The Right To Royalties

Many leading publishers suing XM Satellite Radio, on the grounds that XM has neglected to pay the proper royalties incurred on its time shifting devices. The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), which represents more than 600 US-based publishing groups, has officially joined the RIAA in their ongoing complaint pursuant to this problem. The publishers also are complaining that XM Satellite radio has violated previous agreements related to the payment of non-interactive streaming music which was introduced in XM’s MP3 offering. The claim includes a sample of 175 songs that the satellite and the NMPA want $150,000 for those works infringed upon. In a statement issued Thursday, the NMPA stated "XM has been profiting at the expense of others," said Debra Wong Yang of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the lead attorney on the case and the former US Attorney for Los Angeles. "The XM + MP3 service constitutes pervasive and willful copyright infringement to the overwhelming detriment of copyright holders, legitimate online music services and, ultimately, consumers."

This special service XM + Mp3 service allows users to save songs on specific portable satellite player, and access them at their leisure. Since users aren’t buying the music- rather they are renting the music, this constitutes a major problem; and violate the first use doctrine that states – once bought, the user can utilize the work at a his/her discretion. In the first sale doctrine one may not rent music. Thus it can be arguing that XM is creating a means for users to rent copyrighted material and violating the law. However the service does not allow the user to remove the recorded tracks and listen to them outside of the device, a key component of the XM defense. XM is arguing that its service is “shielded by the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), which protects the ability of consumers to record and time-shift audio content for personal use.” The RIAA, and now the NMPA, claim the portable players—no different than the iPod. There are so many undefined laws and grey areas pertaining to radio, wireless and digital music it seems impossible to side with one company or the other in these lawsuits. It seems 2007 is the year of the digital wars.

Another act related to the subject is the 1992 Act that protects a "digital audio recording device," which is defined as "any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals ... the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use." The outcome for the artists, seems a bit unfair, anytime they are not being paid-already unfair royalties- it becomes sad to think they will be receiving even less earned monies. I might have to agree with the publishers on this one. Music isn’t allowed to be rented and recorded for free. XM must realize they are infringing upon the artists’ right s– or copyright owner. Even though it would ruin a great service and make a major blump in their business model… they must be creative to either pay fees – or re-structure their service.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories