>> On the specific issue, I think I agree with you, I don't think its quite as cut and dried as you represent it, but I think your position (and XM's) is reasonable.
It is obvious that the judge at least feels there is enough wiggle room for the suit to move forward.
And sometimes, just abiding by the precise requirements of the law isn't sufficient, if the effect is to skirt the underlying meaning of the law, then maybe an egregious act has been committed.
But I don't think XM has done this -- the law specifically permits time-shifting of content, and that is ALL this device does. You cannot get the content OFF of the device, and if you stop paying a subscription fee, the content is inaccessible. It is, effectively, a radio that can received content now and listen to it later. This seems like a fairly good definition of "time shifting" to me which is presumably "fair use".
RIAA is, to me, a lot like labor unions -- they served a worthwhile purpose at some point in time, but have now outlived their usefulness, for the most part. In the RIAA's case, they should just close the doors and reopen under new management with a new mission. |
