RIAA vs XM: Clarification on Judge's Ruling
Friday, January 19, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Tags: 2, XM
Just a couple thoughts regarding U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts' ruling in favor of the RIAA to allow the lawsuit to go to trial.
Remember that this was a Motion to Dismiss in that XM had asked the Judge to throw out the RIAA's lawsuit - pointing out that the Inno was built according to the AHRA, and that the AHRA mandates the case be thrown out. The Judge is essentially stating in her ruling that the AHRA does not insulate XM from the case proceeding.
Why? Because XM controls both ends. They have control over the device side (the recorder), and the broadcast side (the content), and so the decision behind the case is a bit more complicated. There hasn't been any conclusion that XM has violated their license, just that the case should go to trial.
Make sense?
Digg It!
Featured Entries
From the Forums...
Search Orbitcast:
Latest Poll
Satellite Radio Websites
Sponsored Links
Comments
Surviving 12(b)(6) means very little. All it means is that, if the RIAA can prove everything in its complaint, it can recover against XM. The motion assumes for the sake of argument that everything alleged is true. XM can now begin presenting a defense or refute the complaint.
XM, as defendant, will try to dismiss at every chance they get. Soon we'll be seeing summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, and judgment as a matter of law motions by XM. Prevailing on any one of those ends the suit.
Posted by: CK | January 19, 2007 9:23 PM
Of course, it could be argued that XM just designs the device, that it's up to the individual manufacturer to build it, and that they could change things about the device... which would then put the ball in Pioneer's and Samsung's courts. What would they say then?
Posted by: MikeV ? | January 20, 2007 12:04 AM