XM will "vigorously defend" Innos against industry suit

XM is firing back against the recording industry's lawsuit over the Pioneer Inno's ability to temporarily store copyrighted material, stating rather boldly in an open letter to its customers that "we will vigorously defend these radios and your right to enjoy them in court and before Congress, and we expect to win." Claiming that the record labels "don't get it," XM argues that consumers have always been free to tape over-the-air content from a variety of sources, provided that they restrict those recordings to personal use. What's more, the Inno doesn't even let you transfer recorded content to other devices, and deletes all of your tunes if you drop your XM subscription, so it's already much more restrictive than the recording devices faced by TV and terrestrial radio broadcasters. Instead of actually expecting XM to pay $150,000 for each song recorded by Inno users (which would probably amount to at least several billion dollars), it's more likely that the music industry is using this suit to coax XM into joining rival Sirius in coughing up additional licensing fees. Also, a note to XM PR: despite your suggestion that the record labels are attacking sat radio owners at the expense of a war on the "real" pirates, we think that the industry is both well-prepared and well-equipped for a multi-front conflict.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[danfromboston @ May 19th 2006 4:27PM]

The RIAA needs to focus on legal song downloads... Im not sure I understand how if any way this is different then the VCR. PERSONAL USE IS LEGAL IN THE US...

[daaper @ May 19th 2006 4:32PM]

So, if I understand this right, there is no way to retrieve songs from this device digitally. On top of that, the broadcast isn't that great of quality to where users would want to even make an analogue recording through the headphone jack. If I were XM, I would expect to win, too.

Good for them, it makes me proud to be an XM customer...FIGHT THE POWER!

[Chris @ May 19th 2006 4:51PM]

F' The RIAA! This war on technology is BS.

[anon @ May 19th 2006 5:03PM]

"Im not sure I understand how if any way this is different then the VCR. PERSONAL USE IS LEGAL IN THE US..."

The RIAA doesn't regulate TV, but I understand your point. It's not any different than recording onto a tape deck. Sirius has such a player and most satellite players allow for a very large pause buffer, thereby recording music to the device, but they are included as they paid a hefty fee to the RIAA. I hope the courts side with XM as this precedence will free other companies from the RIAA's "extortion."

[Asher @ May 19th 2006 5:17PM]

I bought a CD single the other day...a 'single', mind you. Maybe I'm just odd, but I buy singles to rip and combine with other singles or songs I've bought and ripped to make a mix.

Well, BMI/Sony music puts copy protection on their discs. Copy protection that prevents ripping of the tracks and forcing you to use their crappy player just to listen to it on your computer.

Did I mention it's a SINGLE that I BOUGHT? Wouldn't it have just been easier to download it illegally for free? Who are they trying to punish here...people who give them money?

And the kicker is that if you Google the name of the copy-protection scheme, there are instructions on the first page that tell you how to bypass it in about 5 mins. Nice.

[shmengie @ May 19th 2006 5:21PM]

just more death throes from a dying dinosaur. there's a special place in hell reserved for baby-rapers and the riaa.

the riaa refuses to get with the times and find real solutions to the problems of piracy. instead, it's just lawsuit after lawsuit.

rot in hell, riaa. rot in hell...

[Brendan @ May 19th 2006 5:30PM]

Please stop giving the big recording industry money. There are many music lables that aren't members of the RIAA, (Metropolis http://www.metropolis-records.com comes to mind as a perfect example.) Support those that aren't giving their money to an organization that hates you.

[Brad Johnson @ May 19th 2006 5:59PM]

I wonder if the skip buffer on portable CD players would also qualify as piracy since it records 30 seconds of the CD just in case you jar the player making everything you hear on a portable CD player digitally recorded media?

I give XM kudos to drawing a line in the sand vs the RIAA. If XM prevails it could be the tip of the iceberg at weakening the RIAA's power.

[Finished.Law.School @ May 19th 2006 7:30PM]

I look forward to the slow and painful death of the RIAA and all of their legal and executive staff.

[Rusty @ May 19th 2006 9:35PM]

Anything that knocks the RIAA down (along with the MPAA)
is a good thing. I've been an XM subscriber for a little
over 3 years. Yeah, I guess a little of my money in a roundabout way goes to the RIAA, in "subscriber" fees, but I haven't bought a CD since! I don't burn audio CD's anymore. I have my "favorite artists" stored on the Sky-Fi2, so it pops up when I'm in the car.
I'd rather pay the 12.95 a month to XM, than 20 bucks for a CD with 1 or 2 good songs and the rest of the CD is crap.
The RIAA/MPAA are just PO'd because they are LOSING
money big time. Instead of trying to WORK with the
new industries, they are H**l bent on trying to retain
their crappy ways.

[Bobjoe @ May 19th 2006 9:46PM]

I despise the RIAA and the MPAA. In the last 5 or 6 years I have not purchased a single CD or movie. And, last I heard, it's only illegal to upload copyrighted material to P2P networks, Bit Torrent, etc.

[Geoffrey @ May 19th 2006 10:33PM]

Just to be clear, the RIAA doesn't actually regulate anything, as was suggested in post #4. They are mearly the well-paid attack dogs funded by some of the largest music labels. They may wish they were a regulating body, but, thank the gods, they're not!

[Ivan @ May 20th 2006 1:26AM]

The problem is that the RIAA and MPAA are just like Lobbying groups. They are the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of ethics and morality. In government, the lobbyists are regulated because typically there is an 'equal and opposite' effect where one lobbyist cancels out the loud noise of another, and ultimately the congressmen make a fair decision somewhere in the middle. Here though, these groups have their word against the disorganized word of the public at large. So we become the victims because they try to attack individuals and we are unable to stand united. Have no doubt about it... if they tried to file charges against thousands or even millions (the number of people breaking their guidelines) they would find massive boycotts and eventually pressure from artists and retail outlets (maybe even government!) to find a better solution. People have the power... ALWAYS.

[Ryan @ May 20th 2006 4:48AM]

I'm a sirius subscriber myself but I have to give XM credit where it's due. They're standing up to the biggest bully in the country and you gotta respect that. Even if you're into the whole XM vs SIRIUS BS. All Sirius did was bend over and let the RIAA in. And it's something that many of us get rubbed in our faces sometimes.

Good job for XM. I hope it turns out well for the company and it's subscribers.

[Marc Mayor @ May 20th 2006 5:16AM]

With the XMSR stock down 60 percent off its highs, this doesn't look too good.

[steve @ May 20th 2006 12:38PM]

the riaa pisses me off
they sue for EVERYTHING
a while ago i thought that when you bought a cd u owned the music
well i guess we dont own what we buy

i dont really support the riaa
i just find someone with the cd and get it burned
or go to the library and rent a cd then rip it

[phreaki @ May 20th 2006 3:45PM]

With these devices, like others, at any point you could plug the headphones into your computer and re-record away.

I guess this lawsuit means that XM has never paid a dime for the potential piracy that could happen. I'm left speechless however, if they've already paid fees that radio stations must do 'just in case' someone pirates/records a song.

Let's face it, if you copy a song you're a pirate to the RIAA, even if you've paid to listen to the song already.. .that is.. unless you pay yet again.