May 17, 2006 4:57 AM PDT

Labels sue XM over music-storing 'mothership'

RIAA says Inno device infringes copyrights, turns passive radio experience into free iTunes-like service.
Photos: XM's hybrid radio and MP3 players
Photos: Sirius previews its wearable radio

The story "Labels sue XM over music-storing 'mothership'" published May 17, 2006 at 4:57 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

26 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
People...
...pay attention. The RIAA is just evil. I am a composer/producer/songwriter/performer. They don't represent me and they definitly don't represent consumers. They are trying to remove rights we've had since the advent of radio.
Posted by Chevaliermusic (72 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The music labels are trying...
>"The music labels are trying to stifle innovation, limit consumer choice and roll back consumers' rights to record content for their personal use," XM added.<

Well put. There is no limit to their greed.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RIAA just doesn't get it
Doesn't the RIAA realize that the more people listen to radio, then the better chance they have of selling more CDs or digital downloads. How often have people heard a song on the radio and liked it so much that they want to buy the CD or the song? With satellite radio, it makes that even more likely to happen because the listener can see exactly who the artist is and the song title.
Posted by Juster444 (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
no I think you don't get it
I'm against the RIAA on every known level, plus a few that don't exist, but you're the one missing the point here. If your radio records every song you hear and like, what's to motivate you to go buy the CD?
Yes, this overlooks a whole lot of points, but the RIAA's fear is that the growing number of people who purchase only the hit song from an artist as an MP3 download will stop buying.
They have a point, but those are barely customers in the first place.
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Link Flag
no I think you don't get it
I'm against the RIAA on every known level, plus a few that don't exist, but you're the one missing the point here. If your radio records every song you hear and like, what's to motivate you to go buy the CD?
Yes, this overlooks a whole lot of points, but the RIAA's fear is that the growing number of people who purchase only the hit song from an artist as an MP3 download will stop buying.
They have a point, but those are barely customers in the first place.
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Link Flag
steal music = bad; pay for music = bad
i hope XM can successfully battle these greedy bastards. I love the fact that XM is fighting them instead of tucking their tails like sirius did. someone has to knock the RIAA down a peg or two. they can't expect consumers to shell out thousands of dollars just to 'own' music for a few years until the next magic format comes around to make mp3's and CD's 100% obsolete.
Posted by jeffhesser (102 comments )
Reply Link Flag
People are not buying music...
because they are pissed at the RIAA and the industry for big huge bullies that do not allow them to use products they already purchased. The Movie industry is just as concerned, but they learned the RIAA lession and are trying to keep up with customer wants and technology.

You don't want to buy pencils from the bully that just stole your lunch money...
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I buy music ...
... to the tune of a min. of U.S.$50/mo. Much of what I buy, however, is published on independent labels. I'm also a musician who is working very hard to promote a band and its CD, so I do see how the blade cuts.
Posted by Trane Francks (936 comments )
Link Flag
If this is copyright infringement...
If this is copyright infringement, then radios that record to cassettes are even more so. You must take the device with you, unlike radio/cassette players (which allow to just take the cassette). This is less of a copyright infringement than what was argued in the famous Betamax Supreme Court case.

The RIAA (and Creative) need to shut the f*** up and let American companies innovate.
Posted by Verlth (24 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I think XM stands a good chance of winning this thing...
Anyone else think this could be the beginning of the end for the RIAA's bullying tactics? I think XM stands a great chance of winning this thing.

For one, XM is the single biggest radio licensee in America. Bigger even than Clear Channel and Infinity.

Secondly, XM is backed by General Motors and Honda, so they're not some little startup who'll cave under the slightest pressure.

Thirdly, XM controls nearly 9 million of the RIAA's best potential customers... people who actually want to pay to hear great music and are as passionate about the service as Apple fanatics.

I think even if the RIAA wins, it will wind up losing in the form of pissed-off XM listeners, listeners who will proceed to wage war on everything RIAA.
Posted by UnnDunn (55 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Why they will win...
If memory serves, this is not too different of a case than when Sony was sued over their VCRs. Who will pay to buy a movie if they can get it off TV? Simple, those who want a better quality copy. The same goes for something like XM as it's sound quality really isn't so hot.
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Link Flag
Ok...
If XM does have the license to play the music over their network, then the RIAA has no case. Not only does the license give XM the right to broadcast, but the Sony case gives consumers the right to record the broadcast. If the court rules in favor of the RIAA, it would overrule the Sony case and probably most copyright laws in favor of the copyright holder. There is no way any judge in his right mind would allow that, so of course XM would win.
Posted by aka_tripleB (2211 comments )
Link Flag
Holy Cow!
"The suit accuses XM Satellite of "massive wholesale infringement" and seeks $150,000 in damages for every song copied by XM customers using the devices, which went on sale earlier this month"

That is just mind boggling!
I'd love to see XM sue the pants off of them after they win this suit. The amount to be the amount above for each of their customers.
Posted by Sboston (498 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Music industry Luddites just don't get it
Once again the industry representives are completely out of touch with consumers and the evolution of the market.

Hats off to XM and Sirius for providing a nation wide platform for a vast array of musicians and talent.

The RIA has is a dinasaur.

XM needs to prevail in this case.
Posted by dmz55 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
I agree
this is usually what i do. It lets me filter the trash that they generally produce.
Posted by volterwd (466 comments )
Reply Link Flag
pay the labels
the RIAA is only trying to protect the rights of musicians as well as their own rights to profit as the producers of this music that they brought to market and distributed.

they need to be paid for their services and compensated for their investments in the artists they represent. pay the music labels so the artists can get paid!
Posted by bob blob (118 comments )
Reply Link Flag
hehe! That's pretty funny...
Good joke though.
Posted by bobby_brady (765 comments )
Link Flag
They DO GET PAID!!
Otherwise they would not be able to broadcast it.

They're just seeing a massive drop in 'cd' sales because everyone is now buying .99 digital files of their favorite songs instead of $16+ for the whole cd. And, they want to pin XM into a 'better' contract.

I agree with the previous comment, I have purchase more music I hear BECAUSE of products such as XM and Real Rhapsody because I can easily see the artist, album and song title. Why don't they understand this?

This suit is also flimsy becuase anyone can tell that nothing sounds 'as good' as a CD. While MP3s and sat. may come close. It is still massively compressed and suffers some degree of guality loss.

I hope XM doesn't have to waste too much money on court fees for this.... I'd rather see their money go towards content and sat. bandwidth.
Posted by briancgraham (9 comments )
Link Flag
pay the artists (pot calling kettle black?)
Sounds reasonable enough. Of course fair play would require that the RIAA pay $150,000 for each incident on each song where royalties have not been paid with 100% accuracy based on the musicians definition of sales, not the RIAA's fake accounting. This money could be put into a superfund to support healthcare and retirement benefits for musicians.
Because we are only looking out for the good of the musicians after all, right? Right? Hello?
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Link Flag
Moot issue
Noone in their right mind would use this device to record music instead of buying tracks from iTunes or on CD. I did some research into the PC XM receiver which can be used with PVR software to build a library of songs on your computer's hard drive in MP3 format. It turned out that XM music is only available in low bandwidth which is much lower quality than most MP3s and vastly lower quality than CDs. In addition, XM cross fades their songs and talks over lead ins which makes recording songs from XM about as dumb as recording songs from analog radio. At least the PC PVR solution can record almost unlimited amounts of music. This XM player only records 50 hours worth. Frankly it is more usefull for recording your favorite talk shows than it is for music.
Posted by grangerfx (41 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Are You Kidding Me?
XM is a radio broadcast, just like AM or FM radio. It transmits using the same air, the same RF spectrum as does normal radio only different frequencies.

Next you're going to tell me you can't record an FM broadcast.

While we're at it, let's just get rid of CDs and DVDs totally. Let's make music available only on the AM/FM channels and movies only available in theaters. We obviously can't be trusted owning ANYTHING according the the RIAA and MPAA.

This is revolting
Posted by jdscardino (22 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Is this King Canute's reincarnation?
Most interesting concept, since all broadcasters are required to pay a basic airplay music royalty fee!!!

What's next, sue all PC makers from Dell , to the corner store, for retailing computers capable of imitating 'Inno'???????????

Given the results of the landmark Betamax case, which in theory can be applied to all devices capable of recording from the broadcast radio/tv wave electromagnetic spectrum!

The astute judge , will have a great chuckle with this case!

Oh well, looks like King Canute, has risen from the grave, and has been reincarnated in the form of the RIAA! For not even the dark hand of Howard or Andy at Sony central, can hold back the tide of modern technology!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Typical...
Everyone has been recording songs from the radio since the birth of cassette tapes. Television is recorded everyday. Recordings from TIVO can be moved to a computer and saved on a CD or DVD. Satellite radio isn't any different! The RIAA must have had a lot of free time before satellite radio.
Posted by isamisis (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Link Flag
Greedy bastards
The RIAA are a bunch of greedy c#nts who won't rest until they have the power to charge you for simply thinking about a song.

They don't care about protecting artists, what they care about is protecting their 'property', ie a song written and sung by someone else.

I'd happily see the ******* dead.
Posted by Shig2k1 (44 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.