What is Digg?144 Comments
- Oline61, on 10/12/2007, -0/+65"The lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages for every song copied by XM Satellite customers"
In other news, CD prices skyrocket to over one million dollars per disc. - TekeeTakShak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Damn, those guys won't stop at anything, will they?
What's next, stopping people from ripping CD's? - DerGeist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29The RIAA already wants to take away your ability to rip CDs. They've been calling CD ripping stealing for quite some time now.
See:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html
Best line:
"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
Translation: "GIVE ME YOUR MONEY, YOU STUPID ASS!!! BLAAARGGHGHH!!" - plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28There may be a flip side though... What if XM, though the process of this case, shows (in court) that a song really shouldn't be worth 150,000 bucks, and should be worth what you would otherwise pay for it (99 cents).. In that case, it would set a legal precedent that could pass on to the customers being sued by the RIAA. The other victims of the RIAA could only be sued for 99 cents a song, and therefore, these 100,000 dollar lawsuits the RIAA threatens would be knocked down to 100 or 500 bucks...
- AnGryTreE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I saw the device in question at CES in January and asked the rep from XM about RIAA and possible issues. He acknowledged they weren't happy about it but, felt secure that there would be no issues because the device locks the mp3s if the person's subscription runs out and the files are encoded so you can't transfer them to another device. I walked away thinking that this guy was probably in for a shock. After all...the RIAA eats baby bunnies!
Recording artists are starting to stand up and take on the suits. One good example is the CMCC (Canadian Music Creators Coalition). This has been posted before. Link: http://www.musiccreators.ca . A good overview (interview with Steven Page of BnL) of the situation and their stance can be found here: http://www.pcworld.ca/news/column/00c878ad0a01040800577d95c0379858/pg1.htm
Ya ya I know...Im Canadian centric...sigh...it goes with being Canuckian;). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30This is a real problem. I better not loose my XM satellite radio service over this or heads with ***** roll.
- walugi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21It makes you wonder why bad things happen to good people. Why do old ladies and children get run over by cars or molested? It should be the RIAA who get run over by trucks, landmines remove half their bodies, spontaneous combustion, gay biker mishaps etc.
The world is a cruel place! - EM081L3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18RIAA = Retards irrationally against anything
This is just plainly another attempt at keeping people from copying anything that they rightfully own, yes XM subscribers don't own the music for say... BUT THEY PAY FOR THE DAMN STUFF ALREADY!!! Don't you do that with music cd's??? Wow RIAA keep shooting themselves in the foot... don't they realize that ***** hurts... and it is going to hurt them even more in the long run? Like for instance people not buying music period and just downloading the stuff. If the RIAA keep doing this ***** i am going to stop buying music all together and join the "pirates" and download it. I like to think of "pirates" as more of the modern day robin hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
Sorry I am a XM subscriber and this is an outrage. - speedyrev, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19New RIAA goals.
Consumers can only purchase music on CD's at $50 each
You can only listen to it one time.
No one else can be close enough to hear while you listen.
You are not allowed to hum the tune after you listen.
Every word in the lyrics must be taken out of your vocabulary after you listen.
Enjoy your music. - abbott75, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22Someone's sarcas-o-meter is broken...
- Oxidizer, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29Wow! “$150,000 in damages” I bet that the RIAA employ a failed mathematician (a girl maybe?) to simply think up big numbers.
RIAA guy: Quick we want to sue, give me a big number!
MathMo: amm?! gwapetilion!
RIAA guy: no something more ‘normal’
MathMo *bashes key pad*: 92387?
RIAA guy: better! But round it up.
MathMo: 150000!
RIAA guy: perfect. - bingbangboom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Is anyone going to finally stop the RIAA? I mean honestly, XM pushes artist to more sales by playing music that normally doesn't get played on any radio station. Why are they fighting something that is trying to help them. I want one of these to listen to the Opie & Anthony Show on the go... spread the virus!
- Acill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15What the hell is wrong with the RIAA?! Enough is enough! Someone needs to stop they people and stop them now. It would be one thing if people were taking this device and moving the songs off to a computer and sending them out, but its locked down better then a Tivo or cable providers DVR. I am so sick of all of the RIAA *****.
- InGearX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I am waiting for RIAA to sue people for buying CDs of lables/artists that are not in their crew...
- cybershoplifter, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21I found this tasty bit and it applys to this story......Media Wants to be Free (But Not in the Way You Think)
CALL IT A MESH MEDIA MOMENT. I was sitting in traffic on the Willis Avenue bridge flipping channels on the radio in my truck when suddenly the Howard Stern show appeared at 88.1 MHz on the FM band. "What the *****?" I thought. Is a station in New York City bootlegging and rebroadcasting Stern's Sirius signal? Then it dawned on me, I was picking up the show from the low power FM modulator some other driver must have been using to connect his satellite radio to his car stereo.
