Ford, GM Sued Over Vehicles' Ability To Rip CD Music To Hard Drive 317
Lucas123 writes: The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies is suing Ford and General Motors for millions of dollars over alleged copyrights infringement violations because their vehicles' CD players can rip music to infotainment center hard drives. The AARC claims in its filing (PDF) that the CD player's ability to copy music violates the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The Act protects against distributing digital audio recording devices whose primary purpose is to rip copyrighted material. For example, Ford's owner's manual explains, "Your mobile media navigation system has a Jukebox which allows you to save desired tracks or CDs to the hard drive for later access. The hard drive can store up to 10GB (164 hours; approximately 2,472 tracks) of music." The AARC wants $2,500 for each digital audio recording device installed in a vehicle, the amount it says should have been paid in royalties.
Re:Time Shifting? (Score:4, Informative)
This is totally a trolling lawsuit. I mean, just look at their website [aarcroyalties.com].
It's fucking stock wordpress.
I had to look up the AARC (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, lawyer parasites.
Isn't this exempted? (Score:5, Informative)
The Act reads:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
The Act defines a "digital musical recording" as:
(5)(A) A “digital musical recording” is a material object —
(i) in which are fixed, in a digital recording format, only sounds, and material, statements, or instructions incidental to those fixed sounds, if any, and
(ii) from which the sounds and material can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
http://www.copyright.gov/title... [copyright.gov]
That Exemption was specifically to allow for home taping from CD to DAT and Minidisks, so it seems appropriate here.
Re:Time Shifting? (Score:5, Informative)
Not time shifting, but space shifting; which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in RIAA v Diamond Multimedia [wikipedia.org] like 15 years ago.
They'll have no problem knocking this down whatsoever.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
They don't even need better lawyers. They need one paralegal that can search American Law Review, where this was already decided in 1999 in the case of RIAA v Diamond Multimedia [wikipedia.org] - the landmark case that makes all portable MP3 players legal under the "space shifting" provision of the Audio Home Recording Act.
There's a reason why the RIAA hasn't tried this shit since that decision - they already failed in circuit court, and on appeal. Does anyone really think they didn't want a piece of the iPod market?
Re:Time Shifting? (Score:5, Informative)
You'd think they would remember RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. which affirmed that space shifting (from media to hard disk) for personal use was considered fair use under the act.
Re:Time Shifting? (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong.
This isn't what this is about. This is about the legality of CD audio ripping.
Which is odd, considering iTunes, Windows Media Player and even Xbox 360 and PS3 will rip CDs.
Either they've paid royalties or someone's about to lose big in court.
Re:Time Shifting? (Score:5, Informative)
I think that RIAA vs Diamond does cover this. From this lawsuit:
The AHRA enacted the royalty payment requirement by prohibiting the importation and distribution, or manufacture and distribution, of any DARD [digital audio recording device] without first filing a notice with the Register of Copyrights, depositing quarterly and annual statements of account, and making royalty payments.
From RIAA vs Diamond [cornell.edu]:
Under the plain meaning of the Act's definition of digital audio recording devices, computers (and their hard drives) are not digital audio recording devices because their "primary purpose" is not to make digital audio copied recordings. . . the fact that the Rio does not permit such further copies to be made because it simply cannot download or transmit the files that it stores to any other device. Thus, the Rio without SCMS inherently allows less copying than SCMS permits. . . [t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use.
The way I read it, Diamond was covered in 3 ways. It was not a DARD according to the Act as the primary purpose was not to make copies. Second, it does not allow copies to be redistributed to other devices as it didn't have the capability to transmit to any other device. Third, it was for private, noncommercial use.
For the first one, GM and Ford has to show that their players' primary purpose is not to make copies. Marketed as infotaiment systems, they can show that multi-faceted purposes of GPS navigation, radio (satellite and terrestrial), hands-free phone connectors, email, etc. The other two are obvious. Lastly, Ford and GM could be dismissed from the suit as they didn't manufacture the systems but bought them and used them.
Re:Time Shifting? (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't own the CD you're ripping, it's obviously illegal. I think a personal copy should be allowed as backup since music CDs do get lost or damaged. Some countries allow a backup (provided you own the CD you are ripping), others don't.
USA:
Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]