Slashdot Mirror
What Does the Audio Home Recording Act Really Allow?
festers asks: "With all the legal action being taken by the MPAA and RIAA, I decided to check out their Web sites for a closer look at what they are saying. While I was on riaa.org I came across this: What You Can't Copy They cite the Audio Home Recording Act. Basically what I came away with was that I am not allowed to make any recordings of copyrighted music onto my computer. I can't make mix CDs, or sound clips, or even MP3s for my own use. Can this really be?? Is this what the Home Recording Act is all about? If this is the case, then MP3.com seems to have no ground to stand on when it comes to the Beam-It software."
I didn't sign any contract.
You don't have to. All it takes is the little © on the disc to put copying, redistribution, and "fair use" under the jurisdiction of (US) federal law. You bought the disc, but not the right to copy it. It's taken for granted thet you can't go buy a book, Xerox it's contents and hand it out on the street corner, why should music be different?
feel confident that if the MPAA took me to court concerning my CDs which have been MP3ed
It would probably be the RIAA, not the MPAA, they want your DVDs. However, you are probably right, as a previous poster quoted, non-commercial recordings are specifically exempted from this act.
0 1 - just my two bits
They are spreading misinformation because they want you to be ignorant of your rights.
Once you purchase a copy of an album, it is perfectly legal for you to transfer it to your computer.
They wish it was illegal.
There's nothing to prevent them from putting up a web site with misinformation in order to attempt to mislead the public, which is exactly what they have done.
Well, I agree that legalese is hard to parse, but this is clearly protecting the consumer as well as manufacturer/importer:
... **or** *based on* the noncommercial use by a consumer ..."
"No action may be brought under this title
alleging infringement of copyright *based on* the manufacture [of a device or medium]
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
For what it's worth, artists generally make $1-3 bucks/CD... The artists may be getting screwed by the recording industry, but it doesn't make it any better when you (not personally) turn around and screw them a little more. Besides that, artists did unfortunately sign into a contract with a record company, saying they AGREE to receive as little as they get. They have not signed a contract with anyone else saying that they can redistribute their music for free...
I think i'm turning against MP3's... IT's cool that bands exist on mp3.com and otherwise that say it's okay to download their music as an MP3, but too many people are abusing the fact that they're easily downloadable and amassing huge collections of mp3 which they don't own, don't plan on owning, and aren't deleting. They are, you know, thieves. Let it be up to the musician to decide what happens to their recordings, not the poor college studnent that can't afford their cds.
On comparing the complexity of software with the complexity of the law:
joker05> How ridiculous does that sound?
Except that software and law are fundamentally different. Software does not
claim an comprehensive, involuntary jurisdiction. One is free to ignore badly
designed software. However, one would ignore a badly designed law at one's
peril. If something is to be imposed on a set of individuals without their
explicit consent justice demands that those individuals be capable of
understanding it and be informed of its requirements. A body of law that
exceeds the understanding of those held competent under it is morally without
foundation. Whether the body of law currently in use throughout these United
States meets this simple requirement is left as an exercise for the reader.
If you were to look at Nintendo's IP page, you would find that Emulation is illigal. Yet, this is completly false. Big companies seem to have 'interesting' ideas about what is and is not legal.
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted.
There not coverd by the law, but that dosn't mean that they you arn't allowed to record onto them. All it means is that the RIAA dosn't make money for every hard disk. The law dosn't say what you can and can't do with your own equipment, all it says is that for every peice of recording media (analog or digital) that some of the money from the sale goes to the RIAA, beacuse it's posible to use it to pirate music. What the RIAA put on there web page is just a fanticy.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That the RIAA makes money everytime you buy a blank audio tape, or Music only CD. But they don't make money of hard drives.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Do you really think so? Then please consider the following scenarios:
1. The government defines the LPL (Law Programming Language). They describe it in a way normal laws are described nowadays. The definitions of the language become unwieldy, thus the language itself becomes unwieldy. Net result: lawyers won't touch it, because it deals with matters programmers are supposed to understand. Programmers won't touch it for it's written in legalese, and there's lawyers to deal with that. IMHO, anything the government gives out, with supposedly good intentions, is overly complex and/or not thought about well enough.
