Satellite radio subscribers

[Rich Parsons]

From an e-mail from XM Radio:

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.

Do you think the music industry has a point with this law suit?

Or do the satelite radio stations such as XM have the right to produce these products as part of their paid for service, where their service includes royalties to the musics companies?

 

[Carol]

Personally no. To me it seems like the recordings fall under the principle of fair use.

To me it looks more like a stalling tactic, much like many of the highly questionable patent-infringement lawsuits that abound in high tech. When a new startup company is frigteningly innovative enough to take business away from the industry dinosaurs, the dinosaurs often sic their lawyers on the startup company. The purpose is not to bring the questionable infringement case before a judge, the purpose is to force the startup to spend their precious funding on expensive Intellectual Property attorneys instead of on developing their business. The longer the battle goes on, the more funding gets directed away from the startup.

Given that startup companies are extremely volatile, and the majority of startups collapse because they could never become cash-positive, a dubious legal charge can be a very, very, effective way to suck millions of dollars out of a company. And, in many cases, the cash drain will quiet the startup more effectively than the courts will.

 

[Hand Sword]

I say the music industry does not. Hopefully, their law suit will fail. They are already getting paid for their music.

 

[Phadrus00]

I think the Music Industry is running scared. They are grabbing at whatever they can get because their current model is about to collapse and they know it. iTunes and the other music download sites are redefining how we slect, acquire and enjoy music and now that fidenlity is not an issue there is no protection from replication of songs.

All in all I think it is a good thing! It means that the system can't support large corporations with tremnedous amount of overhead mimlking a few artists for moolah. People will have more music to choose from and more money will flow to the artists themselves because there are less ahnds between them and the consumer.

I am willing to lay money on the Music Industry loosing to XM and Sirius. This suit is similar to what the TV and Movie industry has been going through and the same basic rules apply. If the company broadcasting something has paid the royalties then it is perfectly leagal as the listener to record that music for your use. You cannot resell it but you are allowed to enjoy it for your personal use.

Rob

 

[Rich Parsons]

I think the Music Industry is running scared. They are grabbing at whatever they can get because their current model is about to collapse and they know it. iTunes and the other music download sites are redefining how we slect, acquire and enjoy music and now that fidenlity is not an issue there is no protection from replication of songs.

All in all I think it is a good thing! It means that the system can't support large corporations with tremnedous amount of overhead mimlking a few artists for moolah. People will have more music to choose from and more money will flow to the artists themselves because there are less ahnds between them and the consumer.

I am willing to lay money on the Music Industry loosing to XM and Sirius. This suit is similar to what the TV and Movie industry has been going through and the same basic rules apply. If the company broadcasting something has paid the royalties then it is perfectly leagal as the listener to record that music for your use. You cannot resell it but you are allowed to enjoy it for your personal use.

Rob

I agree that their model is in danger and instead of trying to get involved they want to keep it the same. It brings to mind a quote by Danny Devito in "Other People's Money" about Buggy Whips. If the industry wanted to make money on this they would get the artists online to use the music industries site and not their artists own site.

It is all about the greed and control over the artists.