Using MP3 player to record sat radio "not fair use"

[redshifter]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APW...D8MOFEGO0.html

it looks like the record companies won this one. will this open mp3 player makers up to lawsuits now?

 

[Ross1]

Recording radio to mp3 will just sound like noise anyway, i dont see why you would ever want to do that....

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Recording radio to mp3 will just sound like noise anyway, i dont see why you would ever want to do that....

digital satelite radio.

 

[zachary80]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif digital satelite radio.

Isn't it compressed to around 128kbps?

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachary80 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Isn't it compressed to around 128kbps?

i don't know.
the point is, if it is not fair use to use a device like the xm+mp3 player to record digital music from satellite radio, this opens the door for the riaa to sue device manufacturers.

we really need smarter people than judges, executives, and politicians to figure out this digital mess.

 

[blessingx]

Digital Satellite Radio closer to noise than radio (said by a Sirius subscriber who enjoys it, but SQ sucks)... anyway I've heard the XM/Sirius contracts with the RIAA are very strange and spells out a great deal of use/non-use clauses that play out in programming and storage. It's evidently far different than FM, etc. I don't know if this would extent to MP3 players, but they've certainly gone after them before.

EDIT: It's well below 128 kbps though I don't know what codec you're referring to. But as Redshifter said, that's not the point.

 

[exX08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Digital Satellite Radio closer to noise than radio (said by a Sirius subscriber who enjoys it, but SQ sucks)... anyway I've heard the XM/Sirius contracts with the RIAA are very strange and spells out a great deal of use/non-use clauses that play out in programming and storage. It's evidently far different than FM, etc. I don't know if this would extent to MP3 players, but they've certainly gone after them before. EDIT: It's well below 128 kbps though I don't know what codec you're referring to. But as Redshifter said, that's not the point.

I have XM and Sirius and XM sounds alot better than serious. It sounds more like 256 bitrate.

 

[vcoheda]

The case doesn't say anything about people recording music from the radio or satellite. It is only talking about a broadcaster that records the music/program and then offers it to subscribers. That is totally different. But it could still have some pretty big implications.

One worth watching.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif The case doesn't say anything about people recording music from the radio or satellite. It is only talking about a broadcaster that records the music/program and then offers it to subscribers. That is totally different. But it could still have some pretty big implications. One worth watching.

the impression i got was the sat radio provider's hardware reciever could also digitally record shows for playback later.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by exX08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have XM and Sirius and XM sounds alot better than serious. It sounds more like 256 bitrate.

Again I'm not sure what codec you're referring to, but XM broadcasts at ~80kbps for important music channels, ~40kbps for the rest (~64kbps is used in reporting averages) and 32kbps for the talk channels. This is AACplus. Sirius uses the older PAC v4 in VBR mode, but that allows dynamically changing bitrates across stations (one suffers/another gains). Sirius probably uses similar bitrates. One thing for sure, neither sounds like 256 kbps MP3/AAC/Vorbis. Pick based on your preference of the content, 'cause you're not going to get quality with either.

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif the impression i got was the sat radio provider's hardware receiver could also digitally record shows for playback later.

I think that's the point. By doing that, the broadcaster also becomes a distributor, which according to the article, it was not licensed to do. The issue isn't really with the technology just how its being used. And money too. The provider wants more of it, because it feels broadcasting and distributing are two separate services.

One example that comes to mind is how BBC Radio broadcasts live operas from the Met. But the performances are also available on their website for one week for anyone to listen to, although not download. The Met may say, hey BBC, you paid us to broadcast the performance, but you get loads and loads of more traffic (and money from advertisers) on your site by archiving the performance for later use. That's not part of our agreement. That is copyright infringement. I think that is kind of the situation here.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think that's the point. By doing that, the broadcaster also becomes a distributor, which according to the article, it was not licensed to do. The issue isn't really with the technology just how its being used. And money too. The provider wants more of it, because it feels broadcasting and distributing are two separate services. One example that comes to mind is how BBC Radio broadcasts live operas from the Met. But the performances are also available on their website for one week for anyone to listen to, although not download. The Met may say, hey BBC, you paid us to broadcast the performance, but you get loads and loads of more traffic (and money from advertisers) on your site by archiving the performance for later use. That's not part of our agreement. That is copyright infringement. I think that is kind of the situation here.

ok i'm confused. first you say "The case doesn't say anything about people recording music from the radio or satellite." when i point out people are in fact doing that, you agree. so is the case about that or not?

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif ok i'm confused. first you say "The case doesn't say anything about people recording music from the radio or satellite." when i point out people are in fact doing that, you agree. so is the case about that or not?

No. Didn't mean to confuse you. I agreed that the broadcaster was recording the program/music for later use. As far as I can tell, the case has absolutely nothing to do with individuals (me, you) at home using whatever device to record the radio for private use. That's always been allowed. This case doesn't seem to deal with that issue at all.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. Didn't mean to confuse you. I agreed that the broadcaster was recording the program/music for later use. As far as I can tell, the case has absolutely nothing to do with individuals (me, you) at home using whatever device to record the radio for private use. That's always been allowed. This case doesn't seem to deal with that issue at all.

from the article:
"In a lawsuit last year, the companies said XM directly infringes on their exclusive distribution rights by letting consumers record songs onto special receivers marketed as "XM + MP3" players."

consumer recording sat radio onto an mp3 device. i do not know how to make this clearer.

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif from the article: "In a lawsuit last year, the companies said XM directly infringes on their exclusive distribution rights by letting consumers record songs onto special receivers marketed as "XM + MP3" players." consumer recording sat radio onto an mp3 device. i do not know how to make this clearer.

You have to read the whole article.

"In refusing to toss out the lawsuit, the judge noted that the record companies consent to XM's use of their copyrighted material solely for the purposes of providing a digital satellite broadcasting service.

She said XM operates like traditional radio broadcast providers, . . . But by broadcasting and storing copyrighted music for later listening by the consumer, the judge said XM is both a broadcaster and a distributor, but only paying to be a broadcaster.

"The record companies sufficiently allege that serving as a music distributor to XM + MP3 users gives XM added commercial benefit as a satellite radio broadcaster," Batts said."

That's just what I said. The law suit is not going after the consumer or the technology but the broadcaster and their archiving of music. You're not reading this right.