Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies: Car Audio Systems Lawsuit news
#1
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies: Car Audio Systems Lawsuit news
From here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...pping-systems/
The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies—a nonprofit group—has initiated a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against Ford and General Motors targeting the automakers’ in-car hard drive-based CD ripping technology. The lawsuit (full text) alleges that Ford and GM’s devices fail to comply with the terms of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 and that the AARC is due "injunctive relief and damages" because of that alleged noncompliance.
The problem with the suit, as outlined in a scathing response from Techdirt, is that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 was specifically written to allow exactly the kind of personal copying that in-car CD-ripping audio units perform. This was further cemented in 1999 with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeal’s RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems decision, which threw the weight of judicial precedent behind the notion that devices designed to make copies of copyrighted audio for personal use (as opposed to serial copies for distribution) are legal and exempt from licensing fees.
With its July 25 suit, the AARC alleges that Ford’s in-car "Jukebox" feature and GM’s in-car "Hard Drive Device" are purpose-built "Digital Audio Recording Devices" and therefore are subject to lots of additional regulation. Specifically, the suit states that both Ford’s Jukebox and GM’s Hard Drive Device fail to implement the Serial Copy Management System copy protection scheme and that both Ford and GM have failed to pay the appropriate AHRA-mandated royalties on their devices.
The fulcrum of the group's argument rests on the specific designation of the in-car devices as music-only systems. As pointed out by Techdirt, the suit bases this allegation on things like a marketing claim by GM that "the hard drive will not accept photos or other sorts of data" and is only usable for ripped audio. The AHRA does indeed regulate and levy royalties on devices intended to copy audio—but only if those devices are intended to be used to make repeated copies. In RIAA v. Diamond, the 9th Circuit affirmed that devices designed to make copies for personal use only aren’t impacted by the AHRA’s restrictions—including the requirement for SCMS and royalties.
The AARC is hoping to receive injunctions barring the sales of the two offending in-car devices, damages equal to the royalties that Ford and GM would have had to pay under the AHRA, additional damages of 50 percent of the actual damages (this round of money would be paid to the Register of Copyrights), statutory damages of $2,500 for each in-car device sold, and "pre- and post-judgement interest" attorney fees. The AARC also wants a statement from Ford and GM acknowledging that their devices violate the AHRA.
The problem with the suit, as outlined in a scathing response from Techdirt, is that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 was specifically written to allow exactly the kind of personal copying that in-car CD-ripping audio units perform. This was further cemented in 1999 with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeal’s RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems decision, which threw the weight of judicial precedent behind the notion that devices designed to make copies of copyrighted audio for personal use (as opposed to serial copies for distribution) are legal and exempt from licensing fees.
With its July 25 suit, the AARC alleges that Ford’s in-car "Jukebox" feature and GM’s in-car "Hard Drive Device" are purpose-built "Digital Audio Recording Devices" and therefore are subject to lots of additional regulation. Specifically, the suit states that both Ford’s Jukebox and GM’s Hard Drive Device fail to implement the Serial Copy Management System copy protection scheme and that both Ford and GM have failed to pay the appropriate AHRA-mandated royalties on their devices.
The fulcrum of the group's argument rests on the specific designation of the in-car devices as music-only systems. As pointed out by Techdirt, the suit bases this allegation on things like a marketing claim by GM that "the hard drive will not accept photos or other sorts of data" and is only usable for ripped audio. The AHRA does indeed regulate and levy royalties on devices intended to copy audio—but only if those devices are intended to be used to make repeated copies. In RIAA v. Diamond, the 9th Circuit affirmed that devices designed to make copies for personal use only aren’t impacted by the AHRA’s restrictions—including the requirement for SCMS and royalties.
The AARC is hoping to receive injunctions barring the sales of the two offending in-car devices, damages equal to the royalties that Ford and GM would have had to pay under the AHRA, additional damages of 50 percent of the actual damages (this round of money would be paid to the Register of Copyrights), statutory damages of $2,500 for each in-car device sold, and "pre- and post-judgement interest" attorney fees. The AARC also wants a statement from Ford and GM acknowledging that their devices violate the AHRA.
#2
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
More info here: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...ustry-says-yes
#3
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
So, in short, the music that your in-car system rips from the CD to a digital file? According to the music industry, it's illegal.
WTFBBQ.
WTFBBQ.
#4
Moderator
Ridiculous. It's not like you can hook your car up to some torrent service and send all your music out to the whole world.
#5
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
#6
That is absurd. Honestly. As a musician, this sort of things pisses me off so bad. Ask the artists who create the music if they actually care. Would I care if someone bought a new whip and loaded it's internal Hard Drive or "Juke Box" with the music my Band and I created? Uh... Lemme think, nope. I'd be stoked. I'll guarantee that an astounding amount of musicians agree.
Just more proof that once again, everyone makes money except the artists. BTW, a little shameless self promotion, if anyone here is a fan of underground heaviness called Doom Metal, Stoner Rock, Post Metal Hardcore is, check out my band, Eastern Spell from Portland, Maine. Not sure about link pasting policies as I am a new member but... I'd truly appreciate any listens and/or feedback.
Just more proof that once again, everyone makes money except the artists. BTW, a little shameless self promotion, if anyone here is a fan of underground heaviness called Doom Metal, Stoner Rock, Post Metal Hardcore is, check out my band, Eastern Spell from Portland, Maine. Not sure about link pasting policies as I am a new member but... I'd truly appreciate any listens and/or feedback.
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (08-01-2014)
#7
Senior Moderator
That is complete and utter BS. If i buy music, ITS MY CD now. I should have the ability to rip the music to my car or ANY other device that can store it if i want to and no one else that makes the device nor i should have to worry about liability suits or fees
![Why Me](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/whyme.gif)
The following users liked this post:
charliemike (08-01-2014)
Trending Topics
#10
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
#11
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
So, the suggestion of blaring out the Pagani's exhaust from the other thread in your stereo...I'm thinking the AARC has NOTHIN' on that, right? ![Wish](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wish.gif)
![Wish](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wish.gif)
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#12
Racer
Just remember, this is a suit not a judgement. You can sue over anything but that doesn't mean you will get a legal judgement in your favor. It looks like we will need to wait until a court decides (and all the appeals) before we know how this issue will fall out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bearingman07936
5G TLX Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
6
01-07-2016 03:22 PM
Zonian22
Member Cars for Sale
3
11-14-2015 01:20 PM