Why Should XM Have To Pay The Record Labels In Order To Innovate?

from the a-waste dept

In a bit of unfortunate news, it appears that XM has given in and decided to settle its dispute with the record labels. The company has already settled with Universal Music, with the other major labels expected to quickly follow suit. The Reuters article incorrectly states that this was a patent infringement suit (fact checking, anyone?) but it’s actually a copyright issue, where the record labels were using copyright to try to prevent XM from innovating. Specifically, XM has a license so it can play music from the record labels and it fairly pays all the royalties required. The problem, though, was that XM decided to introduce a new device, the Inno, that allowed XM subscribers to record songs and listen to them later. That’s a perfectly legitimate use — and the courts have backed up the fact that “time shifting” by recording programs is perfectly legal. Not so, according to the RIAA, who suddenly felt that because people could record the music from XM, XM now had to pay another licensing fee on top of the licensing fee it already paid. This went directly against what the RIAA had said earlier, when it promised that it would never use copyright laws to prevent new technologies like the VCR, TiVo or the iPod. The Inno clearly fits in as a device just like that… and yet, here was the RIAA demanding extra money to allow such a device to exist. It’s really too bad that XM wouldn’t continue this fight in court, as it’s clearly on the right side — but with its economic troubles and the impending merger with Sirius, it looks like the company decided it was easier to just pay off Doug Morris and his cronies to leave it alone. Chalk another short-term victory up for Morris, who continues to do everything possible to win in the short-term at the expense of the long-term.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: riaa, universal music, xm

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why Should XM Have To Pay The Record Labels In Order To Innovate?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
15 Comments
moe says:

Merger means two for the price of one?

If the gov’t gets moving and actually approves the merger (as they should), does this mean Sirius won’t have to go through either a lawsuit or a similar deal since XM already paid up?

I’m not sure if Sirius has been sued (or already settled) yet, but I believe they have similar devices to the Inno.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“On the bright side, the deal apparently covers all future devices. So, they can make and sell as many as they want without having to deal with the RIAA again.”

That’s not really a bright side. It doesn’t help with any future innovations, it just means that this particular innovation (time-shifted radio) won’t be the subject of a lawsuit again with XM. It neither helps any future competitors with similar devices, nor any future features they might wish to add. If XM decided to add the capability to beam the recorded radio files to another device in their next model, for instance, you can bet they’d be sued again.

Don't Do It says:

Re: Re:

Before you buy any XM device, Google “XM Sucks” and see what people have to say. I am one of them and I’m no deadbeat. I paid for a subscription with a one time credit card number, and even though I chose not to renew my subscription, they attempted to charge my now expired card number. When it failed, they turned my account over to a collection agency called CCA, based in Mass.

That’s all there is to the story – nothing more. I didn’t owe anything, there was no auto renewing clause in my agreement or any gotchas.

I called and spent too long on the phone with them and nothing was resolved. Their customer service sucks, their billing sucks and they can’t go out of business fast enough for me.

David (profile) says:

Time shift?

I’m not sure of the details of the suit, but isn’t time shifting the ability to rewind and pause live radio? The Inno does not have this function. It can record and play back. The functionality is so crippled I’ve found the $200 device to be pretty much useless. I can set up recordings for shows that are scheduled late at night, but I can’t get them off the radio. I may as well just use my computer to record shows.

Kevin says:

Dont Do It?

Googling ‘XM Sucks’ Will obviously only find you messages and articles about XM Sucking. How about you google XM Awesome and see what you come up with?

What’s the point of researching a topic on the Internet if you already have your mind made up and aren’t even going to look for another opinion other than one that validates your own?

Carme says:

The RIAA was actually pretty smart

It is indeed a win in the short term, but not at the “expense” of anything. Innovation is not held back, the device is marketed as planned, it’s just that the RIAA found a way to make an additional profit from it. It made a smart move by identifying XM was at a fragile state and jumped the opportunity to shake them down for some money. Let’s give the RIAA the benefit of the doubt that it would have backed away as soon as XM started fighting back, because it was clearly in a legally losing position.
The RIAA simply found an opportunity and took it, at no obvious loss – the device is out. The problem is the legal regime that enabled this shake down in the first place, not the RIAA acting on it.

Damien says:

“The RIAA simply found an opportunity and took it, at no obvious loss – the device is out. The problem is the legal regime that enabled this shake down in the first place, not the RIAA acting on it.”

So if the law says I’m allowed to beat old ladies and take their money that makes it right? When you help write a law designed to roadblock legally sanctioned fair-use rights and then go out of your way to abuse that same law you can bet your a** you’re the problem.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...