2. Third parties define LPL's (Law Programming Languages). Imagine that. A clever bureau comes with LPL1.0. Then MS comes with MS-LPL (buys LPL1.0). Borland-LPL is issued. All with their own little design flaws, so v1.1, v1.2 , v2.0 and v2.51 are soon issued. Laws are issued under every brand and version of these LPL's. Imagine that in court. You need a lawyer who understands all these LPL's on top of the already complex laws. You need every judge to understand them. This, to me, doesn't seen feasible.
Plus, in both cases, normal citizens will hardly be able to understand the law. No matter how clearly and rigid you define your language.
----------------------------------------------
the pun is mightier than the sword
They might as well just say "If there's possibility of the music getting onto a computer, then you can't do it," because that's what they're trying to do. Instead of saying that, they're blocking every means they can think of to achieve it in an ass-backwards kind of way.
Ok, if it's legal to copy a TV broadcast onto a VHS tape, then is it not legal to copy a music video off MTV, even for my own personal use? And then what if I had a digital recorder such as TIVO? Would this be different still? Is TIVO legal?
Obviously, the RIAA is mostly concerned about scaring people at this point. If they can make people think that they will actually get in trouble for making MP3's of any type, it will scare people away from the technology. Isn't that essentially FUD?
Discl. Abbrs.: IANL, IMHO
The annoying thing about the AHRA is that the RIAA likes to claim it gives consumers rights they would not otherwise have. But, because of the case law from the betamax case, it's pretty firmly established that a) manufacturers can't be charged with contributory infringement by producing a device that has one or more legitimate uses, and b) copying of content for "time-shifting" purposes is a fair use. And, as demonstrated in the eventually settled diamond rio case, courts seem inclined to feel similarly about "location-shifting". However, SCMS still prevents users from recording when it would not infringe, and the AHRA prevents manufacturers from producing devices which would otherwise be legal. This annoys me almost to death... =) As a non-US-citizen, I find it a little annoying that wierd US laws effectively enforce feature taboos on the world.
[It's just life, they say. =)]
To those who care about such things: Can the AHRA be considered a prior restraint on speech? e.g. Would banning or requiring licenses for all printing presses violate the first amendment to the US constitution?
>If I OWN the music
This is incorrect.
Unless you are the copyright holder, you do NOT own the music. You own the media the music is on, and you have a license to play the music. Very similar to a software license.
I have a Windows 98 CD here. Does this mean I OWN Windows and can do whatever I want with it? I bet the law would disagree if I started burning copies and handing 'em out on the street corner.
I have a Redhat CD here. Does this mean I OWN Linux and can do whatever I want with it, licenses be damned?
-LjM
... but that wouldn't allow everyone to build up the proper righteous indignation. Geez, don't try to bring facts into the debate. This is slashdot!
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Make the law so Joe Citizen can understand it... otherwise, your law is poorly written and needs to be rewritten until it is understandable to the layman. Part of the reason so many laws are broken is that they are confusing,
contradictory, or just plain unknown to the citizen. Even the cops who will arrest you don't know the law until they're told by others to arrest you for whatever. Go to a police station and ask then to appraise you of all new laws
passed this year so you can stay up to date. They'll laugh you out of the office.
These are good points but you fail to realize that even though they are hard to understand you still have to understand them because ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation of the law. Today I have probably done some small infraction of the law that no one would even know about unless someone were to actually get me for violating.
When the laws are all secret and no one will tell you what they are, how can one be expected to follow them?
You literally live in constant fear unless you want to accept a small risk. Like I have said you most likely violate a whole slew of laws every day and don't realize it. If you did know all the laws you would have a mighty long list and not a whole lot of sanity left.
Even more to the point. There are so many laws today with so many new ones coming on the books constantly, that I do not believe it is humanly possible for a single person to know them all. If so, how *can* one
ever hope to comply?
Well I don't know how exactly lawyers do it but I would imagine that since laws are divided into classes and such. Laws for murder, rape, speeding, etc. You just look at the laws covering the class of something that you do. When you get your driver's liscence you are looking at a class of laws that are made for driving. Now I don't know exactly how close I can park to a railroad track anymore (never had to do it) but I can pretty much look at the big ones and follow them.
