Record Industry Sues XM Satellite

[Lazaro Vega]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SAT...-05-17-04-17-19

[Claude]

That's the current trend in copyright. You can be sure - unless there is a dramatic turnaround in intellectual property policy - that in 15 years no music or film device with unrestricted recording capabilities will be available on the market. Even computers will have heavy DRM (digital rights management) restrictions. The objective is to make the consumer pay for every copy, even when he only wants to record a TV show to watch it later, or he wants to copy his CDs to his iPod.

In Europe, most countries have private copying exeptions, that consumers now consider as an acquis (the right to copy), but in fact historically these were introduced because controlling private copying activities wasn't possible. In exchange, copyright levies are perceived on copying devices and blank media.

But now the hardware industry (which has to pay the levies) and the content industry (which sees incresing copying) think it's time to push DRM, so that the consumer pays the full price for copies, and not just a 5 cent levy on blank CD-Rs or DVD-Rs. Taping music from the radio or films from TV will be possible with the old equipment (as long as analog radio and TV stays alive), but not with digital broadcasting anymore.

[Shawn]

Taping music from the radio or films from TV will be possible with the old equipment (as long as analog radio and TV stays alive), but not with digital broadcasting anymore.

I don't agree. With every new copy-protection and DRM scheme...comes almost immediately software to undermine or bypass the copy protection. The current DRM technology in .wma files is fairly solid (except stream ripping), but the copy protection on CD's and DVD's can be easily bypassed by purchasing software that doesn't even cost $20 for the license.

They'll keep trying to restrict out rights, we'll keep figuring out ways to give them the finger.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Shawn

[Claude]

Your're right, but that's possible only because computers are still an open architaecture that can run any operating system and software, including modified programs and copyprotection hacks.

But future PCs will have hardware that only allows certified software to run. The primary justification is virus-protection, but the content industry expects computers to become closed boxes, that can only do what the rightholders allow.

[Shawn]

Let's hope that doesn't come to pass...I'd rather not start my morning by saying "Check my email, HAL"

[Lazaro Vega]

XM is violating a provision in the Digital Millenium Copy Right Act for streaming music on the web that says there can be no on-demand, track by track downloading possible. They can stream an entire program, but the once you start tracking it out, well, the congressional law pushed by RIAA and industry lobbies as far as I can tell says that there's a fundemental difference between making a show available (broadcasting) and making it possible to download individual pieces on demand (retail). This isn't about not recording, it's about not using the radio as an interactive downloading device where people then do their own programming. That is the province of the labels. I see their point. I'm more concerned about how the DMCA regulates how many times a radio station streaming on the web is allowed to only program the same artist three or four times in a three hour period (four if the artist is featured, three if they're not). That just kills educational programming of 78 rpm era jazz. Fortunately many labels are willing to work out a waiver, but not Columbia, RCA or Verve, which means legally no extended retrospectives of Ellington, Basie, Holiday, Henderson, Dorsey, Armstrong, you name it, without paying up to 33 cents per play per 100 on-line listeners. That's the law, but right now there's not much enforcement occuring and many station's are doing what they want. I'm not taking chances at Blue Lake. During much of our most concentrated historical progamming we block our web stream, otherwise we play by the rules. The stream opens up when we have a waiver from the labels.

[Jim Alfredson]

Like it's really hard to make a recording of an internet stream...

[Lazaro Vega]

I know. They are not music friendly rules at a time when talk radio is dominating the medium. See foot, shoot foot. Gotta foot?

[Rooster_Ties]

I'm more concerned about how the DMCA regulates how many times a radio station streaming on the web is allowed to only program the same artist three or four times in a three hour period (four if the artist is featured, three if they're not). That just kills educational programming of 78 rpm era jazz. Fortunately many labels are willing to work out a waiver, but not Columbia, RCA or Verve, which means legally no extended retrospectives of Ellington, Basie, Holiday, Henderson, Dorsey, Armstrong, you name it, without paying up to 33 cents per play per 100 on-line listeners. That's the law, but right now there's not much enforcement occuring and many station's are doing what they want. I'm not taking chances at Blue Lake. During much of our most concentrated historical progamming we block our web stream, otherwise we play by the rules. The stream opens up when we have a waiver from the labels.

WTF??? What's the logic in that?? Only four tunes by the same artist per every three-hours of programming. And that's only if that artist is "featured" and still, no more than four tunes per three hours???

Seriously, what the hell is the logic in that?? No more Miles Davis retrospectives?? (You said not on Columbia.)

Can they really have requirements/limitations like that?? That's crazy!! (again, WTF????)

Edited May 18, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Claude]

I'm more concerned about how the DMCA regulates how many times a radio station streaming on the web is allowed to only program the same artist three or four times in a three hour period (four if the artist is featured, three if they're not). That just kills educational programming of 78 rpm era jazz. Fortunately many labels are willing to work out a waiver, but not Columbia, RCA or Verve, which means legally no extended retrospectives of Ellington, Basie, Holiday, Henderson, Dorsey, Armstrong, you name it, without paying up to 33 cents per play per 100 on-line listeners. That's the law, but right now there's not much enforcement occuring and many station's are doing what they want. I'm not taking chances at Blue Lake. During much of our most concentrated historical progamming we block our web stream, otherwise we play by the rules. The stream opens up when we have a waiver from the labels.

WTF??? What's the logic in that?? Only four tunes by the same artist per every three-hours of programming. And that's only if that artist is "featured" and still, no more than four tunes per three hours???

Seriously, what the hell is the logic in that?? No more Miles Davis retrospectives?? (You said not on Columbia.)

Can they really have requirements/limitations like that?? That's crazy!! (again, WTF????)

Hey, it could be much worse. Radioplay limited to 30 second previews!

[montg]

I received this in my e-mail today. XM's response:

Statement to XM Subscribers - The XM Nation

Everything we've done at XM since our first minute on the air is about giving you more choices. We provide more channels and music programming than any other network. We play all the music you want to hear including the artists you want to hear but can't find on traditional FM radio. And we offer the best radios with the features you want for your cars, homes, and all places in between.

We've developed new radios -- the Inno, Helix and NeXus -- that take innovation to the next level in a totally legal way. Like TiVo, these devices give you the ability to enjoy the sports, talk and music programming whenever you want. And because they are portable, you can enjoy XM wherever you want.

The music industry wants to stop your ability to choose when and where you can listen. Their lawyers have filed a meritless lawsuit to try and stop you from enjoying these radios.

They 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.

Our new radios complement download services, they don't replace them. If you want a copy of a song to transfer to other players or burn onto CDs, we make it easy for you to buy them through XM + Napster.

Satellite radio subscribers like you are law-abiding music consumers; a portion of your subscriber fee pays royalties directly to artists. Instead of going after pirates who don't pay a cent, the record labels are attacking the radios used for the enjoyment of music by consumers like you. It's misguided and wrong.

We will vigorously defend these radios and your right to enjoy them in court and before Congress, and we expect to win.

Thank you for your support.

[Lazaro Vega]

Best of luck to them.

I can't explain the logic behind the lobby that convinced congress to limit the number of times a single artist can be played in a three hour period for a station that streams on the web. What perhaps I didn't make clear is you're welcome to do it, but you have to pay additional royalties if you do (or loose your statutory license to stream) to Sound Stream, the division of RIAA station's have to report ALL of their music airplay to, even satellite programming, if they're streaming on the web. (Station's with a staff of less than 10 are exempt from that reporting).

I know WEMU and WKAR here in Michigan both do their best to comply with these rules. After speaking to a V.P. at RIAA he told me that the labels themselves can sign a waiver of these restrictions so that's what we've done. Unfortunately, the labels I mentioned before have legal departments which don't want to deal with this on a case by case basis (tonight I need a waiver for Miles on Columbia, next week Mingus on Columbia, etc), but they won't grant a blanket waiver, either. So we block the stream when we're doing concentrated historical programming such as that.

Of course 70 people can join Blue Lake's web stream at any single moment while in the neighborhood of 4,000 listen to the FM in the evening (best guess from looking over the shoulder of someone reading the Arbitron book). You'd think the labels would want to reach that larger audience.