RIAA suing XM [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

View Full Version : RIAA suing XM

LordJezo

05-17-2006, 03:11 AM

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1969415" target="_blank">XM didn't want to pay extra to let their customers record off of their radios.</a>  Bah.

Don Stugots

05-17-2006, 03:35 AM

i too say BAH, but i will add a HUMBUG

why do i see government regulation coming to XM as a way to remedy this problem?

HBox

05-17-2006, 04:06 AM

My hate for the RIAA cannot be adequately expressed by the English lanuguage. It goes far beyond.

cupcakelove

05-17-2006, 04:19 AM

This is no different than recording songs off of regular radio with a cassette tape.  I really hate the RIAA.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 05:16 AM

cupcakelove wrote: This is no different than recording songs off of regular radio with a cassette tape.  I really hate the RIAA. Actually, it's way different.  Taping songs off of the radio with a cassette tape was considered fair use under copyright laws, because of the time it took to make tapes, and the copies would never be considered equal to the songs that you could buy.  No one was ever going to tape songs off the radio, mass produce them and sell them or give them away to hundreds or thousands of people.  Thus, such tapes weren't a threat to sales of songs.However, with digital technology, it's easier to make and distribute very good copies of songs, and, thus, this type of copying is a threat to album sales.  The reason they are going after this type of device is along the same lines as why they went after Napster, and that they go after similar services.

LordJezo

05-17-2006, 05:32 AM

EliSnow wrote: cupcakelove wrote: This is no different than recording songs off of regular radio with a cassette tape. I really hate the RIAA. However, with digital technology, it's easier to make and distribute very good copies of songs, and, thus, this type of copying is a threat to album sales. The reason they are going after this type of device is along the same lines as why they went after Napster, and that they go after similar services.   With an Inno how the heck can you distribute what you record?  With a tape I can hand it to a friend and he can copy it to his tape.  With an Inno the data is locked into the device.

cupcakelove

05-17-2006, 05:36 AM

LordJezo wrote: EliSnow wrote: cupcakelove wrote: This is no different than recording songs off of regular radio with a cassette tape. I really hate the RIAA. However,
with digital technology, it's easier to make and distribute very good
copies of songs, and, thus, this type of copying is a threat to album
sales. The reason they are going after this type of device is along the
same lines as why they went after Napster, and that they go after
similar services. With
an Inno how the heck can you distribute what you record? With a tape I
can hand it to a friend and he can copy it to his tape. With an Inno
the data is locked into the device. 
Yes, and Napster produced songs 'On Demand'.  With this people
can only record songs that XM chooses to play.  This very much
falls into the bounds of fair use.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 05:40 AM

LordJezo wrote: With an Inno how the heck can you distribute what you record?  With a tape I can hand it to a friend and he can copy it to his tape.  With an Inno the data is locked into the device. Even if the data cannot be transfered to others, the distribution comes from XM's end, not the listeners.  By allowing listeners to save the music they broadcast, XM is essentially the ones distributing the music.  It would be equivalent to a radio station making digital copies of the cds they get and handing the cds to their listeners.  Again, the difference that the record industry will point to between what used to be done with radio stations and what can now be done with this device is that with the radio, you could never get a great copy of the song, no matter what.  So people who would be want to buy a great copy still had an incentive to buy the copy.  With this, the copies are digital and thus, a great copy can be made.  Thus, people who would otherwise buy a song to get a great copy have no incentive to go out and buy the song.   They now have a great copy that they can listen to at any time.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 05:43 AM

cupcakelove wrote: Yes, and Napster produced songs 'On Demand'.  With this people can only record songs that XM chooses to play.  This very much falls into the bounds of fair use. But the songs XM chooses to play are a pretty broad bunch and much more broad than could ever be heard on the radio.  You want a top 20 pop song, XM will play it on their Top 20 station.  You want alternative rock?   They have multiple channels that play a huge library of songs.  All one has to do is wait, and select the songs as they come along.  This is another huge difference from when you taped songs of the radio.  Your selection was limited to a much smaller group of music.

