A group representing music publishers is suing XM Satellite Radio, saying that XM violates copyright laws by giving users the ability to store and replay songs on certain devices.

The National Music Publishers' Association claimed in a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York Thursday that XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. offers an unlawful music download service that isn't covered by the royalties it pays to music publishers for broadcast rights.

The suit targets an XM service called "XM (plus) MP3," which allows XM subscribers to store songs on portable players and play them back later. The songs remain on the device as long as the customer subscribes to XM.

Like its rival Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., XM offers dozens of channels of commercial-free music as well as talk and news channels for a monthly fee of about $13. Sirius has agreed to buy XM, but the deal faces a tough regulatory review in Washington.

The music publishers' lawsuit is similar to another filed against XM last year by a group representing major record label companies, the Recording Industry Association of America. That case is still pending.

Like traditional radio broadcasters, satellite radio services must pay the publishers of music and record labels royalties for the right to broadcast music.

XM spokesman Chance Patterson said the lawsuit by the NMPA "simply represents a negotiating tactic to gain advantage in our ongoing business discussions. " He said the suit was without merit.

XM and Sirius were barred from merging under the licenses they were granted a decade ago, but they argue that much has changed since then, including the growth of other audio entertainment choices such as downloads from Apple Inc.'s iTunes stores.

The music publishers group noted in their lawsuit that XM draws attention to the ability of its XM + MP3 service to store and replay music, describing it as a substitute for using an iPod playback device and iTunes to buy music.

The federal lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of six band members, including bassist Alan Longmuir and drummer Derek Longmuir, the brothers who started the group in Edinburgh in 1967.

The band says in the lawsuit, filed Tuesday, that Arista owes it royalties on millions of dollars. That was money generated by selling albums, compact discs, multimedia licenses and merchandise, along with rights to commercials, movies and even telephone ring tones.

The band says in the lawsuit that Arista has taken the position that it has held royalties from the band members until it receives clear instructions from them as to how the money should be distributed.

The lawsuit says a payment of $254,392 in September 1997 was the only one made to the band, well short of the millions of dollars the band believes it is owed.

"Arista's claim over the last 25 years that it does not know who to pay is and always has been a pretext intended to deprive the Rollers of the royalties to which they are entitled," the lawsuit says.

A telephone message left with a lawyer for Arista was not immediately returned Tuesday.

The band, first known as the Saxons, sought a less English-sounding name and found it after throwing a dart that landed on a map near Bay City, Mich., the lawsuit says.

In the United States, the group scored a No. 1 hit with "Saturday Night" and rose high on the charts with "Money Honey," "You Made Me Believe in Magic" and "I Only Want to Be With You" before breaking up in 1981.

That behemoth, of course, is Viacom. Viacom took its gloves off in a digital-age boxing match that could go many more than 12 rounds as two technology champions duke it out on principle. In a statement it released in conjunction with filing its $1 billion federal copyright lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Viacom called YouTube a "significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."

Whether those "fans" to which Viacom referred mind Google making money from the traffic they drive to the video-sharing site is not the issue. Whether the fans are liable in future copyright suits is. According to some legal experts, YouTube's uploading community could find itself in the line of fire.

A federal jury in California awarded Alcatel-Lucent $1.52 billion dollars in damages Thursday for violations of two of Alcatel-Lucent's digital music patents committed by Microsoft. The patents govern technology that converts audio input into MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, more commonly known as MP3, which Microsoft has incorporated into several variants of its Windows Media Player. Microsoft has said that it properly licenses the MP3 technology from Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, a German company which Microsoft describes as the "industry recognized licensor."

Microsoft plans to appeal the jury's decision, which could have far-reaching implications in the digital media industry, as large numbers of companies in the industry, including Apple, Nokia, and Sony, license its MP3 technology from Fraunhofer.

Related claims against Gateway and Dell are still pending. Lucent Technologies filed 15 patent claims in 2003 alleging that the PC makers violated patents governing technology developed by its research and development organization, Bell Laboratories. Microsoft joined in the litigation as an intervenor and counter-claimant, due to its wide circulation of Windows Media Player through its Windows operating system. Lucent Technologies was acquired by Alcatel in December of 2006.

20th Century Fox served YouTube with a subpoena Wednesday, demanding that the Google-owned viral-video site disclose the identity of a user who uploaded copies of entire recent episodes of "24" and "The Simpsons."

The subpoena, which first came to light on the blog Google Watch, was granted by a judge in U.S. District Court in San Francisco after being filed Jan. 18 by the News Corp.-owned studio. It is not yet known whether YouTube has complied with the request.

In addition, lesser-known video site LiveDigital was served with a similar subpoena. A spokesman for LiveDigital confirmed the company received the subpoena and intended to comply immediately.

A Fox spokesman confirmed the subpoenas were filed and served but declined further comment. A spokesman for YouTube declined comment.

The "24" episodes in question actually appeared on YouTube before their primetime Jan. 14 premiere on the Fox broadcast network, which spread four hourlong episodes of the hit drama over two consecutive nights. Fox became aware thst the episodes were on YouTube on Jan. 8, according to the subpoena.