By the time I hit Second Avenue, the serendipitous Stern signal was gone. But what lingered was the impact of accidentally happening upon the re-broadcast signal.
I'm a Sirius subscriber, but I don't have a receiver in my car. Nor has Sirius made it easy for me to consume the Stern show in more than one location--I either need to multiple receivers and antennae (as well as to pay an incremental fee for the additional receivers) or I need to move a receiver back and forth between locations.
I like Howard Stern. I'm willing to pay $13 a month for the option of flipping over to his show when I feel like it. But I'm not willing to invest time, money, or aggravation in the hardware or installation services required to buy into the Sirius distribution network. I'm willing to pay for the content, but I want my content liberated, free to roam the network of networks until I pull it down to the device of my choice at the time of my choice for the personal use of my choice.
I don't know if "information wants to be free," as Stewart Brand postulated in the mid-1980s, but I do know that end users want information to be network- and device-agnostic. That's why, for example, my friend Fred Wilson hates DRM-wrapped music. That's why I think satellite radio is doomed. Information wants to be free from the yoke of network exclusivity.
Consumers are willing to pay for the best network access (I heard recently from a cable TV exec that super high bandwidth Internet services are flying off the virtual shelves--"people want blazing fast," was the phrase the exec used). And consumers are willing to pay for the best content. But they HATE having to pay for one in order to get the other. That's why consumers resent the cable TV model that forces users into a menu of programming (the way auto manufacturers force buyers into more profitable packages of options). I would gladly pay a subscription fee to HBO directly, rather than through DirecTV, if it allowed me HBO video on demand on my TVs, my computers, at hotel rooms on the road, at a vacation rental, on my portable devices.
The universal appeal of peer-to-peer file sharing, of weird "mesh media" impromptu local networks (of the sort I experienced on the Willis Avenue Bridge) in part has to do with the freedom from paying, but even more so has to do with the freedom of use--not "use" in the sense of piracy--redistribution for commercial purposes--but "use" in the sense of personal choice within a neatly legal context. In absence of an industrial infrastructure to provide that choice, end users are doing it for themselves.
The media industry is on the precipice of a challenge at least as substantial as the original challenge of the Internet more than a decade ago. The era of ubiquitous super-broadband (and, increasingly, wireless super-broadband) is upon us. Five years ago, when I was a venture partner with a corporate media technology venture fund, I had a chance to see what the boys at the nation's premier media technology skunk works, Sarnoff Labs in Princeton, NJ, were doing with then-nascent WiMax technology---sending HD TV signals wirelessly through 6 feet of concrete walls. Today Starbucks is a wifi media distribution hub operator and my mother--who types IMs with one finger--has fiber optic to the home (with speeds available of up to 30 mbps).
Media companies--producers, owners of programming networks, distributors--had better start thinking not outside the box but outside the device and outside the pipe. That's the information freedom that consumers want and that consumers will implement whether media companies like it or not. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11No need to stop the RIAA: they and the large commercial interests they represent will do themselves in. When you use copy-protection software that hides on your computer, when you sue people who have already paid for the content and so on, your market is doomed to fail.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This is nothing more than a bargaining chip for the RIAA.
Keep in mind that negotiations are currently open on royalties paid to the RIAA by XM for digital tracks.
And yeah, I'll echo the sentiment. ***** these greedy bastards. - griz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8When I was a kid I would spend hours in front of my stereo listening to the top 40 and recording my own mix tapes. Where was the RIAA then? Noone came out and sued the stereo makers because the latest boom box came out with a record button. Why? Because you could not easily share the music to millions of other people. They are scared of the digital age and what the first round of file sharing has show to be possible.
However, the RIAA is blinded by their own madness. Sure they can protect their content. But they need to loosen up when it comes to individuals ripping their own content. They would like nothing more than to prevent you from ripping your own CD to put the content on a player. They should be spending more time on a campaign to reach a compromise and inform people about their rights when purchasing the music. Give the individual the choice. If they wrote on the package "This CD is your own and only legal copy, if it breaks, you lose it and need to buy another". CD sales would drop through the floor and people would record to piracy once again.
But if the package said, "You are entitled to make up to 5 backup disks from this CD and then you will need to replace it" That sounds like a fair deal. Also, You should be allowed to RIP it to play on your own personal music player.
Sharing it online should not be legal (Let the bashing begin).
Let me make a comparison. I go out and buy 100 CDs and make copies. I then go out on the street and give them away. I make the people taking them swear that they own the original and they are just buying them as a backup measure. How ridiculous does this sound? This is not fair use. I am diluting the market for the product and that can have a negative effect on the product.
There needs to be an in between measure. A compromise. - Bluezdood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6When is a judge sitting in one of the major circuit courts (not the 9th lest we all burst into fits of laughter) going to look the RIAA in the face and say "Any more out of you and you'll face federal charges of extortion and rackateering, understand"? This really needs to stop, now.
- AnGryTreE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually you might remember this RIAA campaign: HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC.
They were indeed around during the old "record off the radio days". It's just that they didn't have a common media (web) to track people on. You can't exactly go to everyone's home and knock on their door and ask to audit their tapes now can you?:) - AnGryTreE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The real problem here is that the record industry is desperately trying to keep alive a business model which is simply not viable today. It's a bizarre way of doing business - suing people to try to force them to deal with an obsolete business model. Also, they simply can't get it through their heads that music is not a commodity to people. Music fans view music as something very personal and we have a very intimate relationship with it. It's tied directly to our memories and feelings. They need to pull their heads out of the butts and start working on a way to give people the convenience they want via file sharing while also generating revenue and not ripping off the fans with outrageous and unjustified pricing.
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sigh. If people would spend two seconds looking through the copyright code, or here's a though, maybe going to law school, then they'd quit filling this place with ridiculous rants about "Oh my god, 150,000 dollars! it should be 99 cents a song, cuz thats what ITunes sells them for, and they pwns the RIAA."
17 USC 501(c)(2) clearly states that the copyright owner can choose, as a remedy, one of two options -- either (a) actual damages, or (b) statutory damages. Statutory damages are damages particularly specified in the code and from which the court can determine liability. In the case of wilful copyright infringement, the court may award, at its discretion, fines of up to 150,000 dollars per infringement. This is where the RIAA is getting it's number, so if you don't like it, write your Senators, but quit bitching.
The real issue in this case is whether XM can even be held liable in this case. While it produces the produce that allows for the alleged infringement, it is the consumer who is actually recording the material. - mrtrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Somewhat offtopic:
Remember when there was this thing called FM radio, and people used to record songs off of it with little cassette type devices called audio tapes? Where were they then?
They're just upset now because recording music (even if you, as the end user have paid for it, and the company providing the media has paid for it) because it is easier to do on a larger scale. Recording music to listen to at a later time has been going on as long as there has been music.
Parent is right, RIAA and their lawyers only care about squeezing every last cent out of every last market they can. - Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I might be wrong about this but doesn't satellite radio count as a broadcasted signal? I though that, in the US, it was legal to tape off of a signal. Wasn't that the basis for it being legal for you to tape TV shows and radio programs?
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5While the RIAA is publically opposed to any copying, what they really fear is loss of control. With Pro Tools and the internet (blogs, p2p and so on), musicians do not necessarily have to sign up with a music companiy to record, distribute and market their music. iTunes changed how people choose and use their music. No longer were customers required to buy the whole album, instead they could buy a song or two (which in a way is not new - music companies back in the 50s and 60s relied heavily on the sales of singles not albums). The power is shifting to the musician and the customer and this scares the heck out the RIAA.
- ekeup, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@plamoni
Nobody is saying the copied songs are worth $150,000, that's the fine for 'stealing' them.
If the fine for stealing a song (or anything for that matter) was the same as the cost to buy it, wouldn't we just steal it and pay only when we get caught? Or is that what's been happening anyway :-) - DerGeist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@mousky: aren't you concerned the RIAA will continue to grow? They're already putting DRM footholds into every conceivable place. The more they creep in and erode our rights, the more I see Stallman's "The Right to Read" becoming a reality far too soon. The RIAA owns music (yes, I know there are independents and non-RIAA labels out there, but face the facts -- their market share is incredibly low). People still buy an assload of music. I don't see the RIAA going anywhere, although I would certainly like them to.
- Tux42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I did not think it was possible, but the RIAA has sunk to a new low. :(
They make Microsoft look generous and Windows look cheap ($300 for XP Pro). - info, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Read the article. Sirius agreed to pay for the RIAA's distro license. XM is pushing back.
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How is this different from recording regular radio? The RIAA is getting the money anyway, though XM subscribers or commercials on standard radio...
- jkoski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Stern show will be available for streaming sometime in the next few months so if you are a subscriber you will be able to listen whenever you have a broadband connection.
- GolfDude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6time to elect a young president and have him abolish the RIAA for putting a stunt in technological growth and causing the country to fall behind in tech advances other countries have just b/c they want money.. did i say want.. i mean EXTORT money
- krux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they are not stored as mp3s. You can load mp3s on the device on a different partition, but there is no possible way, other than hooking up a recording device to the line out, to get the music off the device. And guess what. You can do that with anything.
- clanmcgraw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The RIAA is a dinosaur. I'm waiting for its extinction.
- GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is legal sticky ground. Although i hope the RIAA burns in hell, i fear they have a decent case with the abscure verbage they have created around other music services. I hope XM/Clear Channel will focus the courts attention on the fact it is a personal audio recorder no different than an Audio equivelant to VCR. Which those hardware manufactures do not have to pay exhorborant license fees for.
On a side rant, this is why i hate companies like SONY, They own not only the music. But are pushing the technology to deliver the content as well, Thus to keep high media prices. If Sony wins the Hidef war, then Hi def is doomed to adoption. This is why BluRay sucks. - The_Dude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I know people have mentioned this before, but way back in the day, you could record whatever you wanted to this thing called a CASSETTE TAPE. Radio, records, cd's, etc. You could then play the tape wherever you wanted, or give it to whomever you wished. You could even, *gasp* duplicate it! So what is the RIAA's response to that kind of use? Is that the next battle for them? Going after the oldsters with tape recorders? What is the difference? The principle seems to be the same.
- DeathSun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You know, even though it IS a fine, it would seem that it SHOULD be closer to the actual cost of what they claim is "lost" by this action of recording the radio.
As precedence I'd like to bring up the Blockbuster example. Blockbuster lost a suit filed against them because they were charging more in late fees then they were actually losing by a customer holding on to their DVDs a few more days. The arguement was that Blockbuster shouldn't be charging more then the cost of re-renting those films again. And that's logical.
One's right to archival aside--I would think the fine of $150k per song is ridiculous (which I guess goes without saying).
Also, how can the RIAA prove how many songs where even copied to set an amout in damages? - compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8You mean repealing our privelage to rip CDs? I think they told us we could do that 2 weeks ago, but you may be correct. They might wake up tomorrow morning and say "What the hell were we thinking!? That's lost profit!!11! They should have to rebuy the CD!1!1"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2lets sue every single company that created tape recorders as well...
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If the RIAA wins this... It's time to firebomb both their headquarters, and the headquarters of the FCC. Let these bureaucrats know that when they mess with people's personal property, and freedom, that they need to fear for their lives.
- dargoesdigging, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"The lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages for every song copied by XM Satellite customers using the devices, which went on sale weeks ago. The company said it plays 160,000 different songs every month."
Riiiight, so they're seeking damages of $24,000,000,000 ($24 billion)
And of course that's only per month.
Will they take a cheque?
But we're expected to trust their figures for the vast sums of money they're supposedly losing from illegal downloading ...sure. - tony23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@middleman: Don't you know that it's a copyright infringement to sing a song while walking down the street? It wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA posted monitors at every street corner to catch these diabolical criminals
- niteskunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm surprised these ***** penny-vultures didn't pull this sooner! It's disgusting!
- scards, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I second that. XM and Sirius radio already LOSE money annually because their royalties to the RIAA are well beyond what normal FM stations pay, and they don't yet have the subscriber base to off-set that.
Now they want (in addition to the dues already being paid) damages from people storing 50 songs on a player?
I'm getting really fed up with the state of affairs lately. - ucbrave92, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4how much longer before the idiots try to sue you for listening to music, or humming a tune?
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The RIAA will sue anything with a pulse and ears.
- Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We'll if the RIAA wants to play the game that I cannot record broadcast content even when I'm paying for it then.
I dont want thier radio stations RF crossing my property, I dont want any RIAA content being broadcast via satilite across my property as well.
If that line of arguement sounds crazy it's actually the reason that radio and broadcast stations are able to do what they do. The FCC said in order for people to allow content to be broadcast through their property then they must be given free access to record it. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and they would say, "You can do whatever you want with the CD, but once that music leaves the CD we have a problem..."
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ummm... more rice is grown in the USA then in Asia...
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have to wonder how many people here that are in the "hands off my mp3's RIAA" are also in the "sue the gun manufacturers" camp?
The RIAA says, "Yes, you own the CD but you do not own the ability to freely distribute what is on the CD. Well, I guess fair use allows you to rip a CD and put it on your iPod, but file-sharing is definitely not going to fly with us."
The gun manufacturers say, "It's a gun not a toy. We have no control over what you do with it after you buy it from us. The bullets you put in there are yours, if you shoot someone we are not going to go after you and claim you illegally "shared" your bullets with someone... Besides, how can you sue us if someone got killed? Obviously the gun worked!"
So... if you believe the RIAA has no say it what you can and can not do with the music you purchased you must also agree that a gun manufacturer also has no say in what you can and can not do with the gun you purchased, right? -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is