Suit against XM Expanded - New Labels Involved

March 22, 2007

According to Billboard.biz, new labels have decided to file suit against XM.

Publishers Sue XM Satellite Radio
March 22, 2007 - Legal and Management

By Susan Butler, N.Y.

A group of music publishers sued XM Satellite Radio over the XM + MP3 service late today (March 22). EMI Music Publishing, Warner/Chappell Music, Sony/ATV Music and Famous Music claim they want to "put an end to the pervasive and willful copyright infringement" of their compositions distributed over the service to "iPod-like devices controlled by XM."

"We've read that XM paid Oprah $55 million to develop content," says David Israelite, president/CEO of the National Music Publishers' Assn. "Yet they haven't paid one penny to creators of music for copies on these devices."

XM has argued in the past that it functions only as a radio broadcaster, licensing the compositions from performing rights organizations ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. "The lawsuit filed by the NMPA is a negotiating tactic to gain an advantage in our ongoing business discussions," says a spokesman for XM in a statement. "XM pays royalties to writers and composers who are also compensated by our device manufacturers. We are confident that the lawsuit is without merit and that we will prevail."

The publishers claim that the service does not merely broadcast recorded songs; it delivers perfect digital copies of songs for its customers to copy to the devices, create extensive libraries of the songs and replay them for as long as the listeners pay XM's monthly fee. Yet XM has not licensed the right to reproduce or distribute the recorded compositions, publishers claim.

The suit, filed in the federal District Court in New York, comes one month after a judge in the same court handed major labels a partial victory in their case against XM over the service. In January, federal District Court Judge Deborah Batts denied XM's attempt to dismiss the labels' lawsuit. The two suits could be consolidated so the same judge would preside over both claims.

Israelite says that negotiations began with president/CEO Hugh Panero over a year ago. "XM's final, best offer was far from adequate," says Israelite. He declined to provide specific details of the offer, citing a confidentiality agreement between the parties concerning details of the discussions.

Sirius Satellite Radio, part of the $13 billion proposed merger with XM, settled similar claims with labels over its Sirius S50 portable device last year. Israelite says that Sirius has not yet settled with publishers; he expects negotiations to start up again soon.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are Famous, the Viacom-owned independent publisher, and 26 other publishers owned by EMI, Warner/Chappell or Sony/ TV. Although Universal Music Publishing Group and BMG Music Publishing are not named as plaintiffs, they are also part of the suit since it was filed by the NMPA on behalf of its members.

"In these types of cases, you find some representative plaintiffs," says Israelite. "This suit is really a fight for the entire publishing industry."

The publishers seek a maximum of $150,000 per infringement, listing in the complaint more than 200 songs as a "small fraction" of the compositions infringed. They include "Let It Be," "My Heart Will Go On," "Me and Bobby McGee" and "Like a Prayer."

"We don't want to hold back the technology, we don't want to prevent consumers' choice of how to acquire music," says Israelite. "But we must be sure that our creators are compensated properly when copies of their music are made."

Debra Wong Yang, former U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles and now a partner with
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, is lead attorney in the case for the publishers.

Labels: copyright, law suit, riaa, xm canada

3/22/2007 07:33:00 PM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



0 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------

Tiered Pricing

March 8, 2007

There are several ways to look at a tiered pricing platform for satellite radio. Some are advantageous, and others are not.

One advantage of a tiered system could well relate to the ongoing arbitration with the RIAA.

As things currently stand, the RIAA receives a set percentage of subscription revenue. The percentage remains the same even if the subscriber never tunes in a music stream. This is one of the crucial points illustrated by Sirius.

Sirius argues that the RIAA is benefiting from subscribers that came to Sirius for stern, and spend most of their listening time tuned into his channels. By what right does the RIAA have claim to any dollars attributable to Stern? news channels? Sports channels? ETC.

It is possible that Sirius and XM (as a merged company, or as separate entities) could create a tiered system by which music is all lumped into one category with a set price per month. All other tiers would fall outside of the realm of the RIAA, and realistically speaking, they would have no right or claim to those other dollars. If we assume that the music only portion of a current subscription was $8.99 per month, then the RIAA would get a percentage of those dollars only, and no claim to the other $4.00 per month.

As things stand now, Sirius and XM have a decent shot at doing well in the RIAA negotiations because they can always fall back to a tiered format to limit the dollars expended. On the other hand, the RIAA is fighting this battle in the legislature as well as the current negotiations. Should the RIAA prevail with law makers, the current negotiations become virtually moot.

No one would reasonably argue that the artists should not be compensated for their work. There is a strong argument that the artists are currently being compensated for the work of Stern, Oprah, Jay Thomas, etc. Is that fair? Certainly there is a reasonable middle ground, but there will be a lot of maneuvering in the process of getting there.

In thinking of my listening over the last two days, I can honestly say did not listen to any music. I caught Stern, CNBC, Fox News, and a bit of Sirius Stars. I would like to see reader feedback relating to the listening habits of SSG readers.

Seeing that Sirius and XM are in the middle of negotiations with the RIAA, and also a merger, it is likely, and understandable, that they want to hold their cards close to the vest.

Labels: riaa, sirius, xm

3/08/2007 12:01:00 PM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



2 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------

RBC Weighs In On RIAA and Internet Radio

March 7, 2007

In a report issued today, RBC takes a look at the new RIAA rates as they relate to internet radio. RBC, as with many feel that these new rates will hamper the fledgling industry, and that the bigger and stronger companies will be the only players in town. Perhaps this can be an argument that sirius and XM can use as a selling point. The fact that they are a subscription service allows them to continue internet operations, and thus keep the competition in this narrow part of the media business thriving.

RBC Report Excerpts:

Broadcasting & Cable TV/RBC: Internet Royalty Settlement Increases Risk But Worst Case Scenario UnlikelyImplications From Copyright Royalty Board On Internet Radio Royalties Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) Adopts RIAA Proposed Royalties For Internet Radio-In late February, the Copyright Royalty Board elected to adopt, with a few minor exceptions, the webcasting royalty rates proposed by the RIAA pertaining to Webcasters. Most Internet radio operators have openly argued implementation of the RIAA proposal would likely result in making Internet radio streaming business a virtually non economic proposition for all but the largest few providers who have achieved massive scale (we agree). This occurs as XM/SIRI enter early phase of their own arbitration process with CRB to settle royalty issues (a process unlikely to be resolved till 12/07).

Criteria Used For Determining Outcome Suggests Less Onerous Result For XMSR/SIRI-That the newly approved Webcasting royalty settlement likely means the end to many Internet Radio stations currently broadcasting (and that no compromise was reached) suggests CRB has little regard for impact of higher fees on those who will pay. However, the criteria used for determining appropriate royalty rates includes technological contribution, risk to opening of new markets for creative expression and media, and capital investment. We believe DARS' billions in infrastructure investment will be viewed favorably vs. smaller infrastructure investment made by Webcasting Industry.

Labels: rbc, riaa

3/07/2007 02:03:00 PM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



0 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------

Without Payola, Will Terrestrial Have To Start Paying Fees To The RIAA, Too?

$10 Million Payola Settlement in the Works?
via RadioWorld, Feb 2, 2007

There's an industry payola settlement, valued at about $10 million, on the table, USA Today reports.
Under one reported proposal, Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Entercom and Citadel would make payments and other contributions, such as airtime, totaling $10 million, according to the account; they would also draft compliance plans spelling out unacceptable actions.
But the topic is in play and details may change, sources told the paper.
Also, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., in a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee, urged members to adopt tough payola restrictions and discuss the topic with FCC commissioners at this week's hearing...read more: here

Labels: payola, riaa, terrestrial

2/02/2007 12:16:00 PM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



0 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------

Kit Springs Weighs In on XM Law Suit and Merger

January 23, 2007

Stifel analyst Kit Spring has issued a note on XM Satellite Radio in reference to the RIIA suit. Springs doubts that the suit will have a negative impact on the enterprise value of XM.

Report Excerpts:

- XMSR lost round one as a defendant in a lawsuit by the recording industry: Last May, the recording industry (RIAA) filed a lawsuit against XM alleging copyright infringements, essentially saying new radios with recording functions are like iPods, which require a higher licensing fee. XM believes these devices are legal based on the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, similar to TiVo. The RIAA seeks $150k per song or $35B - 5 times the enterprise value of XMSR, an amount that seems completely divorced from economic reality. Last Friday, judge Deborah Batts ruled against XM's dismissal request. She will hear the case. See our Stifel regulatory team's note this a.m. for more detail

Springs sates, "We doubt the liability will be material to XMSR's enterprise value for
the following reasons::

- Based on our analysis of NPD data and other retail channels, these devices haven't been very popular. To date, we estimate XM has sold only about 125k radios (vs.7.7MM subs) with the advanced recording features in question (Pioneer Inno and Samsung Helix allow for disaggregation of shadow recoding).

- Unlike an iPod, you can't take songs off these devices, so maximum economic damage is likely limited to both the number of devices and the average useful life of the devices, perhaps 3.5 years. These qualities lead to enormous differences in the economic damage relative to Internet file sharing, which has a viral/exponential effect. We'd also point out that the number of songs downloaded on iTunes per iPod is only about 20, another statistic that points to limited economic damage.

- Sirius negotiated separate licenses with the record companies for their recording capabilities, which we believe were around $9 per radio upon manufacture for recording consistent with the AHRA and$25 per radio (incremental $16) for advanced recording features. Sirius was the
manufacturer of its advanced recording radios. We believe XM/Pioneer/Samsung are paying only the$9. If XM settled for 5 times what Sirius is paying, that equates to damages of $10MM, an immaterial amount, in our view

- In our view, the RIAA is incentivized to improve its economics versus XM, but at the same time not to materially harm the company. Satellite radio pays a total of7% of its revenues to record companies and artists combined, versus3% from terrestrial radio. So, record companies should prefer that satellite radio takes off, unless they conclude that radio in general (both satellite and terrestrial) is bad for record sales.

- Advanced recording will likely remain a niche product until manufacturing costs plummet: Looked at another way, we believe an incremental $16 fee for future radios with advanced recording features would be a slight detriment to adoption if manufacturers tried to pass all of the cost to consumers. If XM had to bear the full cost of advanced recording, as opposed to sharing it with manufacturers and/or consumers, this would represent a reduction to the economics per sub with advance recording features. If XM wanted advanced recording for every radio and fully subsidized it, we estimate this would cost XM an incremental $25 in SAC/CPGA (42%/25% increase). We doubt that XM will need to do this because competing technologies will also be restricted in terms of what they can offer. We believe that advanced recording features will remain a niche product for consumers that want to pay the extra $9-25, until manufacturing costs plummet. We do not belive the Street has baked in high assumptions for recording products.

Maintain Buy rating on XMSR: We continue to believe long-term forecasts for satellite radio are achievable based on the projected ramp of new car installations (from about 20% of new cars today to70% by decade end) and relatively high-take rates in new cars today (55%). We think SIRI and XMSR will attempt a merger in 2007 and see $7B of merger synergies. Of course, there is also a possibility that no merger occurs. Our $18 target is derived from a DCF, which assumes 9x 2011 EBITDA and a 10.5% WACC.

Labels: kit springs, merger, riaa, stifel, xm

1/23/2007 01:02:00 PM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



0 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------

Stifel Note On XM vs RIAA Issue

January 23, 2007

Labels: riaa, stifel, xm

1/23/2007 09:47:00 AM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



0 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------

RIAA vs. XM - Is It Worth It?

January 20, 2007

First things first. I feel that the XM Inno and Helix fall within the current laws regarding fair use, and hope that XM Satellite Radio prevails in their suit with the RIAA.

That being said, I feel that the risk XM Satellite Radio has taken is far too big, and the potential outfall has not been worth it.

The first thing we need to consider is the benefit that XM received from the creation of the Inno and Helix units.

Lets assume for a moment that 200,000 units were sold. The question is this:

How many would have been sold if the features that the RIAA takes exception to were never implemented? In other words, if Artist Seek, Song Seek, and Desegregated Recording Capabilities were not in the unit, how many would have sold?

Lets assume that those features directly accounted for 10% of the sales. This would mean that those features were responsible for 20,000 units out of the 200,000 sold. Is satisfying a recording capability that before now was unknown worth it? What type of return does XM get for those 20,000 or si subscribers that bought the devices because of those capabilities?

If an average subscriber lasts 3 years, those 20,000 subscribers would generate $9,324,000 in subscriber revenue (20,000 * $12.95 * 36 months). That same subscriber would also generate some advertising revenue that needs to be considered. Looking at a best case estimate, the 20,000 subscribers would net XM somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000,000 ver a three year period.

Now, in order to better understand the issue, and the risk involved, I would like to step away from XM to clarify what Sirius has done, and why the RIAA does not have a suit against Sirius.

Sirius' Stiletto does not have the artist or song seek feature. Sirius Stiletto can record in blocks similar to XM’s units, but the device will not give you a readable listing of the recorded content that you can pick and choose songs from. You can save individual songs, but the way for doing that is if you are actually hearing them "LIVE" when you decide to save them. For the Stiletto to have these capabilities, Sirius pays a $15 bounty to the RIAA for each unit sold.

Understanding the deal between Sirius and the RIAA is important because it establishes the likely minimum that the RIAA would negotiate to.

Thus, the theoretical starting point would be $15 per unit AND the removal of the features that the RIAA takes exception to.

So, assuming 200,000 units sold, we are looking at a minimum of $3,000,000 to get to the point where XM can match the Sirius deal ($15 per unit sold), and that would most likely require XM to sacrifice some capabilities on the units.

The next component rests with what happens to the 200,000 units that have capabilities outside of the deal. Can the units be brought into RIAA acceptable compliance via a firmware update? If so, what becomes of the consumers who now are losing features? Do they get made whole somehow? If a firmware update does not work, or for some reason the update does not satisfy the RIAA, how much of an additional penalty on top of the $15 per unit will clear the slate to settle this out of court?

The RIAA is seeking $150,000 per song downloaded onto these devices. If each Inno/Helix sold, assuming 200,000, had only 1 downloaded song the RIAA would be seeking $30,000,000,000 (Thirty BILLION Dollars). If the penalty was $15 per song, the price is tag is $3,000,000.

The Incremental Benefits:

Subscriber Revenue - $9,324,000 – (20,000 subs who bought the Inno or Helix specifically for the disputed features)

Ad Revenue - $932,400 (assumes ad revenue at 10% of subscriber revenue)

TOTAL BENEFIT - $10,256,400

The Risks:

A loss in court with the judge allowing the RIAA’s full request at $150,000 per song downloaded. A loss could be very costly or have very little cost, but what is known is that there is risk involved

Being labeled as the company that brought on tighter restrictions in the form of potential case law, or being known as the company that propelled the RIAA into trying to get more restrictive legislation passed.

Looking at this suit reasonably, there is no way that the RIAA would settle for anything less than the reduced capabilities, and the $15 per unit that Sirius pays, and there is likely no way that the RIAA would accept current units being operated outside those parameters. Thus, a reasonable base point for the risk in my opinion should be established at $15 per unit sold plus a contingency for either paying additional money to the RIAA, or paying making subscribers with these devices "whole" should their devices be required to be updated.

As an investor my bone of contention with this whole issue centers around the risk vs. reward ratio. Had XM released the Inno and Helix with recording capabilities set up in the manner of the Sirius deal, they likely still would have sold roughly the same number of devices. Thus, the benefits of this issue realized by XM are very minimal, while the risks can be potentially devastating. The fact that XM went forward with the knowledge that the RIAA was going to take exception to these devices is disturbing, especially considering the low level of benefit that could be realized.

Sometimes the principal of a subject is worth while. Sometimes it is not. I believe that the XM is correct on principal, but I also believe that there were other ways to get that point across without taking on so much risk.

With the recent denial of XM’s "Motion To Dismiss", the negotiating power of XM has decreased, and the stakes have gotten higher. This case is now set to go to court. In reading the case, there were statements made by all parties that I do not agree with (inclusive of the judge). That however does not change the course that this issue is currently on. I worry that the XM case, and other cases, such as the All of MP3 case that we recently wrote about, have the potential to set some precedents that may not be well accepted by the consumers, and may bolster the idea that the proposed legislation should pass.

To date, special interest groups and lobbyists who have the interests of the RIAA in mind are controlling the path of legislation. Satellite radio users do not have a unified voice to get their opinions known. XM and Sirius stand virtually alone in their fight against the legislation, and XM stands alone in their suit against the RIAA.

I must stress again that I feel that XM is within the laws regarding fair use, and I hope to see them win in their suit. I must also stress that in my opinion the capabilities of the Inno and Helix make it easy for an end user to stretch the fair use laws into a gray area, and it is this point that gives the RIAA their strongest argument. As an investor I am frustrated, and always have been, with the decision made by XM regarding these capabilities. End users have the ability to build play lists already with capabilities such as that in the Stiletto or S50 and those capabilities have not generated law suits.

Having used the Inno, Stiletto and the S50, I can speak to the issue quite clearly. Building a 100 song playlist on the Inno can happen faster than on the Stiletto, but not so much so that it makes a world of difference, and to me that little benefit was not worth the risk taken.

For, now, we have to wait on the law suit. However, we can act on the legislation. This site and others have links to "Digital Freedom" (Their links are on this site free of any charges). I would strongly suggest that if you are a satellite radio consumer that you go to that site and read about the issue. GET INVOLVED. DO NOT LET DECISIONS SIMPLY HAPPEN. MAKE SURE THAT YOUR VIEWS ARE EXPRESSED AND KNOWN.

Labels: digital freedom, fair use, helix, inno, law suit, riaa, xm

1/20/2007 10:27:00 PM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



1 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------

Digital Freedom - YOUR HELP IS NEEDED

January 15, 2007

Whether you like Sirius or XM this issue impacts you. The issue is something satellite radio consumers should be passionate about.

Please read the information below and get involved.

Sign the petition HERE

Contact Congress HERE

Visit Digital Freedom HERE

From Digital Freedom:

The Problem
Digital technologies allow everyone the freedom to be artists, innovators, producers and creators; to listen, watch and participate wherever, whenever and however they choose. But that freedom is in jeopardy today. The big labels and studios have launched an assault on your technology freedom, because they fear their antiquated business models are being threatened. They’re lobbying for government controls over new technology and filing lawsuits to do the same.

Their goal is to outlaw new digital technology and devices that allow individuals to enjoy digital music and videos at a convenient time and place. They want to severely limit— if not eliminate altogether— the technology-provided freedom to innovate, create, listen and see.

The Digital Freedom Campaign recognizes that new technologies are essential to the creativity and innovation that have allowed this nation to thrive. Allowing these new technologies the freedom to flourish is at the heart of The Digital Freedom Campaign. Digital technology enables would-be artists and hopeful innovators to produce music, create cutting edge films and videos that reach new audiences. It allows consumers to enjoy these legally acquired works whenever, wherever and however they choose. These basic freedom must be protected. The Digital Freedom Campaign is dedicated to defending the rights of artists, innovators, creators and consumers to use technology without fear of unreasonable government restrictions or costly lawsuits.

The Threat
The fear of new technologies is hardly new:

" I foresee a marked deterioration in American music…and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations, by virtue—or rather by vice—of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines…"- John Philips Sousa on the Player Piano (1906)

"The public will not buy songs that it can hear almost at will by a brief manipulation of the radio dials."- Record Label Executive on FM Radio (1925)

"But now we are faced with a new and very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the videocassette recorder…"- MPAA on the VCR (1982)

"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it."- Universal Music Group Chairman/CEO Doug Morris, November 10, 2006
The Nature of the FightThe United States Constitution grants a limited monopoly to the works of authors and artists as an incentive to create and innovate. That monopoly typically has granted creators a limited period of time in which their works cannot be copied, or otherwise appropriated, without permission and compensation. Fair Use of those works, however, gives an exemption to that monopoly by allowing certain unauthorized uses—for example, the right to discuss the work in a review or the ability to make a personal backup copy of a CD—as long as they don’t infringe on the creator’s rights. Because copyright, in some cases, limits free speech rights granted by the Bill of Rights (not allowing someone to read another author’s poem without permission on national television is arguably a limit on free speech), one Supreme Court Justice has stated that Fair Use is what keeps copyright Constitutional.

But today, Fair Use is under fierce attack by the entertainment industry, particularly the large recording labels and Hollywood studios, who contend that any unauthorized use of a CD or DVD somehow infringes on their copyrights. They are wrong. Fair Use protects most of the activities they seek to ban. Why shouldn't a student be able to use lawfully acquired music in a school project? Why can't someone use the song she bought on ITunes on a DVD she is making of her photos? Why can't a consumer make a favorite hits CD with music lawfully acquired? Why shouldn't a music teacher be able to assemble clips of sound recordings purchased by the school in order to better teach a class?

The entertainment industry would have you believe that this is about piracy. Again, they are wrong. The Digital Freedom Campaign has nothing to do with the unauthorized mass distribution of copyrighted materials. We all oppose that. In its 2005 Grokster decision, the Supreme Court gave the entertainment industry the legal ability to go after peer-to-peer networks that promote mass, indiscriminate redistribution of copyrighted works if those networks "induce" that behavior. In their arguments, the big recording labels repeatedly stated that their target was not the private and personal recording practices of law-abiding consumers.
Yet, the industry made a concentrated push in 2006 to restrict in-home personal use of new technology. New technology is under the most serious assault since Hollywood almost succeeded in keeping consumer VCRs off the market 25 years ago. The entertainment industry is filing punitive lawsuits against legitimate and law-abiding businesses, and having bills introduced in Congress that would place absurd restrictions on lawful consumer practices.
For more information on Fair Use and efforts to restrict it, please visit www.hrrc.org.
The following are recent lawsuits threatening to restrict or ban new technology and limit Fair Use rights

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDERS
Atlantic Records v. XM Satellite Radio The recording industry sued XM Satellite Radio for billions in potential damages, for marketing lawful products that allow subscribers to time-shift programs by recording them only for private, personal use such as listening to them at a more convenient time. The devices do not allow transferring music to computers or other players, nor do they permit burning permanent copies or distribution over the internet. This lawsuit has been pursued even though the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 prohibits lawsuits based on the use of such products (on which the music industry already receives royalties under the AHRA).

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: HOME VIDEO EDITING
Macrovision v. Sima Products Sima's digital consumer video editing products allows consumers to improve the quality of certain non-commercial recordings, such as wedding videos, by stripping analog video recordings of the artificial noise and distortion that are a result of Macrovision's copy protection. A Federal District Court has enjoined the sale of these products under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) because the device doesn’t include a chip that generates copy protection – despite the fact that the copy protection would create some of the very viewing distortions that the editing products are meant to remedy.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: HOME NETWORKING OF DVDS
DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) v. Kaleidescape DVD CCA is suing Kaleidescape claiming that it is illegal for them to sell a home server which copies legally-purchased DVDs to a hard drive and sends them around the home network.

TARGET TECHNOLOGY: PLACE-SHIFTING OF DVDS
MPAA v. LOAD 'N GO Video Inc.Load N' Go is a service that allows consumers to load DVDS, which they have purchased, onto their iPods. The movie studios' suit claims that this is illegal, because ripping a DVD (i.e., decrypting it and making a copy) is illegal under the DMCA. The suit also claims that this constitutes copyright infringement.

Other Threats to Fair Use
Association of American Publishers v. Google The publishers are suing Google for digitizing libraries, even though the information publicly displayed is minimal (like a library card) and publishers can opt out. This service will make libraries and their books far more easily searchable and, because only short snippets are excerpted, does not provide a substitute for the book itself.

Google v. Perfect 10 The issue here is whether a search engine indexing a copyrighted image on an unauthorized site, and then creating and then delivering a thumbnail photo of that image constitutes an infringement. That Perfect 10 is an adult entertainment site does not diminish the threat here to the ability of consumers or libraries to rely on search engines to find content on the internet. Another Federal District Court held that Google’s linking to certain images, as a result of consumer searches, is not Fair Use – threatening personal use of a popular consumer tool for finding information and content.

Huntsman (Cleanflicks) v. Soderbergh The issue here is whether parents can utilize services that edit out adult scenes and language in movies. A U.S. District Court found that supplying consumers a version of a DVD in which objectionable content has been edited out is not Fair Use – even though the original version has been purchased and supplied to the consumer as well.

Labels: fair use, riaa, sirius, xm

1/15/2007 01:53:00 PM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



1 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------

RIAA Bill Is Nothing New

January 12, 2007

The introduction of this bill in Congress is nothing new. It's been a fee bonanza for RIAA lobbyists. Will it pass? Highly unlikely, according to my sources...

Senate Bill Aimed At Satcasters
January 11, 2007, www.fmqb.com

A bill has been introduced to Congress which would set new rules for satellite radio, creating new rates and content protection standards similar to those of Internet radio. The legislation was sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN).
The bill is part of the ongoing debate over the ability of satellite radio subscribers to record high-quality, digital copies of songs directly from broadcasts. The RIAA and other organizations have spoken out against the possibility of recording directly from satellite broadcasts, and has asked for similar rules to be put into play that are in effect for Internet radio broadcasters...read more: here

Labels: congress, riaa

1/12/2007 07:50:00 AM

SSG Has Merged. You Can Read All Of The Latest SSG Content By Clicking Here



0 comments
SSG is not a Financial Advisor. Read Disclosure: HERE

--------------------------------------------------------