Gee... if I take this little gun and shot him I can be tried for murder and potentially spend the rest of my life in jail. Usually you go from the most obvious to the specific. Look at the facts and then act on those facts.
Unfortunately this makes law one of those professions that is usually concerned with after the fact matters.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
So what are people buying instead of standalone audio CD recorders and DAT decks? Super cheap computer-based 8x CDR recorders and dirt cheap CDRs by the 50 pack. Of course, it never occurred to the RIAA that by suppressing the market for standalone digital audio recording devices, they were pushing the development of home digital recording technology towards the ONLY device in the house with a direct connection to the internet. Now they are totally screwed. Stupid strategy, stupid tactics.
This is one of Life's little engineering principles:
When you build a better mousetrap, you breed a smarter mouse.
A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
"There is no basis in any law, statute, regulation, or court decision that says you cannot copy your own music discs on a computer recorder," maintained CD-Page (www.cdpage.com), a Web site devoted to CD news. I queried a number of lawyers specializing in copyright law, and they backed CD-Page's position.
AHRA regulates the makers of electronic equipment but contains no provisions for prosecuting individual consumers, according to Denise Mroz, an associate attorney for Woodcock, Washburn, Kurtz, Mackiewicz & Norris, a Philadelphia law firm. What this means is that the law itself doesn't prohibit home recording. Copyright issues may come into play, but Mroz said re-recording albums or making compilations for personal use may fall under the "fair use" exemption to copyright law.
However, Mroz said, recording CDs for commercial gain is undoubtedly illegal. This is the real problem for the recording industry.
First, for your personal use, you can make analog copies of music. For instance, you can make analog cassette tape recordings of music from another analog cassette, or from a CD or from the radio, or basically from any source. Essentially, all copying onto analog media is generally allowed.
Ask them if you can copy tapes 10 years ago and they'll chew your ear off. They're only allowing this because analog recording decreases quality.
As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted.
This is an EXACT QUOTE. They're saying that you cannot copy music onto your hard-drive, ever, for any reason. This, ladies and gents, is bullshit. If I OWN the music, I should be able to put it onto my hard drive as a means of backing up, right? What if the CD gets broken? Or a million other reasons?
Artists and songwriters don't collect royalties, which affects their ability to make a living; record companies don't recoup their investments, and that makes it more difficult for them to invest in new artists and new music.
Wait, didn't the recording industry make more money this year than before? Isn't MP3 helping more artists because it allows for increased exposure?
This document tries to say "you're hurting the artists" when all it really says is "we want more of your money".
------------
"Okay, who taught the cat how to type ctrl alt delete?"
Hilary Rosen's bio notes that she is a "veteran lobbyist on Capitol Hill." Interesting that the RIAA is based in Washington DC and not in L.A. where most of the labels are.
Of course, the RIAA will probably send its goons to seize your hard drive if you send them email. But, hey, nobody misses democracy, right?
bun-fhuinneog agam!
To answer a few things at once here:
1. The poster who clarified that the AHRA applies to manufacturers, distributers, importers and the like and not to consumers is absolutely right, except that I believe there is a private right of action against individuals who deliberately circumvent the SCMS required by the Act.
2. To the poster who asked about the decision in RIAA v. Diamond, please note that the Court didn't address CD-R's, it limited its holding to the specific case of the RIO which can only download information from an attached computer, it cannot itself convert WAVs to MP3s or rip WAVs or MP3s from CDs. Because the primary pupose of a computer is not to record music, and because the Rio itself can only copy from the computer, the Court held that the RIO is not a digital recording device under the act. (This is an oversimplification, but it's close enough for government work.) In short, RIAA v. Diamond says nothing about the applicability of the AHRA to other kinds of digital devices, Napster clients, or anything else -- it should be interpreted as strictly limited to its facts. You can bet the RIAA sees it that way.
