master tea leaf reader, but this could go the way of the old law suits over VHS and cassettes--users can make Fair Use copies of music on their own.

Re:Digital = infringing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348864)

I don't know about you, but I can store songs on my radio. It's called recording. They'll delighted to know that before I had a computer-driven FM tuner I did this with tape cassettes.

Re:Digital = infringing? (4, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348885)

but with no income involved for the RIAA.

15 minutes ago, I took a shit. I am concerned that I may be sued becuase of course, there was no income involved for the RIAA.

Re:Digital = infringing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348939)

Send them the shit with a note: "That's your due."

Re:Digital = infringing? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348568)

Not Radio Stations, but every Boom Box with a "Record" button.

Re:Digital = infringing? (1)

subgrappler (864963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348669)

ive heard lots of arguements that XM is no better in quality than regular radio and in my experience as an XM subscriber, this is very true sometimes. i pay for XM for less commercials and more of my kind of music... not because i think the quality is any better. so, wasnt the RIAA's arguement all about CD quality music being copied? thats why they didnt care about radio?? digital != high quality all the time... so are they going to start suing internet radio stations because their 96kbps stream is digital and can be stream ripped?

Re:Digital = infringing? (2, Funny)

Logiksan (947439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348775)

Don't give them any ideas.

Re:Digital = infringing? (2, Informative)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348829)

XM uses AACplus at 64kbs (last I checked). And it's better than the radio, in that there's no static.. just dead spots. And the RIAA sued internet stations a few years ago, and they have to pay a license fee.. The RIAA has already said "You're legit as long as you pay" to the internet radio stations. Although, I've heard they're going back after them to force them to use DRM.. The funny thing is, the only stations I listen to on XM and streaming online, are unsigned artists. XMU FTW!

Re:Digital = infringing? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348670)

Hm, I thought radio stations generally had contracts to broadcast their music.

Are you saying there are other reasons they keep broadcasting crap music and calling it the latest and greatest, than ties with music companies? :-o

It's about leverage (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348731)

So why aren't they suing every radio station in the country, and why haven't they been doing this for decades?

The last thing the RIAA wants is a level playing field, because if one existed, their leverage would disappear. With radio, they can still engage in payola [wikipedia.org] practices. With XM and Sirius, they're dealing with entities that would rather control their own destinies, rather than suck on the RIAA's teat. It's not that XM and Sirius are digital, but that they are nation-wide and multi-channel. The RIAA can bully individual stations with impunity, and even the big guys like Clear Channel play along because they've essentially bought into the cartel. But XM and Sirius aren't part of the cartel, so the RIAA is giving them a shot across the bow. The message is: "Join the club, or we'll take you down."

Re:Digital = infringing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348735)

Radio stations pay a royalty to the RIAA (actually, to the songwriters) based on the frequency of song plays per month.

The RIAA Must Die (1)

Starcom8826 (888459) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348525)

Yeah sometimes the truth hurts...If it happened, I don't think I'd be hurt too much though.

Finally (4, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348528)

... a worthy opponent against the RIAA.

I hope XM tears em a new one.

Re:Finally (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348563)

I was just thinking that. Finally someone with a warchest big enough to bring them down.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348598)

Why is this starting to remind me of Joe McCarthy vs. the U.S. Army [wikipedia.org] ?

Could be wishful thinking, I guess.

Re:Finally (4, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348653)

... a worthy opponent against the RIAA. I hope XM tears em a new one.

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:Finally (5, Insightful)

Fanro (130986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348798)

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 suspect the re-negotiation fees are meant to be a more permanent income stream for the RIAA meaning they want something recurring per song or per month.
In the long run, this fee will be more expensive than any court fee.

Your product resembles a legal product... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348531)

...but we don't get to make extra money off it (note: the artists / label were already paid for the song being aired, and recording off-air for personal use is covered by fair use law).

Wah! It isn't fair that we don't get to make more money, so it must be illegal.

Re:Your product resembles a legal product... (1)

truedfx (802492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348608)

and recording off-air for personal use is covered by fair use law

Can you back that up?

Re:Your product resembles a legal product... (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348615)

It's called time-shifting from memory.

Re:Your product resembles a legal product... (4, Insightful)

Buran (150348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348700)

Can you back that up?

There's this little case called the "Betamax Case" that affirmed the rights of the public to record broadcasts for later listening. Perhaps you have heard of it? It gets discussed a lot on Slashdot.

Re:Your product resembles a legal product... (1)

truedfx (802492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348763)

I have. My point is that there is a lot of personal use which is not at all fair use (and there is fair use which is not personal use).

Re:Your product resembles a legal product... (1)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348803)

Yeah, but time-shifting is fair use, and storing songs in the XM's memory is at most equivalent to time shifting (actually, it's more restrictive).

Is it just me (3, Interesting)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348533)

Or does a picture of a snake eating its tail come to mind?

Here is a choice quote:

"...Because XM makes available vast catalogues of music in every genre, XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings,"

Re:Is it just me (2, Interesting)

barefootgenius (926803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348570)

Legitimate? I thought they hadn't won the case yet. Typical stuff from the RIAA though.

Re:Is it just me (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348675)

I think you took the word "legitimate" out of context there. The status of "legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings" will remain constant regardless of the outcome of this case. They will remain legitimate whether XM wins or loses. The only question is whether other methods of disseminating and cataloging copyrighted music (specifically, recording satalite radio) are legal.

Re:Is it just me (1)

barefootgenius (926803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348947)


"...Because XM makes available vast catalogues of music in every genre, XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings,"


No. I don't think I read it wrong. Its from the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is saying that if you subscribe to XM you won't have to buy copy's of the plaintiff's sound recordings. With the use of the word legitimate, the plaintiff is saying that the XM subsribers are using illegimate copy's. This is the reason for the lawsuit. As the plaintiff is suing XM for alleged illegal distribution, they are therefore inferring that the copies made are illegitimate.


To put it plainly, I took the word legitimate out and read the sentence and then put it back in. I think the word is spin. It's like saying, "We, the good people". You have grouped yourselves as the good people and inferred that everyone else is not. I may well be wrong, but from your comment I don't think so.


You are right in saying that the lawsuit is about whether "other methods of disseminating and cataloging copyrighted music (specifically, recording satalite radio) are legal". I think the question is whether the copies created in the dissemination are legal, and took exception to the inferral of the word legitimate.


Can we have a third opinion? Oh, and can a grammer nazi rip apart my sad use of english. I learn from being beaten.

Re:Is it just me (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348641)

Whatever, this is a brilliant move on the RIAA's part (just the kind of legal thugery they always do).

It's just a ploy; they sue the most conservative organization out there (XM is not exactly a Fair Use advocate [com.com] ), and even if they lose, it gives consumers (and even the courts) the impression that the line is being fought somewhere much closer to the RIAA's ideal legal system.

Metaphorically, if you sue tons of people for simply saying your name in public, then perhaps it will be easier to make people think that saying *bad* things about you in public is *definitely* slander.

Re:Is it just me (4, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348651)

"...XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings,"

With the quality of the Plaintiff's music, I think that's a given.

RIAA-world math (5, Insightful)

TBone (5692) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348681)

"...Because XM makes available vast catalogues of music in every genre, XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings,"

Unless someone invented some sort of new way of compressing and storing broadcasts, by my quick math, figuring an average of 4 minutes per song, a user would need 214 Inno's to record the "vast catalog" and never have to buy music again. And this doesn't include any new music that comes out from this day forward.

Only in RIAA-world do the suits think the average consumer has $77,000+ (for 214 Inno's at $360 each) to plunk down right now, plus 63+ weeks to spend 24/7, recording entire catalogs of music.

It's a limited storage device with even more restrictions on moving content than cassette/CD have now, and they're already proven legal in piles of court cases. You almost have to wonder if RIAA has any income stream, given how hard they're trying to make money through the legal system.

What? (5, Funny)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348534)

I can store songs in my memory and play them back at will fairly accurately. Am I at risk of being sued by the RIAA?

Re:What? (1)

ntsucks (22132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348537)

Apparently you are.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348618)

Enjoy it while you can ... Memory Rights Management(TM) coming to a store near you.

Re:What? (1)

pintomp3 (882811) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348649)

as long as you don't play them out loud

Re:What? (1)

opusman (33143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348819)

If you're in the US then of course - EVERYONE there seems to be at risk of being sued by the RIAA.

Re:What? (1)

carlvlad (942493) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348833)

here comes the thought police. Well, nice knowing you..

Yes .... (1)

taniwha (70410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348849)

especially stay away from public performances of such songs as "Happy Birthday"

Re:What? (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348852)

Depends, does it involve money given to RIAA? If so, no, no risk, otherwise, yes, high risk.

Recordable (2, Insightful)

foundme (897346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348539)

I think the one broken leg that RIAA has is songs are recorded in the memory, so it's not a traditional radio broadcast.

I wonder if RIAA won this case, would it affect MP3 players which allow recording of radio?

Re:Recordable (5, Interesting)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348759)

I think the one broken leg that RIAA has is songs are recorded in the memory, so it's not a traditional radio broadcast.

I wonder if RIAA won this case, would it affect MP3 players which allow recording of radio?


No, and yes...

MOST XM receivers DO NOT have the ability to store songs, they only buffer a few seconds. The exception is a few of the newer portable units and higher end deck units.

I would esitmate 90% of the XM customer base has the traditional XM Receivers with ANALOG outputs, even though the units are receiving a digital broadcast.

So in this sense, XM is NO different than other radio stations.

The problem I think they are trying to use against XM is that it provides so much music content at single time, that you can usually find a song you like to listen to, or a talk show you want to listen to. So this is where this scares RIAA.

However, Cable & Sat. Companies have provided 100s of music channels in the same capacity, and hence yet, we don't see RIAA fighting them, because they know they would easily lose based on the fair use rulings from VCRs in the 80s.

I can actually record songs from my Sat./Cable easier than from my XM, as we almost all have DVRs for our Cable/Sat. and even companies like Dish Network sell portable players that allow you to offload the shows/songs/content to portable players.

This is really sticky and said that RIAA think they can get away with this. XM isn't even the maker of the portable receivers that allow you to record the songs form their service, that is who the RIAA should try to go after in the first place, but again, this would go back to the VCR rulings because they are 'device' manf. and not content providers.

In an ironic story, Australia just legalized the 'fair use' of VCRs and DVRs this last week (even though people there have used them illegally). And back in the 'land of the free' USA, we are witnessing a regression of persoanl freedom once again.

We now have so much capability both analog and digital, that we all could record every album in CD quality using our computers etc, and this is just by pulling the songs from 'regular' broadcasts.

If the RIAA gets their wish, that is what we will end up doing rather than paying them money. We can then support bands and labels that don't support RIAA or send donations to the bands we like and bypass them all together. Becareful what you wish for, RIAA...

Sad...

Re:Recordable (1)

sr180 (700526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348906)

In an ironic story, Australia just legalized the 'fair use' of VCRs and DVRs this last week (even though people there have used them illegally).

Australia has not legalised them yet. They are just putting a bill before parliament now. Format and time shifting is still currently illegal here.

Quick! Everbody! (2, Funny)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348541)

Hide all those songs you've got stored illegally in your head.

Re:Quick! Everbody! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348592)

Now I have a picture of Johnny Mnemonic in my head. If the RIAA sues me, can they require a lobotomy? LOL.

Re:Quick! Everbody! (1)

patio11 (857072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348640)

No problem, mine are encrypted so that if you attempt to play them back without post-processing through a $200,000 audio lab they sound like absolute garbage...

... oh, wait, on second thought, guess I should be worried.

My response. (1)

climbon321 (874929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348802)

This is crazy. My response to the article is going to be to immediately start illegally downloading albums in protest.... of course I'm going to post as an anonymous coward so the RIAA doesn't read this post and sue me.

Re:My response. (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348869)

I think you kinda messed up on the anonymous part.

RIAA doesn't need XM's help (4, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348559)

"XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings" - I don't think the music industry needs any help persuading people never again to buy their music - they're already doing such a fine job of that by themselves.

sue for the 1% offenders (1)

teknow (943205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348562)

truth of it is that when speaking of device memory this is no current method of tranfering the 30 min - 5 hrs of recording to any other device based upon the two devices capable of utilizing this capability. When speaking of softwares that record via Direct PCR or XMPCR we are off topic and off correct entity to sue. This is quite frivolous...

Shweet (1)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348564)

Let's see if the RIAA can manhandle XM Radio as well as they can bully and terrorize single mothers on fixed incomes. A market cap of 4.5B and 520M cash on hand sort of evens the playing field.

The last sentence... (5, Informative)

Wakkow (52585) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348569)

"Everything is changing and the industry is petrified"

That just about sums it up.

Headline Lawsuits (1)

Mysteerie (972719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348574)

Just another frivolous lawsuit to keep RIAA in the headlines. So that regular mainstream people will be hesitant to keep downloading. At least that is what I believe.

Re:Headline Lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348637)

next they will be suing the makers of audio cassette recorders claiming they are giving people the chance to record and distribute songs illegally by recording them on an audio tape

Re:Headline Lawsuits (1)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348780)

Home taping is killing the music [wikipedia.org] , don't you know? Heh, I'm old enough to remember this first-hand. C30! C60! C90! GO!

I think it's time (3, Interesting)

Runefox (905204) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348583)

It's time someone declared a monopoly lawsuit against the RIAA. They have been pushing their weight around with impunity because they're the only major recording industry, and they get nearly 100% of the profits made on almost, if not every major label in North America. They have no competition, no will to provide a better service to its customers or its labels/musicians, and they seem to have gone insane with the power this has granted them. That seems like enough of a case to me.

Re:I think it's time (1)

taniwha (70410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348866)

Well that's the problem - Copyright gives them a legally sanctioned monopoly - why aren't there competing pressings of Pink's latest album or old Stones classics on the market? because copyright is broken - and the RIAA is the worst example of why

Will the Jews stop at NOTHING???? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348585)

Jesus Christ, it's almost like the Jews will stop at nothing. Go figure the Ceo and Presidents of the RIAA are both Jewish. No wonder nobody likes Jews they are pushy, annoying and harass everyone. Go on, keep suing kids and poor people you'll just drive more nails on you coffin. Nobody has ever liked you scum and never will.

Why stop at 'satellite' radio? (5, Insightful)

yakkowakkodot (916507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348588)

Variations on wavelengths, amplified and broadcast, take approximately 3 seconds from source audio to the listener. This cumilatively creates a 'storage medium' where anyone with a reciever can illegally intercept music. This of course can be resolved by renegotiated royalty payments.

Payola (2, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348590)

It used to be RIAA members giving Ratio station producers and DJ's gifts, holidays and other fancy toys to promote and play their music.

Now everythings on digital it seems the RIAA is doing all it can to prevent anyone getting access to their artist products.

Its a strange world we live in.

The RIAA ran out of 14 year olds, and non-PC ownin (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348594)

What? The RIAA ran out of 14 year olds, and non-PC owning soccer moms to sue?

This is plain silly. First off, they aren't upset at XM Service. They are upset at hardware that works like a radio-Tivo. However, TV companies aren't suing Tivo. They're adapting advertising to Tivo.

The RIAA is barking up the wrong tree, and pretty soon everyone and I mean everyone will turn on the RIAA. Many artists in the industry hate their tactics. Having a portion of the radio recorded Tivo like is not the same as illegally downloading music from the internet.

And last time I checked, people were doing recordings from radio for ages.

Re:The RIAA ran out of 14 year olds, and non-PC ow (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348719)

actually, you have that in reverse.

"illegally" downloading music from the internet is functionally no different the recording radio to cassette tapes, and therefore should not be "illegal".

to paraphrase the argument they made to make it illegal "ZOMG!!11one1, there are millions of people doing this (just like there are millions of people using vcrs to 'steal' tv), QUICK, OUTLAW IT"

Re:The RIAA ran out of 14 year olds, and non-PC ow (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348769)

I've seen legal arguements going both ways on this issue. Some say downloading alone is illegal. Some say you must distribute. Some say you must copy to another device.

However, when we were all kids we were taught right from wrong. If you're telling me that downloading music from the internet that you didn't pay for isn't stealing, then I don't know what to say. I can't say I haven't done it. Sure, I've stolen music. And I also make the decision to purchase CDs from certain labels and artists. I consider it a willing decision to support certain companies, and to screw the music industry on the whole when I do decide to steal. I don't understand those who are for some reason in denial that this is stealing.

Ideally, artists should provide a few tracks online just like they release singles for radio stations. We can sample their music and decide if we want to buy it. But quick searches on P2P networks and BitTorrents will show you that fairly often people are sharing full movies, full albums, hell, full collections. The spirit there is not to promote by samples, but to steal and circumvent the companies that want to sell these things to you.

People break laws all the time. They jaywalk, litter, speed, etc. Downloading music is stealing. As much as I hate the RIAA, that doesn't change the fact that stealing remains stealing.

Re:The RIAA ran out of 14 year olds, and non-PC ow (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348841)

" I don't understand those who are for some reason in denial that this is stealing."

because it's not, and if you own a vcr/PVR/audio cassette recorder then you are a hyppocrite.

The spirit there is...to steal and circumvent the companies that want to sell these things to you.

(sarcasm)Quick!, there are billions of people "downpouring" water from their faucets, this must be made illegal because theyre "stealing" from evian.. how will evian survive! If a company sells you air under this philosophy then youre "stealing" by breathing. (/sarcasm)

A company with an unviable business model does not have a right to exist.. this is taught in the most basic economics classes.

to go further however, more advanced economics courses teach you how to think in terms of overall growth, give and take, and opportunity costs.

By giving people on the internet the same rights they had with tapes, dual cassette decks, vcr's, and radio this gives rise to tremendous markets for electronic devices, software, media editing suites, you name it. Even if it does put a slight drain on hollywood's precious revenue streams (history shows this to be negligible if at all), it gives rise to growth in the economy and overall wealth.

Furthermore, it can't be called 'free'. People who want to participate in p2p have to buy computers, subscribe to broadband, get removable storage, buy portable devices, other accessories. So for the "potential" loss of $15 a month in riaa revenues, the overall economy gets boosted by some $500 a year on average per capita.

I call that a good trade in my book, but go ahead and defend the now ineffective laws which don't do anything to stem this activity, but bankrupt college students, teens, and their families, and in the case of DMCA section 1201 deny developers of other IP which doesnt involve music or movies their right to market their product.

Re:The RIAA ran out of 14 year olds, and non-PC ow (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348920)

I don't care to continue this discussion. This isn't remotely a fair analogy.

Evian doesn't produce your tapwater. By pulling water out of the tap, you haven't removed a product from Evian.

Using a VCR to record what was freely broadcast in your homes is different from making an illegal copy of a song, uploading to the internet and sharing it with others. If you can't see the difference, then either you are in denial or quite frankly a bit dense. When someone sells a CD, it clearly says you cannot make copies and distribute them. This is against the law. When you download these copies, you are downloading illegal music.

Willingly taking in stolen property is against the law. You can remain in denial all day long if you wish. (I prefer to assume denial over stupidity). However sarcasm and piss-poor analogies don't make you in the least bit right.

OMGWTFPWND!!! (2, Insightful)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348596)

Everyone burn your cassette recorders and cd writers!!! No radio in teh country should be allowed to do this illegal timeshifting nonsense!!! Recordings of our recordings are piracy, theft, and treason!!! /end sarcasm

The reaction of the RIAA and MPAA to technology should be in the mode of adaptation. The business model of these industries was founded on the difficulty of end users to effectively make use of their fair rights provided for by copyright law. No one treats books like the RIAA and MPAA treat music and movies, yet the publishing industry still does well. We are even seeing online publishing become more and more profitable (as the industry is adapting to the times).

The RIAA and MPAA only exisit because it used to be difficult to create the media used to distribute copyrighted works of music or film. They dumped money into media creation and distribution and rightfully got a good chunk of the pie when consumers purchased their products. But creation and distribution of any type of copyrighted work is no longer a factor. The RIAA and MPAA serve no real purpose anymore.

They are afraid and are kicking and screaming their way to bank. Why? because they have so much money for lobbyists and lawyers.

Bastards.

I've got to stop or there will be pages and pages of text about how screwed up the recording industry is. /me out

Re:OMGWTFPWND!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348628)

I'm afraid Courtney Love beat you to it:

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/l ove/ [salon.com]

Re:OMGWTFPWND!!! (2, Funny)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348680)

i never thought i could sit back and say that i truly have respect for courtney love.

it feels ... wrong. its like the dark side just saved the life of bambi or something.

That's $24.000.000.000 (4, Interesting)

linuxhansl (764171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348602)

$150.000 per song, 160.000 distinct song offered per month... That $24.000.000.000 in potential damages. I think this day can be mark as the day when the RIAA finally lost it.

Re:That's $24.000.000.000 (1)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348644)

omg, that's the most awesome thing in the world. but what you really have to ask is, does it mean each song copied per person? like if you and i both record the same song does that count as 2 infractions?

cause if it does, that brings the potential total to a whopping:

$156,000,000,000,000,000.00

I'm pretty sure this is beyond the total value of everything either on or in the earth. 156 quadrillion USD ... now that's a shitload of money.

Re:That's $24.000.000.000 (4, Funny)

Duds (100634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348859)

Yet still not QUITE enough to buy a PS3.

What about MyFi (1)

IndyGreg (975375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348604)

Doesn't the MyFi [xmradio.com] already save content? Why doesn't the RIAA go after the manufacturer, Delphi? There is a reason [delphi.com]

And now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348612)

Next up licensing fees for every child born, god knows how many songs they might steal simply by hearing and storing them in their vast memory arrays. a child is like an ipod you know...

uninformed (-1, Offtopic)

teknow (943205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348635)

why do uninformed commments or profound replies get modded higher than technically correct ones?

Re:uninformed (1)

waferhead (557795) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348655)

You must be new here...

Re:uninformed (1)

teknow (943205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348661)

fairly new but no excuse

Re:uninformed (1)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348693)

my number's lower than your number! loser!

j/k.

trolling is almost more slashdot than slashdot is slashdot. thats just how its been for the past 6 or so years.

Re:uninformed (0, Offtopic)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348854)

I get moderator points from time to time, as I do now. And I try to take those whole whopping 5 points very seriously. Unfortunately, I can't mod in a thread I have posted in, but I do try to keep an eye out for those who actually add valuable information to a thread.

Sarcasm and trolling is always abundant. I try to use my points to help good comments rise above the rest.

Precedent case perhaps? (4, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348656)

I'd like to see how this holds up. From my understanding the RIAA has only been suing people it knows can't afford to go to court offering them "settlements" of large fines, though reduced from what they'd have to pay if they lost. Every time someone has stood up to them they've just tried to get the case dismissed.

If they're finally suing someone with an equal amount of lawyers and money, it should be an interesting legal precedent.

They're neglecting the sound quality... (5, Interesting)

weav (158099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348668)

"...Because XM makes available vast catalogues of music in every genre, XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings," the lawsuit says referring to the hand held "Inno" device.
This is similar to saying "once they have it in bad-sounding overcompressed XM format, they'll never want it in 16-bit linear". I have a hard time imagining this being the case. XM and Sirius both squish their content very hard to fit so many channels in their bitstream. If I heard something on XM and liked it, I'd probably run out and buy it on a released CD so I wouldn't have to listen to all the compression artifacts.

The war between sheet music publishers and piano roll makers, all over again...

Re:They're neglecting the sound quality... (3, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348826)

If I heard something on XM and liked it, I'd probably run out and buy it on a released CD so I wouldn't have to listen to all the compression artifacts.

I would too, except... if that CD is coming from an RIAA affiliated company, forget about it. I don't care how much I like it. No way these communist bastards get another cent from me.

This is good..... (1)

killeena (794394) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348677)

The more they sue, they stupider they look. Then more people will realize how greedy they are.

Why not target ALL broadcasters? (1)

Serzen (675979) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348701)

As a subscriber to Sirius radio, albeit it one with old hardware, I'm interested to see how this plays out, but rather doubt that the RIAA will get anywhere unless it also convinces all stereo makers to stop including a "Record" option, or include some kind of physical device to prevent the recording of over-the-air broadcasts.

I pay $13/month for the right to listen to music free of adverts. If I choose to route my receiver through the car stereo, through the A/V equipment in the living room or just through the boombox in the computer- or bedroom, I am able to. If I choose to record something being broadcast, whether it's an NFL game or an hour's worth of Channel 20 "Octane", I'm doing nothing different from those individuals who record advertisement-sponsored over-the-air radio. OTA listeners are paying by listening to the adverts; I'm paying actual MONEY.

If the RIAA doesn't wany me listening to it's content when and where I like, it should stop releasing material, and I'll be happy to keep listening to the indie artists I do listen to, and I'll be happy to go in search of others.

Next up... TiVo (1)

bazald (886779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348703)

How dare TiVo allow its users to digitally record and play back not only music, but music videos, without even paying the RIAA a dime! Not to mention the countless television shows, movies, and commercials that did not license their music to be played back whenever the viewer chooses. TiVo must burn!

This is how the Holocaust started (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15348724)

Greedy Jewish lawyers in the 1920's sued everybody and their dog in Germany. Not very well documented, for obvious reasons.

Too much cocaine and hookers (2, Insightful)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348778)

In a way it is funny that an industry that famously runs on cocaine, hookers and brown envelopes suddenly has so much respect for the law. But then what do we expect? People who have become used to inflated incomes, being able to give vent to their personality disorders, and a general lack of accountability are suddenly under threat. And they react just like any other mob, except that they use lawyers rather than guns (though if things start to go against them enough, I wouldn't bet on it.)

Despite frequent anti-lawyer postings on Slashdot (I confess, I do it too) lawyers are better than guns; they destroy greenbacks and leave people standing. Paradoxically, the RIAA is an example of why we actually need lawyers. Or would you prefer Apple HQ to be taken out by the RIAA's Somali IP department? Or downloaders to be taken out in drive-by shootings.

The business of lawyers is to be cheap enough that "businessmen" go to them rather than to hit-men, and expensive enough that "businessmen" have to be at least partly selective about who they sue.

Its not like the quality is that great... (5, Insightful)

BlueScreenOfTOM (939766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348788)

Coming from an XM Subscriber, I wouldn't WANT to record the content from the service, as it is far from CD Quality. In fact, FM sounds better in a lot of scenerios... and I've been able to tape from FM for as long as I can remember.

Despite its quality issues, I like the XM service and am sorry to hear about this. XM is in enough financial trouble, so I've read in recent articles, and I don't think they need this. I doubt the RIAA will make them go under, but this certainly can't be good for the service.

As far as the RIAA, I'm wondering what's next. I'm thinking they're going to sue Amazon for those 30-second 32kbps sample clips they have from CDs. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if some smart-ass exec at RIAA is reading this right now, and just yelped "BRILLIANT!" at the top of his lungs.

Re:Its not like the quality is that great... (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348901)

That's messup. I always assumed that the quality was good. I guess I fell to their marketing. Never actually owned the service myself. But why is the quality so poor if it is digital over satalite? I seem to remember getting okay quality audio streams via dial-up.

RIAA gone daft (1)

obnoxiousbastard (239578) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348865)

Is the RIAA on acid? They have apparently taken leave of their senses.

What is the difference between XM radio being able to store a few songs and anybody being able to make a tape with a tuner and a casette deck?

How would they stop it... (2, Insightful)

Mantrid42 (972953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348873)

So, the RIAA is angry at people producing hardware to record XM radio, right? Isn't it impossible to get rid of this hardware? I mean, the radio has to have a speaker of some kind, right? So can't you always just cut the wires going to the speaker, wire them to an audio jack, and plug that into your sound card? Theres always a way.

Sounds like the Betamax case (2, Informative)

hpcanswers (960441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348892)

According to the article, XM's device does not allow on-demand downloading, nor does it allow content transfers. Sony, a member of RIAA, should remember the results of the Betamax case [wikipedia.org] .

DVR for radio (1)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348896)

XM recorder is just a dvr for the radio. It should fall under the sony vs univseral court decision.

ignoring the market? (2, Informative)

throbi (958043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348898)

It seems that EMI, Sony-BMG, Universal Music and Warner don't give a shit about the market. The market wants downloadable/streamable quickly selectable music. The market wants to know the music before paying for it. The demand is there, get to work and satisfy it. All this lawsuit-circus is about forcing people to buy CDs. People want no more CDs. Is it so hard to understand?

As always, they're not interested in sales... (1)

RotHorseKid (239899) | more than 8 years ago | (#15348902)

or why would they otherwise sue a gadget that makes it actually possible to play the great piece of music you just heard back to the record shop assistant?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?