Sirius and XM in trouble for radio recording capabilities

Apple isn't the only company that's not forking over enough of its revenue to keep the RIAA happy. Sirius and XM are in hot water for their upcoming devices that allow listeners to record and time shift their satellite radio programs, including songs. The Tivo-like capability has music industry executives claiming that such devices (such as the Samsung neXus pictured at right) allow for "permanent ownership of copyrighted material without paying for it." We're sure screwed if they find out about all those mix-tapes we made from radio rips back in the 90's. The recording big wigs are also unhappy about the current licensing fees that are being paid by XM and Sirius, and claim that they'll be upping them substantially when the original seven year contract runs out. This should be fun to watch, if nothing else.

[Thanks, cb]

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

What are they going to do when my local radio station plays a song so many times a day that I have it burned into my brain? Does that qualify as "permanent ownership"?

Who cares if people record the crappy sounding audio from XM or Sirius? Doesn't this drive CD sales?

As many have stated before, why does the RIAA continue to drive people to download music for free instead of getting it through legitimate means?

[Steven @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

Greedy, greedy, greedy.

[Michael @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

Next they'll be wanting money from me for each time Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl" gets stuck in an insanity inducing loop in my head.

[Kevin @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

Soon. They will have a stake in everything. Well, it is a fact that people dance in their clothes, and they dance to music of course. I think we should see some revenue from that. Or how about this one.
Some music stores(b&m)allow you to listen to the music before you buy it. These people should be charged for listening, because they have then recorded the song in their brain.

Someone needs to stop the madness. I am getting sick of hearing about how they want money from everything. Profits are ok. But this is ridiclous. We need to think of a way to take action and really make them see what they are doing here. But it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks i guess.

[Fabulo @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

That's acually good news. I was not aware that recording from the radio would grant you "permanent ownership of copyrighted material" (without paying for it! Ha!)

I thought the point of copyright laws was there is ONE owner, and a zillion licencees that pay royalties for the privilege to enjoy the _art_

And also, I thought you had to pay for the music on Sirius and XM. Didn't think the service was actually free...

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

And the music industry death dance continues.

They've been shooting themselves in the foot for so long, I guess they figure it's time to aim higher!

[shoepal @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

I am jack's complete lack of surprise. The greed of the Recording Industry never fails to truly astound me.

[Conrad @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

*Yawn* I'm so tired of hearing the RIAA bitch about, well, anything come to think about it.

[Josh @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

Number 3

Thanks I now owe the RIAA like 15 bucks Uptown Girl is on repeat.

Hopefully I can turn it off otherwise I will go bankrupt by tonite.

[Derek @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

Screw the RIAA.

[aprodite @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

You know how some people have a photographic memory? Well, I'm sure there must be some people who have an "audiographic" memory.

Will the RIAA be coming after them, seeking to excise part of their brains, or maybe chop off their ears?

Most music has a calming effect, obviously the RIAA don't listen to any as they seem to get so excited at the posibility of any kind of infringement, no matter how small.

Oh, and with a subscription radio service, Haven't I paid for 24 hour access? Seeing as I have to sleep 8 hours out of 24, will the RIAA give me a 30% rebate for the hours that I paid for, but didn't listen to? Nope, I didn't think so.

/rant

[Kevin @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

kind of off topic. does this happen in japan? If not, maybe I and the Engadget guys should add this to our list of why to move to japan.... soon!

[ChillyWilly @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

RIAA. We're the ones that sue our own customers in the name of greed and stupidity.

So, at what point does RIAA actually let people listen to music without wanting money for it. I mean, what's next?? CD's released in CD-RW format, written to each time you play it, counting the number of times you get to listen?... then refusing to play unless you put the CD into your computer and purchase more times to play the song?

The pure greed and utter lack of trust for their customers makes me wonder what kind of business RIAA is in.

Hey RIAA... why don't you stop spending money to piss off your customers and send those royalty checks to the artists you are *supposed* to represent. Or better yet, praise companies like Apple who are actually doing something to not only make money for the music industry, but trying to curb piracy.

I hope XM and Sirius fight this one.

[jared @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

The bitching about timeshifting won't last, as long as you need an active XM/Sirius subscription to playback the content.

As far as the XM/Sirius licensing terms go, that's just good old fashioned contractual bargaining: the more users XM/Sirius have, the more dependent they are on their RIAA license, and the less profit they stand to lose by paying higher royalties.

[David @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

If you've got Uptown Girl stuck in your head here's a cure:

...and then one day he was shootin' at some food...

Sorry :)

[mark @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

The rules used to be ... If you Bought the Record (Vinyl or Tape) you could play it privately as much as you want. (Part of the cost for magnetic tape was to pay for the recording you might make) - Old Raido made a deal - they said it amounted to free advertising so only the song writer got paid from the playing of songs on the "raido" - so time shifted ads for music by XM or on the Web should be billed to the RIAA to offset the cost of transmission and if it plays more than once a day listeners should charge back the wasting of time, disk space, and computer processing time - (similar to the way junk faxes are chargeable back to the sender - it was costing a fortune in paper and/or processing and jaming the phone line) not to mention the amount of brain power it takes to get some songs out of your head after the RIAA causes them to be placed there by their ad agents (broadcasters)

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

I can't wait until they require a coin slot in every CD/MP3 player. Wait, yes I can.

[apeguero @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

#3, Thanks man! Now I have that stupid song stuck in my hear too!!! Better take out my gold card.

Hey #13, don't give those assholes at RIAA any ideas. CD-RW music CDs. That's all we need now...

I swear, RIAA are the most idiotic commies around. I wonder if that place will undergo a change in leadership soon because I can't image them increasing their revenues by being such whinning, bitching, little jerks.

[ginnal @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

Seriously, people should vote with their money.
I won't buy or even use any device that doesn't allow me to do as I see fit with my media.
All these executives should be put in a line and shot.

[JOhnnyprozac @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

heh apeguero...

ownership of ideas and the exploitation of it is not a communist concept; its capitalism taken to an extreme level.

However, considering that the RIAA has a friendly ear in Washington DC that really has no concept of the law precedent of the MPAA vs basically all VHS owners of "fair use". Don't count on it stopping anytime soon. They will only get more shrill as they realize that these alternative distribution media companies got what the RIAA was too stupid, too litigous and too slow to do themselves early enough. I can see Apple, and others get fed up with the traditional recording industry and become content owners themselves by enticing talent away from the recording companies. All it takes is one high profile signing and we'll start to see the RIAA become even more irrelevant than they are now.

[ChillyWilly @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

"I can see Apple, and others get fed up with the traditional recording industry and become content owners themselves by enticing talent away from the recording companies."

I've always thought this would happen someday, especially with Apple's push into music the last 4 years. As you said, one high profile artist to jump ship and watch the stampede.

[Seni0r @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

With digital distribution, I no longer see a need for record companies... Am I missing something?

[Harold @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

Aren't these the same recording companies who push their latest singles to every FM station in the country bribing them with million dollar campaigns to play their songs as much as possible?

The same people who drove the public away from FM radio and to Sirius and XM because people got fed up of being dictated to about what music was cool and what they should listen to and decided they wanted some variety in their lives?

And now they want more money from the sattelite providers because they have alienated SO MANY people who decided to give up the top 40 formulaic BS and go to something better?

This is a complete joke! These people have no idea how to run a business!

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

"With digital distribution, I no longer see a need for record companies... Am I missing something?"

Well, not to defend the RIAA or anything (see my earlier comment), but, well, yeah. You are missing something.

Music is a business. Even if you took the labels out of it, it's still a business. Those who can promote their music best are going to sell the most music (it should be obvious that it's not really about who actually makes the *best* music). So even if you took the record labels out of the equation *tomorrow*, literally the day after you'd have people springing up saying "I can promote your music on iTunes! I have connections at Apple! Small fee!" and within six months you'd have a bunch of full-blown record labels again.

Who is going to design all these bands' web sites? Who is going to pay the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to record an album? Even with no physical distribution, all that studio time still costs money. Who is going to organize concert tours, and who is going to design all the tour t-shirts and other merchandise to go along with it? Who is going to organize photo shoots, radio promotions and other marketing to get the band's music noticed?

All that stuff (and more) still exists even if you get rid of the CD.

Record labels are a necessary evil. The *RIAA* is not. The RIAA is an organization created by the industry itself, but it does not represent any specific artist, nor does it do any work on behalf of the artists - it does work on behalf of the *labels*. The labels, though, do actually do work on behalf of the artists (they don't necessarily do it *well* all or even most of the time, especially recently, but that is why they exist).

The RIAA serves no real purpose other than as a lobbying group and now as a pseudo-law enforcement group (which to me seems quite dangerous). The individual record labels, though, are a different story - they do serve a purpose, *especially* when you've now got so many different formats and places to hear music (TV shows, movies, video games, online, clubs, live shows, of course the good old fashioned CD, etc.).

There needs to be some sort of reform to the industry, and I'm not saying most record contracts are fair to the artist. But saying record labels should just disappear is equivalent to saying most music should just disappear. Most bands just do not have the money to make any headway whatsoever in attracting fans on their own on a national or international basis. It costs millions of dollars for a band to build a real fan base over a period of years. The cost of physically pressing CD's is only a tiny fraction of the total cost of getting an artist's music out there and getting it noticed by a decent amount of the world's population.

[allen @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

With all the complains with RIAA and the recording industry maybe it's time to rise up and revoke.

[johnny5 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

It does NOT cost millions of dollars to build a fan base big enough to support a musician. Musicians aren't just the ones who perform crappy pop songs written by someone else on the radio. Like any other entrepreneurship, it does take some work and smarts.

Blame the RIAA, but until musicians get smart and stop signing over the content they produce to the devil for not much more than a promise of celebrity, the labels will continue raping both customers and musicians. We'll never outlegislate their fat lobby - the market will have to beat them down.

[Rusty @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

For those of you who can't get the uptown girl out of your head, try this one......
It's a story, of a lovely lady, who was busy with 3 girls of her own........


SORRY.....was flippin' through the tv dial and it was starting on TvLand......

[Boinko @ Dec 19th 2005 2:32AM]

So, okay, here's my question: where the f#$k was the RIAA back in the 1970s?

I'm ten years old. My parents take me to 'Saturday Night Fever.' It's like a goddamn revelation. It's not 'Mary Poppins' or 'Return to Witch Mountain.' It's goddamn Saturday Night Fever. I mean, I hear Annette's voice in my head still: "Tony, won't ya make it wit me? Huh, Tony?'

Anyway, I'm a little kid. It's 1977. And man oh man did I love that music: Bee Gees, Tavares, and -- good god -- Travolta's dancing. It blew my little head.

I go home and there was no web. No allofmp3. No f#*(ing iTunes. It was me, my little plastic turntable, and a tape recorder from Sears. So what's a kid gonna do? If you want to get your fix of 'Stayin' Alive,' you either hope to god you had the radio turned on at the right time, you con your parents into laying out 17 bucks for the double album, or you go to the library, reserve the album, and wait for weeks on end until it finally becomes available.

Then what? You run like f#$8k to get home, put the fird record on your turntable, take out an old Radio Shack cassette tape, put it in your Sears tape recorder, and place that tape recorder right beside your turntables speakers. Then you crank it up. It's goddamn nirvana to hear this stuff.

Of course your mom -- like all moms of the 1970s -- doesn't get why this music is so important. So she's downstairs yelling at you to turn the g#*#d#$&m music down. And she won't stop talking -- you keep shushing her -- and finally you lean over the stairs and say, "Ma! Ma! I'm taping! Can you be quiet! Can you be quiet! I'm taping!"

Then you rewind the tape, move the needle back to the first cut, and start all over again.

Now, let me tell you: this was the *only* way for a ten year old to get music to listen over and over again in 1977. Of course, your dad had a TEAC reel-to-reel, but he didn't want you messing with it because he was afraid you'd f#$*k up his Mozart collection.

Where was the RIAA? Where were they? How come I didn't get sued? How come I didn't see magazine ads in the 'New Republic' or the 'New Yorker' about how tape recording is bad? I'll tell you why: because they didn't give a f&SDk.

And now they do? What's up with that? I'll tell you what's up with that: greedy g*(S(Samn motherf*3498kers who need to make sure they make enough profit to buy cheap suits, lexus convertibles, and golf clubs. All this is because there about 20 guys in the RIAA who are deathly afraid of losing money and not gettting their bonus. It's not about music. It's not about the artists. It's about a bunch of suit wearing motherf#&kers.