3. To the poster who wrote: "So, thus, the RIAA is basically wrong in their claim that digital recording to computers and the like is illegal?" No! The original poster said that RIAA was claiming that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 prevents certain kinds of copying. If they are claiming this, they are wrong. But, and I cannot stress this enough, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the plain old Federal Copyright Law (as of at least 1976) certainly do bar certain kinds of copying. The exceptions for fair use (established by statute) and "time shifting" (established by the Supreme Court in the Betamax case) should apply to digital recording in most contexts, so ripping your own CDs should be fine, but that does not mean you can copy other people's CDs with abandon.
WARNING -- OBSCURE AND BORING LEGAL POINT COMING
An intersting (?) aside here: The Ninth Circuit in RIAA v. Diamond ruled that the primary purpose of the Rio is "space shifting" -- that is, copying music that you own for listening to in other places or on the go. The Court held that such "space shifting" was analagous to "time shifting" which the Supreme Court had found, in Betamax was not a violation of the Copyright law. Thus, the Court held that copying to the Rio is a fair use.
This decision is probably a little bit wrong. The Court probably meant to say that copying to the Rio does not violate the copyright law, not that it is a fair use. The distinction is a subtle one that only a copyright practitioner would think of, but the copyright bar has made much of it. Essentially, if a certain use is a "fair use" then there is no restriction on that use, regardless of the source of the original material. For example, parody is the classic fair use. I can copy Mickey Mouse and make a parody of him all I want, regardless of whether or not I own any rights whatsoever in the original image. Thus, if "space shifting" really is a "fair use" it should be legal to copy any material -- regardless of whether I own the original or not. This is almost certainly not what the Court meant, but a lot copyright lawyers who are much smarter than me have argued that that may be the result of the decision as a technical matter. Of course, if that is the case, the Supremes will probably close that loophole eventually.
In this case, of course, even more disclaimers apply. Do not take anything in this posting as legal advice. It is, at best, theory and at worst it could be a dangerous misstatement of the law, depending on who you believe. But if you get sued by the RIAA give me a call.
"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
When the laws are all secret and no one will tell you what they are, how can one be expected to follow them?
Even more to the point. There are so many laws today with so many new ones coming on the books constantly, that I do not believe it is humanly possible for a single person to know them all. If so, how *can* one ever hope to comply?
So the short of it is yes, you're allowed to make tape copies, CD-R burns, MP3 uploads into private lockers, copies from your CD to your hard drive, etc. -- just make sure that it doesn't get passed around too much. (Too much being defined as more than ~$1000 worth of goods in a year as per the Net Copy Act.)
Most relevantly, the RIAA has made public statements that they are not going to after individual consumers who copy their own music for personal use. So regardless of what you think about its actual legality, you will not get in trouble for it.
IANAL, but I have been in this industry for 3 years.
David E. Weekly
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
All this talk of the audio home recording act is just an attempt to make a big loss from the RIAA's perspective sound like a win. The audio home recording act places big restrictions on the kind of copying you can do with certain kinds of components -- stereo system CD recorders, etc. -- These are required to pay royalties on blank media and incorporate "serial copy managment."
The act has NOTHING to say about what you can copy with computers; it specifically EXEMPTS them from the restrictions of the act. What's left covering computers is the traditional copyright act with traditional fair exemptions, which have been interpreted by the courts (e.g. in the RIAA vs. Diamond Rio case) as allowing quite extensive copying of music you own.
It's totally disigenuous of the RIAA to say that since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, then all copying of music with computers is illegal. To the contrary: since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, copying of music with computers is much less restricted by law than copying it in other ways.
The RIAA is lying in order to try to misinform you of your rights. From their web page:
... it's already firmly on our side.
The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.
The law they are referring to is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. They are lying. It's written right into the law that the law does NOT apply to end users.
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions [meaning things they can't sue you over, because they aren't illegal]
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.
In other words, the law specifically says that the law does NOT apply to end users making non-commercial recordings.
In fact, the law only applies to persons who manufacture or import digital recording devices and media. Since you are not doing either, the law does not apply to you.
What does apply to you is the general law regarding copyright, which incorporate fair use. Under fair use, you are not infringing on copyright if you make personal copies of copyrighted materials, without distributing them, for your own use. This was decided by the courts, and is the reason why VCRs are legal to buy, sell, and use.
We don't need to get THIS law changed
Once again, the RIAA does not want you to know your rights. They want you to be misinformed and believe that you are breaking the law when you engage in legal fair use practices. That is the purpose of the false, deliberately misleading statements on this web page.
- John
The Audio Home Recording Act is at:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ 17/1001.html
I especially like Section 1008, which says that noncommerical use is exempt from the Act:
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
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.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The relevant part seems to be section 1008, which says "...No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on... the noncommercial use by a consumer..."
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Instead of just throwing this out here for a bunch of people who really don't have a clue about what they are talking about to argue about? All I can see is this article generating more heat than light.
I mean, I think you all could afford it.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
the act is right here! go ahead and read!
"Make the law so Joe Citizen can understand it... otherwise, your law is poorly written and needs to be rewritten until it is understandable to the layman. Part of the reason so many laws are broken is that they are confusing, contradictory, or just plain unknown to the citizen. Even the cops who will arrest you don't know the law until they're told by others to arrest you for whatever. Go to a police station and ask then to appraise you of all new laws passed this year so you can stay up to date. They'll laugh you out of the office."
/. the other day that developers don't much care for the end user, because developers basically design for other developers. This seemed to be a prevalent view, and no one saw a problem with it.
;)
Or, only slightly offtopic, but something interesting to consider...Joker's corollary of computer programming to the legal profession:
Make computers and their systems work so Joe Citizen can understand them...otherwise your programs are poorly written, and need to be rewritten until they are understandable/usable to the layman. Even the admins who are there to help you don't know how the software works until they're told by tech support. Go to your local computer store and ask them to appraise you of all new upgrades released this year so you can stay up to date. They'll laugh you out of the office.
How ridiculous does that sound?
The closer we get to software, the harder it is to place it in the context of everyday users. I saw someone say on
Law works a lot the same way, if you think about it. The closer you get to the atomic detail involved, the more complicated it gets, and the harder it gets to explain. Remember, the only true answer to any legal question is, "it depends." Legal questions, or need for expertise, keep lawyers in business, on any side of any issue. Why make laws easier to understand, and risk your own business? By making your laws for lawyers, you leave the citizen out of the experience -- so when they have trouble, they need you to bail them out.
Technical issues, or expertise, keep developers in business, on any side. Why make computers and programs easier to understand, and risk your own business? By making your code for developers, you leave the everyday user out of the experience -- thus you'll never rule the desktop, or the world.
Think about it. Just an idea.....
Spoken by a law-school dropout geek.
A human being is the best computer available...the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. - Wernher v
Having said that, let's start with the law. Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 says:
What that means, in English, is that individuals cannot be sued (or prosecuted) under the AHRA for making recordings, analog or digital, for non-commercial use.
The act is not designed to prevent people from making recordings (or MP3s or anything else) of their records. What the act does require is that the manufacturers of devices capable of making digital recordings (and also manufacturers of digital recording media) pay the record companies certain royalties for each such device (or unit of media) they sell and, more importantly, that they implement a system called the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) on every such device. SCMS is designed to prevent people from making multiple generation digital copies from a single original - something that the record companies figure only pirates would want to do. SCMS has been around for 8 years now on every DAT and similar device sold to the public and its not going anywhere.
To answer the "how come I can freely tape my records or TV onto analog media" question, the answer is simple: Congress, with the help of record company lobbyists, has determined that lossless digital copying is not the same as lossy, hiss inducing, analog copying. It has therefore placed restrictions (the SCMS and the above-mentioned royalty) on digital copying. It's not a matter of teaching the "Courts" anything - it's a matter of telling Congress you disagree (if you do).
In fact, for a change, pretty much get it. When the RIAA sued Diamond, they claimed that the Rio MP3 player was a "digital recording device" subject to the terms of the AHRA and attempted to keep it off the market as it did not implement (back then) SCMS or any similar copy-protection scheme. The Court rejected that theory, finding that the Rio was not a digital recording device for the purposes of the Act. An in depth discussion of that case is beyond the scope of this already long-winded post, but if people want it I'll be happy to put it in a separate post.
Summary: The AHRA doesn't prevent you from recording anything. Go ahead. Go nuts. The DMCA is another matter, but that'll wait.
"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington