Print 43 comment(s) - last by vanka.. on May 19 at 6:20 PM

RIAA wants $150,000 from XM for every song that XM listeners download

The Recording Industry Association of America has now taken one of its biggest targets to court, and it's not a leader of a big underground MP3 release group. It's XM Satellite Radio. The company, which released its Inno XM2go portable XM player. The issue with the new player from XM is that it allows the user to save tunes that the service broadcasts onto the player. The RIAA says that the player infringes on copyright laws.

The RIAA is looking to charge XM $150,000 for every song that a user downloads into the player. The ironic thing is that there are systems and players out there that have been out there for decades that allow customers to copy songs that are played over traditional radio, but not truely digital to digital as with XM.  The law has allowed for such "analog loopholes" since the inventions of such devices.

For XM, the company says that while users are able to download the tunes they listen to, the songs are then stored on the portable player and users are not able to transfer the songs over as files. XM says that its download feature is not an on-demand service like Apple's iTunes, in that users can pick the songs they want when they want it. XM says that the RIAA's actions are stiffling innovation and that it will fight the lawsuit on behalf of consumers.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Shenkoa on 5/18/2006 12:21:16 AM , Rating: 5
You go XM, stick up for the consumers. Not many company's care about us anymore. As for the RIAA, I download all my music and I always will. I am not supporting a greedy bunch of fat cat ass holes like the RIAA.

RE: Greedy
By Knish on 5/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: Greedy
By Shenkoa on 5/18/2006 12:26:34 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure if they were not sued, they would of not done that lol.


RE: Greedy
By Chernobyl68 on 5/18/2006 2:07:59 AM , Rating: 2
$150,000? How the ^$^$#@ did they come up with that number? some lawyer said "hey, this sounds like a lot of money for us...."

RE: Greedy
By AlexWade on 5/18/2006 8:14:02 AM , Rating: 3
XM stopped caring about its customers a long time ago.

When the original station is being rebroadcasted and has commercials, you have to air commercials. I listen to ESPN radio on my XM, what is XM supposed to do during the commercials ESPN airs?

Fight on XM!

RE: Greedy
By Samus on 5/18/2006 1:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ditto, I make a point to download all my music illegally. When I like artists, I do what counts...go to their shows, where they actually get a respectable chunk of money.

Movies are another story, the MPAA is a bit more respectible than the RIAA, at least they don't sue children...then again not many children download movies ;)

I like going to movies though, but I also copy most of my netflix's.

RE: Greedy
By THEREALJMAN73 on 5/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: Greedy
By dgingeri on 5/18/2006 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 4
I love how some people justify theft.

Stealing is stealing.

Yeah, and the RIAA and MPAA are stealing from the artists, the customers, and innocent by-standers (remember the 83 year old woman who didn't even have a computer getting sued for downloading rap and hard rock music?)

They need to be stopped.

RE: Greedy
By PLaYaHaTeD on 5/18/2006 12:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
I love how some people justify theft.

Stealing is stealing.

If you werent so high up on that horse, you would be able to see what is really going on. You are a lemming, ready to jump off the cliff that corporations have created especially for you.

RE: Greedy
By bldckstark on 5/18/2006 1:33:35 PM , Rating: 1
They don't justify it. It is stealing, and they don't care. What exactly do you believe downloaders are thinking. This is not stealing even though I am getting something for "Free" when it is an object that I am supposed to purchase? EVERYBODY knows it is stealing. They just don't care. If you want to complain about the 80% of people who have downloaded something, then mabye you could work on creating a little bit taller soap box and whining about the downward spiral of American teen ethics, except that people all over the world and all ages do it too, so that also won't work. Hmmmm.... When the music industry goes broke from all the idiotic mistakes they are making now, then they will realize they need a new business model, and maybe then people will start buying again. Either that or another company will find a way to make money at music and they will be out of business anyway.

RE: Greedy
By dgingeri on 5/18/2006 10:56:22 AM , Rating: 2
Ditto, I make a point to download all my music illegally. When I like artists, I do what counts...go to their shows, where they actually get a respectable chunk of money.

actually, they rarely get much from this either. most get more money from a single endorsement than all their albums combined. Most get maybe a couple hundred dollars per show and only use the concerts to promote their albums, where they get $2-3 per copy, but more importantly, promote their celebrity status so that they can get more product endorsements and interviews, where they get the majority of their money. Britney Spears is making more now off 2-3 year old pictures and endorsements than she ever made from her albums.

my god!
By SEAWOLF607 on 5/18/2006 12:17:52 AM , Rating: 5
Someone cap the RIAA they are the biggest group of retards ever concieved.

