[SanFrancisco]

Well, actually they did NOT.

There has been talk in the Pearl section questioning RIM not providing software or at least a "How To" in regards to getting videos on to the Pearl.

For months I have opined that it possibly has to do with RIM not wanting to get sued by the Studios for copyright violations, etc. The basis for my statement was, and remains, that if RIM provided software, a "how to" or references to Sites, etc. about converting movies for the Pearl, that the Studios would sue RIM as they have done against other sites or software producers. [E.g., DVD XCopy who were put out of business, their argument failing that their software simply allowed DVD owners to make a backup copy of legitimately owned DVD's].

IMHO the same goes for recording MP3's for the Pearl.

In contrast, Apple has avoided suits because, as far as I know, it provides or refers users only to video and music on its Site, that is available for a fee, part of which goes to the Studios and Recording Companies as licensing fees and royalties.

Considering the below, it seems to me that my suspicions and opinion are correct.

So that is why RIM has not provided us Pearl users with even a whisper of how to convert and get video and music on to the Pearl.

Make sense?

_______________________________________________

Record Companies OKed To Sue XM Satellite Radio

A lawsuit in which record companies allege XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. is cheating them by letting consumers store songs can proceed toward trial, a judge ruled Friday after finding merit to the companies' claims.

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts made the finding in a case brought by Atlantic Recording Corp., BMG Music, Capitol Records Inc. and other music distribution companies against the licensed satellite radio broadcaster.

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.

XM has argued it is protected from infringement lawsuits by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which permits individuals to record music off the radio for private use. The judge said she did not believe the company was protected in this instance by the act.

In a statement, XM said it remains confident that the lawsuit is without merit and it will prevail.

"At this stage of the proceeding, the court's ruling is required to be based on the false characterizations set forth in the plaintiffs' complaint. The real facts strongly support our view that the lawsuit is barred by the Audio Home Recording Act. We look forward to making our case in court," the company said.

Messages for comment left with lawyers on both sides were not immediately returned.

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 who cannot offer an interactive service, publish programming schedules prior to broadcast and play songs from an artist more often than specified within a three-hour period. But by broadcasting and storing copyrighted music for later recording 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.

Although XM argued in court papers that an XM + MP3 player is much like a traditional radio-cassette player, the judge said "it is not."

"It is manifestly apparent that the use of a radio-cassette player to record songs played over free radio does not threaten the market for copyrighted works as does the use of a recorder which stores songs from private radio broadcasts on a subscription fee basis," she said.