cupcakelove

05-17-2006, 05:46 AM

EliSnow wrote: cupcakelove wrote: Yes,
and Napster produced songs 'On Demand'. With this people can only
record songs that XM chooses to play. This very much falls into the
bounds of fair use. But
the songs XM chooses to play are a pretty broad bunch and much more
broad than could ever be heard on the radio. You want a top 20 pop
song, XM will play it on their Top 20 station. You want alternative
rock? They have multiple channels that play a huge library of songs.
All one has to do is wait, and select the songs as they come along. This
is another huge difference from when you taped songs of the radio. Your
selection was limited to a much smaller group of music.
Do you RIAA stock or something?  Fair use is not defined by
quality of the recording or the broadness of the selection available,
its if the people are using it legally for their own personal
use.  The Inno does not allow the recorded programs to be copied
to some other format, making it impossible to use it any other way
without some heavy hacking into the device.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 05:58 AM

cupcakelove wrote: Do you RIAA stock or something?  Fair use is not defined by quality of the recording or the broadness of the selection available, its if the people are using it legally for their own personal use.  The Inno does not allow the recorded programs to be copied to some other format, making it impossible to use it any other way without some heavy hacking into the device. Nope, I'm a lawyer who studied copyright law in law school, and fair use is defined by a host of factors.   Copying music isn't fair use if it's legal.  Instead, what would otherwise be illegal copying under the copyright law becomes legal if it is considered "fair use" under copyright laws.  In looking at what is fair use, courts will look at:<ul><li>the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; * /></li></ul><ul><li>the nature of the copyrighted work;</li><li>amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and </li><li>the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. </li></ul>The last factor is where the quality of the music being able to be copied, and XM's broad music selection come in.  As I said above, because of the poor quality of the music taped from the radio, such copying was not a threat to the market for the songs.  This type of copying because of the broad range of music and the ability to tape great copies would be more of a threat to the market or value of the songs being recorded.Again, forget whether or not the listener can distribute the music or not.  The fact that XM is essentially distributing great copies is.  Again, it's like radio stations giving away cds.

This message was edited by EliSnow on 5-17-06 @ 10:06 AM

cupcakelove

05-17-2006, 06:08 AM

Even looking at those factors, I still see this as fair use.  I
really fail to see how the quality of the recording makes it more of a
threat to the market.  The ability to distribute it is what will
make it a threat, which the Inno does not give the average person the
ability to do.  I see this as more of the RIAA being terrified of
anything digital and wanting to charge you for everything they possibly
can.  These are the same people that want you to pay for the a CD
and then pay extra for the ability to copy that CD onto your MP3 player
or any other medium, and consider it stealing not to pay extra for that.

Don Stugots

05-17-2006, 06:10 AM

Eli, i will defer to your knowledge on this:

XM is being sued due to the quality of the recordings? if technology is getting to this level then the law would need to be amended given the lack of distribution ability by the units.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 06:11 AM

STUGOTS1 wrote: Eli, i will defer to your knowledge on this: XM is being sued due to the quality of the recordings? if technology is getting to this level then the law would need to be amended given the lack of distribution ability by the units. Quality of the recordings would be one of the factors considered by the court as to whether the copying is a threat to the market for the songs.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 06:16 AM

cupcakelove wrote: Even looking at those factors, I still see this as fair use.  I really fail to see how the quality of the recording makes it more of a threat to the market.  The ability to distribute it is what will make it a threat, which the Inno does not give the average person the ability to do.  I see this as more of the RIAA being terrified of anything digital and wanting to charge you for everything they possibly can.  These are the same people that want you to pay for the a CD and then pay extra for the ability to copy that CD onto your MP3 player or any other medium, and consider it stealing not to pay extra for that. Again, you're focussing on whether the song can be distributed from the Inno.  While that is a good fact for XM, you're looking at the distribution at the wrong level.  It's not distribution by the end user - the listener that will be pointed to as the problem.  It's distribution by XM.  RIAA's lawyers will argue that providing this copying device essentially makes the situation akin to persons distributing copies of a cd to listeners without permission or payment.  Because in both situations, the listener has a copy of a song that they can save and listen to as much as they want, any time they want.  That listener thus has less of an incentive to go out and buy the song they have saved to the Inno.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 06:20 AM

In the end, I'm not saying that XM should lose or should win.  My point was that there is a valid legal argument against XM (enough that the case is not frivolous, and you are likely to have intelligent legal minds think that what XM is doing is wrong) , and that this situation is not the same as the taping of songs from an FM station to a cassette.  

This message was edited by EliSnow on 5-17-06 @ 10:20 AM

SinA

05-17-2006, 07:14 AM

...and don't forget the RIAA sucks part.I used to go see a band at the Black Cat called Decahedron, with Joe Lally from fugazi... anyway, they would always break into chants of the "FUCK THE RIAA!" in their shows.I wonder why they never got signed to a big label?

BillyPilgrim

05-17-2006, 07:18 AM

Unless all I've read about satellite radio is wrong, you cannot use it to obtain music of equal quality to cd's. The max bitrate used by XM channels is supposed to be 64 kbps, way below the 1440 kbps of an audio disc. In fact 64 kbps is shit quality, you have to go as high as 192 kbps before you might say the difference from an audio cd becomes unnnoticable. Personally I still hear the difference. I've also read that FM radio can actually be of higher quality than satellite.
Either way, no one should mistake an XM sattelite stream for cd quality (or even legal music download quality) audio, and no one is going to use XM to mass-distribute music. They could try but few people would even be interested with all the proper quality music floating about.

HBox

05-17-2006, 08:24 AM

EliSnow wrote: cupcakelove wrote: Do you RIAA stock or something? Fair use is not defined by quality of the recording or the broadness of the selection available, its if the people are using it legally for their own personal use. The Inno does not allow the recorded programs to be copied to some other format, making it impossible to use it any other way without some heavy hacking into the device. Nope, I'm a lawyer who studied copyright law in law school, and fair use is defined by a host of factors. Copying music isn't fair use if it's legal. Instead, what would otherwise be illegal copying under the copyright law becomes legal if it is considered "fair use" under copyright laws. In looking at what is fair use, courts will look at:<ul><li>the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; * /></li></ul><ul><li>the nature of the copyrighted work;</li><li>amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and </li><li>the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. </li></ul>The last factor is where the quality of the music being able to be copied, and XM's broad music selection come in. As I said above, because of the poor quality of the music taped from the radio, such copying was not a threat to the market for the songs. This type of copying because of the broad range of music and the ability to tape great copies would be more of a threat to the market or value of the songs being recorded.Again, forget whether or not the listener can distribute the music or not. The fact that XM is essentially distributing great copies is. Again, it's like radio stations giving away cds.

This message was edited by EliSnow on 5-17-06 @ 10:06 AM  You are greatly overstating the quality of XM broadcasts. Each music station is streaming at from somewhere between 24kps to 32kps, albeit with an advanced proprietary codec. If you listen to any song with a lot of bass you can tell the limits of XM's codec. They are not great copies. Furthermore, the recordings are capped out at a gig and cannot be transferred to or listened on any other device but an Inno or Helix.You also have to take into account how difficult it would be to accumulate a library of music on the Inno. You must listen to and record every song one at a time. It would be time consuming and a far cry from the effortless file sharing on the Internet. You cannot simply choose what you want and get it instantly. You must wait and listen and hope. This device has only made incremental improvements to the kind of recordings that can already be made on a tape recorder.I can't imagine this having an affect on sales. It's just too time consuming and cumbersome to construct a whole library which is capped out at small amount of storage, has heavy compression, and is extremely unflexible.

HBox

05-17-2006, 08:37 AM

Maybe I should read some other replies first. Anyway, I think I remember it being stated in an article I read that the XM streams were 24kbps to 32kbps, but that 64kbps might be right. I am sure its not any higher.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 08:42 AM

HBox wrote: You are greatly overstating the quality of XM broadcasts. Each music station is streaming at from somewhere between 24kps to 32kps, albeit with an advanced proprietary codec. If you listen to any song with a lot of bass you can tell the limits of XM's codec. They are not great copies. Furthermore, the recordings are capped out at a gig and cannot be transferred to or listened on any other device but an Inno or Helix. You also have to take into account how difficult it would be to accumulate a library of music on the Inno. You must listen to and record every song one at a time. It would be time consuming and a far cry from the effortless file sharing on the Internet. You cannot simply choose what you want and get it instantly. You must wait and listen and hope. This device has only made incremental improvements to the kind of recordings that can already be made on a tape recorder.I can't imagine this having an affect on sales. It's just too time consuming and cumbersome to construct a whole library which is capped out at small amount of storage, has heavy compression, and is extremely unflexible. I think those would be good arguments for XM's side of the story supporting a fair use argument as to why there is on detrimental effect on the market for these songs.  Again, I'm not saying that XM should win or lose.  Just pointing out that there are two arguments to this case.

JustJon

05-17-2006, 08:49 AM

SinA wrote: ...and don't forget the RIAA sucks part.I used to go see a band at the Black Cat called Decahedron, with Joe Lally from fugazi... anyway, they would always break into chants of the "FUCK THE RIAA!" in their shows.I wonder why they never got signed to a big label?  Because they chose not to be.  They didn't want to buy in to any of the corporate culture.

LordJezo

05-17-2006, 09:47 AM

So what about HD Radio stuff that some stations are doing now?   That's suppsoed to be pretty high quality too. Couldn't I record that and get a nice digital recording?

SatCam

05-17-2006, 09:47 AM

I think the RIAA is going after XM only because they are a smaller company, and only happen to have a better case against them. The RIAA isn't going after terrestrial stations with HD frequencies because the parent companies of these stations, usually CBS or Clear Channel, are much more powerful.

SatCam

05-17-2006, 09:49 AM

Also, if the RIAA is looking to do damage to XM, they're only cutting off their nose to spite their face. It will only come back to fuck them in the ass because XM is a vehicle to promote their client's music!!

SinA

05-17-2006, 09:55 AM

JustJon wrote:  SinA wrote: ...and don't forget the RIAA sucks part.I used to go see a band at the Black Cat called Decahedron, with Joe Lally from fugazi... anyway, they would always break into chants of the "FUCK THE RIAA!" in their shows.I wonder why they never got signed to a big label?  Because they chose not to be.  They didn't want to buy in to any of the corporate culture. You said it, man!  Success and happiness are for sell-outs.  Getting jokes is for sell-outs too.

EliSnow

05-17-2006, 09:59 AM

LordJezo wrote: So what about HD Radio stuff that some stations are doing now?   That's suppsoed to be pretty high quality too. Couldn't I record that and get a nice digital recording? The difference between that and the XM situation is that those stations (to my knowledge) don't broadcast and market a product which would allow the listeners to tape such broadcast songs.  XM and those stations pay fees that permit them to broadcast such songs without infringing the copyright of those songs.  This situation is sort of similiar to a lawsuit back in the day (the '80's I believe) brought by Universal Studios against Sony for their sale of vcrs.  Essentially, Universal Studios claimed that Sony's creation of VCRs essentially promoted and contributed to copyright infringement by television viewers because the viewers could copy such shows without permission.  The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that such copying by television viewers was "fair use" for a number of reasons, including evidence that generally television viewers were engaged in "time-shifting" - the copying of television shows to watch them later, and would erase the tape later to tape more shows.  It should be noted that four of the Supreme Court justices dissented from this opinion, so it wasn't an obvious decision.XM will likely rely upon this case as legal precedent that their marketing of the Inno is "fair use," while the RIAA will do their best to distinguish the facts of their case from the Sony case.  

This message was edited by EliSnow on 5-17-06 @ 2:02 PM

SatCam

05-17-2006, 10:04 AM

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/betamax.jpg

suggums

05-17-2006, 10:48 AM

i feel like listening to metallica

HBox

05-17-2006, 12:10 PM

JustJon wrote: SinA wrote: ...and don't forget the RIAA sucks part.I used to go see a band at the Black Cat called Decahedron, with Joe Lally from fugazi... anyway, they would always break into chants of the "FUCK THE RIAA!" in their shows.I wonder why they never got signed to a big label? Because they chose not to be. They didn't want to buy in to any of the corporate culture.   MMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JustJon

05-17-2006, 12:48 PM

SinA wrote: JustJon wrote: SinA wrote: ...and don't forget the RIAA sucks part.I used to go see a band at the Black Cat called Decahedron, with Joe Lally from fugazi... anyway, they would always break into chants of the "FUCK THE RIAA!" in their shows.I wonder why they never got signed to a big label? Because they chose not to be. They didn't want to buy in to any of the corporate culture. You said it, man! Success and happiness are for sell-outs. Getting jokes is for sell-outs too.  If you were funny, people would laugh.

JimBeam

05-17-2006, 04:12 PM

Wouldnt the issue be with the person illegally producing/selling the copies than with XM ?XM isnt breaking the law, no more than an FM station is, by broadcasting the music but if you chose to record it and sell it or distribute it in some way you'd be breaking the law.I can record a bssesball game on TV but I can't sell it so how's this any different ?

EliSnow

05-18-2006, 07:05 AM

JimBeam wrote: XM isnt breaking the law, no more than an FM station is, by broadcasting the music but if you chose to record it and sell it or distribute it in some way you'd be breaking the law.As I said above, the problem isn't XM's broadcasting of the music.  They already pay fees to the record industry to do so.  The problem is the marketing of a device that allows listeners to specifically record such broadcasts.  As I noted earlier, Sony was sued by Universal Studios in a similar type of lawsuit in the '80's for creating VCRs.  Essentially the claim is XM promotes and aids copyright infringement by the making such devices.  Although Sony won in that case in front of the Supreme Court, 4 judges dissented, and the RIAA will likely argue for several reasons that the Sony case is not valid precedent because the facts here are different.

Reephdweller

05-18-2006, 07:12 AM

Who haven't they sued. The RIAA has turned themselves from a legitimate organization working for recording artists into a joke.

SatCam

05-18-2006, 10:37 AM

I imagine if the RIAA wins this, they could set a whole new precedent when it comes to digital hardware manufacturer's liability. However, it looks like the RIAA is just looking to employ scare tactics to get more money out of XM... the only reason they considered suing them in the first place is because XM didn't want to have to licence the music being recorded.

Fallon

05-18-2006, 07:41 PM

<table width="591" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="right" class="tLgWhite" colspan="5">Advertisement</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5"><img width="591" height="10" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/main_table_top.gif" name="Cont_0" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img width="1" height="1" border="0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" name="Cont_1" /></td>
<td><img width="1" height="1" border="0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" name="Cont_1" /></td>
<td width="587">
<table width="587" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td rowspan="99"><img width="20" height="1" border="0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" name="Cont_1" /></td>
<td><img width="1" height="10" border="0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" name="Cont_1" /></td>
<td rowspan="99"><img width="20" height="1" border="0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" name="Cont_1" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img width="547" height="6" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/table_top.gif" name="Cont_2" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table width="545" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td>
<table width="545" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td>
<table width="100%" cellspacing="20" cellpadding="0" border="0">

<tr valign="top">
<td align="center" class="tBlack">
<img width="120" height="100" border="0" src="http://img.xmradio.com/images/spacer.gif" name="Cont_3" />

<img border="0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/ShopRefresh/xm2go/inno_sm.gif" name="Cont_4" /> 
<img border="0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/ShopRefresh/xm2go/helix_sm.gif" name="Cont_5" /> 
<img border="0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/ShopRefresh/xm2go/nexus_sm.gif" name="Cont_6" /> 

</td>
<td valign="top" class="tLgBlack">

<div align="center"><img border="0" src="http://img.xmradio.com/images/lineup/xmlogo.gif" name="Cont_7" /></div> 
<div class="tLgRed">Statement to XM Subscribers - The XM Nation</div> 
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

HBox

05-18-2006, 07:48 PM

[quote]Fallon wrote: <table width="591" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="right" colspan="5" class="tLgWhite">Advertisement</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5"><img width="591" height="10" border="0" name="Cont_0" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/main_table_top.gif" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img width="1" height="1" border="0" name="Cont_1" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" /></td>
<td><img width="1" height="1" border="0" name="Cont_1" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" /></td>
<td width="587">
<table width="587" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td rowspan="99"><img width="20" height="1" border="0" name="Cont_1" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" /></td>
<td><img width="1" height="10" border="0" name="Cont_1" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" /></td>
<td rowspan="99"><img width="20" height="1" border="0" name="Cont_1" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/spacer.gif" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img width="547" height="6" border="0" name="Cont_2" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/tantor/table_top.gif" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table width="545" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td>
<table width="545" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td>
<table width="100%" cellspacing="20" cellpadding="0" border="0">

<tr valign="top">
<td align="center" class="tBlack">
<img width="120" height="100" border="0" name="Cont_3" src="http://img.xmradio.com/images/spacer.gif" />

<img border="0" name="Cont_4" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/ShopRefresh/xm2go/inno_sm.gif" /> 
<img border="0" name="Cont_5" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/ShopRefresh/xm2go/helix_sm.gif" /> 
<img border="0" name="Cont_6" src="http://www.xmradio.com/images/ShopRefresh/xm2go/nexus_sm.gif" /> 
*-- end sidebar body cell -*
</td>
<td valign="top" class="tLgBlack">
*-- start main body cell -*
* align="center"><img border="0" name="Cont_7" src="http://img.xmradio.com/images/lineup/xmlogo.gif" /> 
* class="tLgRed">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 m

LordJezo

05-19-2006, 05:16 AM

Is that a real statement? Link?

EliSnow

05-19-2006, 05:52 AM

LordJezo wrote: Is that a real statement? Link? It's an interesting statement.  Very colloquial and unlike usual press releases about lawsuits which are much more formal.

Don Stugots

05-19-2006, 06:26 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">LordJezo wrote: Is that a real statement? Link? <hr color="cococo" align="left">

yes it is a real statement. it was an email sent out this morning. i have it too.