RE: my god!
By mac2j on 5/18/2006 3:32:26 AM , Rating: 5
Someone cap the RIAA they are the biggest group of retards ever concieved.

Seriously I would gladly join the angry mob with torches and burn the RIAA and MPAA to the ground.

RE: my god!
By dgingeri on 5/18/2006 10:52:16 AM , Rating: 5
Seriously I would gladly join the angry mob with torches and burn the RIAA and MPAA to the ground.

I would be there too.

RE: my god!
By vanka on 5/19/2006 6:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously I would gladly join the angry mob with torches and burn the RIAA and MPAA to the ground.

<p>I am so there, what time was it again? Can my AK come too?
<p>Seriously though, how greedy can you get? The players have no-copy locks and are not on demand, WTF? Plus $150,000 for every song "downloaded" (it's not a download when you record a song from the radio) while iTunes charges $0.99 per song. I'm usually a nice guy who doesn't like to swear, but the RIAA really pisses me off. Stuff like this from the RIAA is the reason I haven't bought a CD in over 3 years.

Stop Buying Music for a week.
By Scorch968 on 5/18/2006 5:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how the record companies would react and what effect it would have on RIAA if people just stopped buying music for a week. I'm not saying the hurting the artist is the solution. But when the RIAA steps in front of innovation I see a problem. XM purchased the rights to distribute the music digitally and subscribers pay a fee for the right. I suppose the lawsuit is really over the delivery methodology. The fact that you can store the music on a locked down player somehow infracts upon the so called law and the RIAA's code of ethics (rhetorical). I suppose there is a possibility that the device could be hacked, but so could the head unit in cars. Maybe starting at sales is the only thing that will affect the RIAA. I see the RIAA in the same light as I do the IRS. They have a purpose, but they alrso have to make money. When purpose no longer is useful it must be created to make money. Hence these rediculous allogations and lawsuits.

RE: Stop Buying Music for a week.
By powerincarnate on 5/18/2006 7:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'll make one comment. Agree or disagree if you want.

One thing I've learned as I grew older is that there are people out there that simply have a certain belief no matter how evil or wrong, or harm that it causes. That's why it is in some ways stupid to hear things like, how could people align with hitler, or How could people actually allow the slave trade or slavery to happen, or how could people allow the mass killing that leads to near extinction of a group of people.

The fact remains, when these events are happening there are people out there who thinks it is the right thing to do, or a necessary evil. Years later, decades later, centuries later, milleniums later, we get apologies, people ashamed, people wondering how could people be so wrong.

Well, it happens all the time now. There are those out there who thinks that a group of countries, mostly European or european derived should be the only ones allowed to own nuclear weapons and "protect" the others. It's funny how the onese suppose to do the protecting is the ones most responsible for past wars and crimes. Instead of No Nuclear weapons, we get a ok some could the rest can't and we'll beat the crap out of any of the one's who can't who might have even a slight intention of potentially get it themselves. History will prove the Iraq war and it's bloddy aftermath as wrong and we'll get the same How could we allow it to happen.

Potential Domestic spying, Tax cut for the rich, simply allowing such a large disparity in wealth (one person worth 50 billion while millions struggle for food in your own country), installing puppet governments that destabilize the growth of other countries, Closing one border while another border to the north is open and people can come in and out as they please with just a license (racist, prejudice, and discrimmatory immigration related actions have always occured even among european groups and looking back 100, 150, 200 years later, we always look at these actions as wrong and history will again be the same 100 years from now). Putting japanese men in concentration camps while Germans, Italians didn't have the same level of treatment (match that with the current treatment of Arab or middle eastern people and/or their religion).

People may not be able to see it now, they might not be able to see it as it is happening, but look how fast Vietnam became a mistake, There are current mistakes happening as we speak, it's almost everyday you hear another one. It's to bad this country is split nearly in half often clingling to strongly to one group or antother without being an individual. And by that I'm including Some mistakes from both conservatives and librals, Left and Right. In my opinion you should always be an independent and you decide on whom to align with base on the person's ideals and ability to govern and allow freedom to persist. As history showed, One party can change it's stance over time and therefore the name of the party isn't what matters, It's where they stand politically and thefore the actions they cause and allow to cause is what ultimately matter.

take this and apply it to non governmental entities as well, apply it to clear channel, RIAA, Microsoft, anything you want and decide whether you "trully" think they are wrong or evil or whether it is simply people on the wrong side of the spectrum complaining. (ie.. One can say Guns kill and should be banned, while another person on the other side of the spectrum may say, gun allows sport, protection, food (hunting) and that People kill and the gun is just the tool.

RE: Stop Buying Music for a week.
By igloo15 on 5/19/2006 12:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
Hey I liked your post I read it all the way through the beginning and ending were good as they seemed unbias. Your middle was extremely bias but hey what can you do. As far as there is no evil side as each side feels justified in their own ways I agree.

RE: Stop Buying Music for a week.
By PurdueRy on 5/19/2006 3:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
Marx would love you.

Guess you don't understand capatalism

RIAA will probably die eventually
By ninjit on 5/18/2006 4:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
Outside of the really big popular ones, most artists don't make a lot of money on record sales, they earn their keep through shows.

With music going digital, I'm guessing the smart ones will simply release all their music via the web for free. People will download it, listen to it, it'll get air play, and if it's good people will go see their live shows. If it's bad, it won't get passed around so much, and people won't go see the shows - prompting artists to actually improve their work.
Heck, they could use transfer statistics to gauge how popular their music is, and if it's even worth bothering to organize live shows until they get a song that does well.

Free market conditions at its best.

RE: RIAA will probably die eventually
By Samus on 5/18/2006 5:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
die? they're still a 15B USD grossing organization annually. that's a shiznizzleload of dough.

By Scrogneugneu on 5/18/2006 8:46:07 PM , Rating: 3
But they're losing so much money to piracy... aren't they?

By WileCoyote on 5/18/2006 12:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
I've been mum about RIAA's crackdowns but IMO this crossed a line. I don't think it can get much worse than this.

RE: wow
By tk109 on 5/18/2006 12:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
Sure it can.... and will when the RIAA starts sueing the Grandmas and little girls who have music recorded on their portable XM players. ;)

RE: wow
By Hypernova on 5/18/2006 1:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
And don't forget the dead ones too.

Thats alotta money
By PrimarchLion on 5/18/2006 3:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the RIAA would win a few cases if they were alittle more reasonable. $150000 per song downloaded! Take it below $100 and maybe they'd have a chance. I don't know how many people own this portable player, but this must add up to at least 10's of millions of dollars (probably a lot more). I know if I owned one of those and was paying for the service, i'd probably be downloading every song I listened too.

RE: Thats alotta money
By PrinceGaz on 5/18/2006 5:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's a helluva lotta money!

I've no idea how many of those devices they've sold but I'll take a wild guess and say 100,000 have been purchased in total (it could be a lot more). If an average user has a hundred tracks they've downloaded from XM, that's a total of 10 million downloads. At $150,000 each, the total amount of money XM would have to pay is a staggering $1.5 trillion (1500 billion dollars). Now that's a lotta money!

RE: Thats alotta money
By vanka on 5/19/2006 6:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
These are not downloads! With a download you can download a 5 minute song in 15 seconds (assuming you are not a primative on dial-up). The players that XM is selling are recorders , like those old tapes you used to have. Here instead of recording to a tape, you record to some digital media. Last time I checked this was legal, or those Tivo users should expect a call from the MPAA. It appears that XM tried to cover their asses by insuring that the recorded songs are playable only on the player that recorded them, but that's not enough for the RIAA a$$holes.

By Scott66 on 5/18/2006 1:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
I was under the impression that radio stations did not pay for the music they play as it is in the record companies best interest to get the airplay so they can sell more records?

Please either confirm or correct my assumption.

By PT2006 on 5/18/2006 2:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
They buy license packs, basically "Top 40" material from the labels. The labels let them play the music for X months or so after which I think they have to purchase the rights to indivdual tracks.

So very outdated
By probedb on 5/18/2006 5:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
It just shows that large corporations cannot adapt to changing technology unless they're prepared to. I mean do they still expect us to be buying CDs in 2050? I think not. I buy CDs when I like the music, usually from the cheapest seller I can find. I like the physical product too, Tool's latest album is a good example of what a CD case should be.

Until the day arrives where I can buy lossless downloads online with the freedom for me to do with what I please (within reason) and download high quality artwork I will never touch an online music store. Ironically after their Napster incident Metallica now have one of the best, their live music site allows either MP3 or FLAC downloads with artwork for each show!

RE: So very outdated
By Samus on 5/18/2006 5:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
lol, funny you mention that, I bought 10,000 days just because it looked spiffy.

RIAA find a new source of income
By breethon on 5/18/2006 12:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
You whining bunch of sissies. You know how a company goes belly up? Not changing with the times! The RIAA is on its way out and they are trying every last ditch effort to keep above water. It is funny to see such a corrupt organization go down the tubes! I bite my thumb at you, and fart in your general direction! All I can say to the RIAA....burn baby burn! HA HA.

By INeedCache on 5/18/2006 2:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
I heard they were considering lawsuits against anyone they catch even humming a tune.

RIAA Sucks -- here's to hoping...
By Bull Dog on 5/18/2006 12:39:31 AM , Rating: 2
Here's to hoping that a decent self respecting judge throws the RIAA out of court so hard that bones grind.

By Scrogneugneu on 5/18/2006 12:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
Are they kind of trying to create a new iTunes, but with a 150 000 times higher price? And on top of that, the user doesn't pay, it's the provider that pays?

I wonder if we could do something against them. Other than boycott, as they use that as numbers for money lost due to piracy. Some weird law has to exists. How is it called, psychological harassment? What if 2 million people were intending a lawsuit against them for that?

I mean, even if we lose, it would still be funny, and would stay forever in history... as well as costing very little to everyone (1$ per person = 2 millions to pay lawyers).

Its about control
By stmok on 5/18/2006 1:20:50 AM , Rating: 2
...Because Control = Profit

RIAA wants the CD sales model back, as its the most profitable. It wants to kill all other forms of distribution that it does NOT control. The last few years tells us that the RIAA has become a desperate buffon. (We don't need to use "greedy", because its the RIAA, its a given.) :-)

By Creig on 5/18/2006 7:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if maybe the lawyers formerly retained by the SCO are now employed by the RIAA. Their "sue anybody and everybody we can think of" strategies seem to be about the same.

By ThisSpaceForRent on 5/18/2006 8:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
Let's all start a class action lawsuit and we'll sue them for a million billion dollars. I'm not sure how they think they can get away with this.

Since you pay a monthly fee to use XM, and the users can't redistribute the music. XM could always claim that users have a "license" to use the music on their players. I want to hear the words summary judgement in favor of XM if this crap goes to court.

I also sit at home all day and make copies of all of Metallica's albums, and give them away for free. Ooooo can you feel the sting from that.

By Stormspace on 5/18/2006 10:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
"RIAA wants $150,000 from XM for every song that XM listeners download." -- ????!

This has NOTHING to do with downloading unless you are in bed with the RIAA and using their terminology to sway opinion. This is about recording over the air songs onto a device no different than a portable tape recorder. The only difference is that you have to pay to listen to the broadcast. Do you pay to use your VCR with HBO? It's no different, and to imply that these recordign equate to Downloads is idiotic and ignorant of the facts.

this is a good thing...
By SunAngel on 5/18/2006 3:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Most people have no idea of who the RIAA is. For us lonely pirates trading over P2P we already know who they are. But now, the general public will know them. Many automobile manufacturers integrate XM with car stereo, albeit an add-on package. But still, this definitely should give the RIAA negative press. Maybe for once downloading, or maybe even trading, music will be viewed in a different light and not always considered stealing.

As usual the outcome of this probably will be XM downloads will be DRMed or have a broadcast flag limiting copying and internet distribution. I for one don't mind it because even though free radio is heavily commercialed, XM and Sirius have their fair share of commercials also. So, if I have to take 14 inches (metaphor for the current price of monthly XM subscription) up the rear, I might as well do it for free and copy and distribute free radio.

By 8steve8 on 5/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: hi
By PurdueRy on 5/18/2006 12:42:33 PM , Rating: 5
1. That is not a loophole around copyright infringement. Please show me where it says that only a 1:1 digital copy counts as copyright infringement

2. If you would have READ the news story you would see that you cannot get the songs that are recorded off the player.

3. Yes, I am sure the RIAA is having a hard time keeping its head above the water with all those contracts it gives to artists that don't return anything...that's why its a multi-billion dollar profit company.

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki