Print 33 comment(s) - last by Ytsejamer1.. on May 23 at 10:08 AM

XM will not concede to the RIAA quietly

DailyTech earlier reported that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is planning to sue XM radio over the use of the Pioneer Inno XM2go portable XM player.  Users with the device from Pioneer are able to save music files that XM broadcasts onto the player -- the RIAA claims that the device infringes on copyright laws, and the organization should get higher music licensing fees. 

XM recently published a letter to its users claiming "They [The RIAA] don't get it. These devices are clearly legal. Consumers have enjoyed the right to tape off the air for their personal use for decades, from reel-to-reel and the cassette to the VCR and TiVo."

The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has also spoken out against the lawsuit by the RIAA.  Michael Petricone, Vice President of Government Affairs for the CEA took time to protect the rights of XM allowing users to have a device like the Pioneer Inno.

Comments     Threshold

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

By ksherman on 5/21/2006 3:49:45 PM , Rating: 4
so the RIAA might loose? wouldnt that be a blow to their ego...

RE: wait
By AndreasM on 5/21/2006 4:01:09 PM , Rating: 3
Hopefully that would losen their stranglehold on the music business.


RE: wait
By PurdueRy on 5/21/2006 4:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's gonna be too subtle for him to pick up on ;)

RE: wait
By Deinonych on 5/21/2006 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well played, sir. =)

RE: wait
By bob661 on 5/21/2006 11:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nice! LOL!

RE: wait
By latrosicarius on 5/21/2006 7:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
They should lose and have all of their court victories overturned b/c they are a bunch of asshats. I used to BUY my CDs. Now i think everyone should boycott them and pirate just to get them back

RE: wait
By Christopher1 on 5/21/2006 8:35:29 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I wouldn't go THAT far to say people should pirate music. But I was looking at the prices for music CD's, and they have actually gone UP in recent years.

That doesn't make sense to me. I paid about $10 a disc 15 years ago for a CD, now they are $15 apiece? That doesn't make sense, they have gotten their money back for:

1. The manufacturing lines.
2. The manufacturing equipment.
3. The original outlay to research CD tech.

What is the reason for the prices still being so high? Even if they were paying artists 1 mil a song (which they AREN'T), with all the CD's that are sold they make their money back and then some.

RE: wait
By jtesoro on 5/21/2006 9:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
I read somewhere that the reason they still raise prices is that there is a huge number of people who will buy CDs regardless of price (within certain bounds of course). So for someone who wants the latest Madonna CD, they'll get it whether it costs $10 or $15.

While this doesn't apply to me, it apparently does to a lot of others. The math works out such that music publishers get more revenue since the higher price more than makes up for the reduction in CD buyers.

RE: wait
By Wonga on 5/22/2006 7:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
Are sure sure they've gone up? I'm actually quite pleased with the prices of CDs these days. Most new stuff is £10 for about 16 tracks and only about £3-6 for older stuff. I'm sure it used to cost more than that. Maybe it's just the outrageous cost of music downloads (at 79p a track wherever you go - more than a CD!), which I think really qualifies as outrageous since the record companies are saving more money there and charging more, but CDs actually seem quite cheap. You get the highest quality sound too for that, a backup already made for you, and you can convert it to a nice DRM-free format for your MP3 player.

RE: wait
By Ytsejamer1 on 5/23/2006 10:08:54 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that the record companies take the costs of producing and printing an album, it's packageing, the $$ fronted to the artist, the artwork, etc out of the ARTISTS pocket after all is said and done. SO....if the artist is successful, the record company recoups its expenses FROM the artist small percentage and continues to make the lion's share of the profit from each album sold. Pretty good deal.

They are at risk if the album flops completely...they'll never recoup that money, but the artist is still on the hook for all costs until that money has been paid. So they may never see a cent if the album flops...yet still sells more than 50,000 copies.

Time Shifting
By techntoons on 5/21/2006 9:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
The way I understand it, is that XM has not purchased the rights for timeshifting the music. I have used and I know that on the site you can only skip to the next song only so many times in an hour. This is due to the rights they have to the music.
If this is correct, and XM does not own the rights, then it won't be very good news for them in the end. I agree that the RIAA is spending way to much time in court for the stupidest reasons. They need to learn to give the fans what they want and not deny them rights.

Bryan Henry

RE: Time Shifting
By jtesoro on 5/21/2006 10:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
All this licensing stuff and giving rights to use things only one way and not another is going too far. HDCP to limit full res video only to "authorized" displays... Record or not record hi-def TV... Philips' anti commercial skip... And now this thing with Pandora and XM.

What's next, we'll need to pay licenses to use our PCs for downloading files off the internet? Oh, and how about licenses to play certain types of games?

"New DELL dual core notebook for only $299. Includes license to play FPS games!

- RPG games license $90
- Racing games license $50
- Internet browsing license $100
- Productivity apps license $200

Bonus: You can use Notepad and Calc for free!!"

RE: Time Shifting
By WileCoyote on 5/22/2006 12:24:56 AM , Rating: 2
That's a scary thought but at least in your scenario you can "own" pc software unlike purchased digital music. If software publishers followed the music industry's model I would expect stuff like:

-limiting use of a program to X amount of times after which you have to pay for another X uses. If you don't pay then the program is removed or permanently disabled.

-software requiring montly subscription payment. As soon as you end the subscription the software is removed or permanently disabled.

RE: Time Shifting
By jtesoro on 5/22/2006 5:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, what you say is true for a lot of enterprise / corporate applications already. It's very annoying (and expensive) when software our company "bought" requires us to pay hefty licensing fees every year. I'd much prefer the one time purchase model with a maintenance agreement in place.

I don't recall what it's like for Oracle, SAP and the like, but we try to steer clear if we encounter vendors who pushes the licensing model even though we ask for custom-built software (where the IP should be ours).

RE: Time Shifting
By bob661 on 5/22/2006 12:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
The way I understand it, is that XM has not purchased the rights for timeshifting the music
One doesn't need "rights" to record music off the radio and that's a free service. Why does one need "rights" to record from a pay service?

RE: Time Shifting
By techntoons on 5/22/2006 12:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is that radio is not encouraging you to record music. You can do it but the radio can not provide you with easy methods.
This makes it the listeners responsibile to act within the law. XM has decided to give its customers the ability at no extra cost. Why pay money for a song when you can use your existing service from XM to have them all for free.
I still don't link the whole idea but this is the way the music industry has it set up at the moment.

Bryan Henry

RE: Time Shifting
By jtesoro on 5/22/2006 5:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
How about radios with casette recorders? I think that was considered an "easy method" in it's day. Were manufacturers required to pay licenses then?

Greedy B's
By JumpingJack on 5/21/2006 4:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
What greedy buttheads.... going after pirates is ok, I understand the idea there, but a business simply legally broadcasting a service.... common guys, don't get greedy. The business is doing billions annually.....

RE: Greedy B's
By meepstone on 5/21/2006 4:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
I dont see how the RIAA thinks its illegal, everyone pays for XM. People dont pay for local radio stations and record and they dont have a problem with that? But when people pay for their music and record it they still cry?

RE: Greedy B's
By bpurkapi on 5/21/2006 4:47:28 PM , Rating: 5
Pirates are only an excuse for what the RIAA is doing, just like terrorists are an excuse to steal your rights. They are both problematic and I realize this, I am no idealist, but as the saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." The RIAA will start out going after pirates but eventually greed and power propel them to start doing things that are by all means retarded and detrimental to everyone.

RE: Greedy B's
By Inkjammer on 5/21/2006 5:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
I can only imagine that it's a matter of time before the RIAA demands exit interviews when you purchase your music, and requiring consumers to sign agreements upon purchase, like a software NDA.

"You agree to listen to the media only upon the original format and method of music transporation the audio was purchased on. You will not copy, burn, rip, pod..."

It seems like the RIAA's next move.

RE: Greedy B's
By Live on 5/21/2006 5:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
don't get greedy

A bit too late for that...

What about Sirius?
By zombiexl on 5/21/2006 9:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have XM and Sirius and they both provide similar devides to do this.

Wonder why the RIAA is ignoring Sirius? Sirius is moving up and XM is quicky losing its leadership position in the industry.

Unless maybe the RIAA is afraid of Stern :)

RE: What about Sirius?
By 2uantuM on 5/21/2006 10:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think they should be more worried about O&A and their pests.

RE: What about Sirius?
By Devil Bunny on 5/22/2006 12:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well, they have done this to Sirius, but since their alot smaller than XM it didn't have alot of news coverage. I think it still might be going on in court to.

RE: What about Sirius?
By bombledmonk on 5/22/2006 2:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
They've signed contracts with Sirius to allow recording. But in reality it was more like Sirius didn't have the resources to fight back.

RE: What about Sirius?
By zombiexl on 5/22/2006 11:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is that this could be what finally breaks XM.
I wonder if my cable company has to pay more when i timeshift or record content? If the RIAA wins this, what's next?

By OrSin on 5/22/2006 8:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
The radio is not the same as XM. The key difference is that XM is digital. Therefore you can make a perfect copy. We all know how bad a radio recording is. I still don;t agree with the Bloodsuckers. That why thier are so many protection in thia day and ago. When everything was analog no one cared if you copied it becasue the copy was bad and the copy of the copy was even worst. But with ditigal every copy is just like the orginal. I can see the problem just donlt agree with the solution.

RE: Digital
By Griswold on 5/22/2006 8:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
But, you didnt think XM is the only way to record digital broadcast, did you?

RE: Digital
By zombiexl on 5/22/2006 11:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
SO then when HD radio gets bigger, then we should see these stations being sued too? Or would it be the companies that will make the DAR's (Digital Audio Recorder's)?

The point is that this is a freakin joke. I can *maybe* understand downloading music in a lossless format being frowned upon, but do you seriously believe that the signal XM and Sirius send out is uncompressed bit level complete?

Oh and there is software that you can use to record sat radio.

By breethon on 5/21/2006 8:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
I am thinking about signing up for XM radio and getting this deck just out of spite. Once again, I bite my thumb at you RIAA and fart in your general direction - Monty Python!

my thought....
By Souka on 5/22/2006 9:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
WIth only reading the article's title....this is what came to mind....

[b]XM Issues Statement About RIAA Lawsuit: "GFY"[/b]

nuff said


By plowboy1 on 5/22/2006 9:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, about 95% of people think the RIAA are a bunch of screws that should be. Why then did Diane Fienstein, Lindset Graham and Bill Frist right the PERFORM ACT to give the RIAA exactly what they want ?

Their greased..... that's why. Obviously these people ( who you should contact ) are getting paid more by the RIAA than their respect for the will of the people.

Elected Officals..take note. Reasons like this is why American's disrespect the Congress with a 16 % approval rating. CONGRESS doesn't get it !

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins
Related Articles
RIAA Sues XM Satellite Radio
May 18, 2006, 12:01 AM

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