Posted on 05/18/2006 12:29:43 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recording industry sued XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (XMSR) on Tuesday over its new iPod-like device that can store up to 50 hours of music for a monthly fee, sending to the courts a roiling dispute over how consumers can legally record songs using next-generation radio services.
The federal lawsuit, filed in New York by the largest labels, accuses XM Satellite of "massive wholesale infringement" because its $400 handheld "Inno" device can record hours of music and automatically parse recordings by song and artist. The device is sold under the slogan, "Hear it, click it, save it."
The lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages for every song copied by XM Satellite customers using the devices, which went on sale weeks ago. The company said it plays 160,000 different songs every month.
XM Satellite has balked at the industry's efforts to collect expensive distribution licenses similar to those required for Internet downloading services, such as Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) iTunes. Its chief rival, Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (SIRI), already has agreed to pay for such licenses to cover similar gadgets for its service.
XM Satellite's chairman, Gary Parsons, previously said requiring such licenses - in addition to broader performance licenses the company already pays - would represent "a new tax being imposed on our subscribers."
XM Satellite has compared its new device to a high-tech videocassette recorder, which consumers can legally use to record programs for their personal use. It also noted that songs stored on the device from its broadcasts can't be copied and can only be played for as long as a customer subscribes to its service.
The head of the music industry's trade group said the XM Satellite device is legally indistinguishable from iPods and other portable music players that work with downloading services.
"Yahoo, Rhapsody, iTunes and Napster all have licenses," said Mitch Bainwol, chief executive for the Recording Industry Association of America. "There's no reason XM shouldn't as well."
XM subscribers pay $12.95 a month to listen to more than 170 channels of entertainment, sports and news programs, including 69 channels of different music genres without commercials.
Looks that way to me.....now I really must quit....
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... WHAT? Oh, good night!
P2P is free. And you don't support the industry that made N'Sync a household name.
Has nothing to do with the iPod except that the music industry wants to classify the XM device in the same category as an MP3 player.
iPods and other MP3 players work by allowing a person to transport and use their digitally encoded music.
XM's device however records a stream, parses the songs into discrete units out of the stream, and does not represent a users right to play music which they own the license to. XM maintains the license for the music and already pays the record labels their share.
This is another play by the record labels for a piece of someone else's pie. XM's device exists in a different market than the iPod and iTunes. It is essentially a replay device, similar to having an audio Tivo.
P2P is alright. Occasionally I'll download a song to check it out, but if I really like it I go to the iTunes store and check out the album, and if I like the album I buy it. As it is, the majority of my digital music is digitally converted from CDs, and this is unlikely to change because there really isn't much in the way of new, good music coming out. The last good year for music must've been 2002. Lot of trash since then.
But if you like music, and you download it for free and never buy a legal copy... Why not send a dollar per song directly to the artist? It is obvious that most of the country/world has poor taste in music, and by not buying music yourself, you're taking your market vote out of the pool, and letting the pop culture/media babies who do buy music decide which music gets produced. Thereby ensuring that there is less and less good, new music in the world.
Remember that it's not the "music industry" - they make no music, never have, never will. What they are is the "metalized plastic disc industry".
True enough. But those plastic magnates own the rights to license music, on top of making lots of metalized plastic discs.
Properly characterized, they're probably best called the "music licensing industry," as that's what they're really doing.
All the same record labels play an important part in the creative process in their industry. They shoulder the brunt of the risk when taking on new talent, and make possible a lot of the music we buy (or don't buy).
It is possible though that artist utilization of the Internet will drive down the cost involved in launching new talent, and thus enabling smaller labels and independent artists to gain the same notoriety and wealth of the big label artists. Distribution being key to the formula.
Ironically, record labels make more per sale of a single song via the iTunes music store than oil companies make on the sale of a gallon of gasoline.
In a nutshell. Well said.
At first glance, it appears to me the RIAA has gone too far on this one.
Dream on, even if they do win. $150K is the max statutory damages for willful infringement. It is almost never awarded even for direct infringement, much less the contributory infringement claimed here. Playboy went after a blatant, direct infringer (no question of fair use whatsoever) for the then non-willful $20,000 max, and only got $5,000 each for a total of $310,000. That was enough to ruin the guy.
The court only awards what it thinks will teach the defendant a lesson. Sorry, RIAA, you can forget $2.4 billion for a month's airplay, even if you do win.
Dish network has a similar device.. bet they are next.
RIAA is a bunch of mobsters...
RIAA once again demonstrates their stupidity in thinking that lawyers can keep technology at bay.
Now that ain't right!
You're not serious, are you?
All we've gotten from the plastic disc industry in the last twenty years are assembly line hip-hop, boy band-girl singer pop, and country hat acts.
And of course their frantic legislative efforts to ensure that none of the dollars saved by going to digital distribution go to either musicians or consumers.
I'm deadly serious, or perhaps you haven't tried to launch a record without a label to back you.
I never claimed that the labels were ethical. I just stated that fact that they shoulder the brunt of the risk involved in launching new talent. And the quality of the music determined by the success of the music, which is determined by consumers. Nobody forces anybody to buy music or turn on the radio to a music station.
Well I guess the labels do play an "important part in the creative process", in much the same way as Osama played an important part in the redevelopment of lower Manhattan.
In relation to this story the video part is handled by On2 (ONT) which currently trades at about $0.80 a share. On2 has the best compression software on the market.
SP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.