Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ford, GM Sued Over Vehicles' Ability To Rip CD Music To Hard Drive

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-buy-a-car-every-time-i-want-to-steal-some-music dept.

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.

28 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Time Shifting? by pjh3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Time Shifting? Worked for the VCR.

    1. Re:Time Shifting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is totally a trolling lawsuit. I mean, just look at their website.

      It's fucking stock wordpress.

    2. Re:Time Shifting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Act protects against distributing digital audio recording devices whose primary purpose is to rip copyrighted material.

      It should be pretty obvious that the primary purpose is not to rip copyrighted material.
      A judge needs to slap AARC in the face for wasting everyones time.

    3. Re:Time Shifting? by tbuddy · · Score: 4, Funny

      They went to the trouble of selecting The Coraline Theme. That shows they have some dedication. The nefarious threat of having the power of a $40 mp3 player built in to vehicles should be reckoned with and you have to applaud them for choosing Wordpress for their method to do so.

    4. Re:Time Shifting? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not time shifting, but space shifting; which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in RIAA v Diamond Multimedia like 15 years ago.

      They'll have no problem knocking this down whatsoever.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Time Shifting? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    6. Re:Time Shifting? by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is totally a trolling lawsuit. I mean, just look at their website.

      It's fucking stock wordpress.

      So, a major company uses open source software and Slashdot complains about it? There's just no winning.....

    7. Re:Time Shifting? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Interesting

      LOL, check this out:

      4/16/14 version of the site

      AARC provides a music royalty, generated by the sales of blank CDs and personal audio devices, media centers, satellite radio devices, and car audio systems that have recording capabilities, to its 142,000+ members worldwide.

      5/17/14 version:

      AARC provides a music royalty, generated by the sales of blank CDs and personal audio devices, media centers, satellite radio devices, and car audio systems that have recording capabilities, to its 142,000+ members worldwide.

      And today's version:

      AARC provides a music royalty, generated by the sales of automobile infotainment systems, blank CDs, personal audio devices, media centers, and satellite radio devices that have music recording capabilities, to its 300,000+ members worldwide.

      I wonder, do they think if they add something to the intro of their terrible, terrible website*, it means they can start collecting royalties on it?

      * as the creator and admin of several terrible websites, I know bad when I see it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Time Shifting? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, 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:

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Time Shifting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What stops me from doing the exact same thing, but on a computer! (patent pending)

    10. Re:Time Shifting? by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lastly, Ford and GM could be dismissed from the suit as they didn't manufacture the systems but bought them and used them.

      Ford's system uses Sony hardware and software (including patent-encumbered software) in addition to software by Microsoft.

      Ford and GM are pretty big, but if Sony and Microsoft get involved, the AARC would be in for being tied up in court for centuries.

    11. Re:Time Shifting? by gnupun · · Score: 4, Informative

      What stops me from doing the exact same thing, but on a computer!

      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:

      U.S. copyright law generally says that making a copy of an original work, if conducted without the consent of the copyright owner, is infringement. The law makes no explicit grant or denial of a right to make a "personal use" copy of another's copyrighted content on one's own digital media and devices.

      Europe:

      A directive of the European Union allows its member nations to instate in their legal framework a private copy exception to the authors and editors rights. ... In all but a few of these countries, the levy is excised on all the machines and blank materials capable of copying copyrighted works.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

  2. Good luck with that. by dfenstrate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure GM and Ford have better lawyers, and I imagine they have more resources to throw at the affair as well. I also imagine that GM and Ford will team up for their defense, and make AARC cry. GM and Ford's lawyers signed off on the system before it was even developed, let alone installed in cars. The AARC is going to waste millions and go home with nothing.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Good luck with that. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, 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 - 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?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:Good luck with that. by drstevep · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah yeah, I do it all the time. My car is my primary CD ripping device.

      I take my CD out, rip it, then disassemble the car's audio system and pull the hard drive. Take it to my home computer and upload the files.

      Piece'o'cake, why do you think I bought my car, anyway? Driving? Hahahahahahahaha.....

    3. Re:Good luck with that. by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah yeah, I do it all the time. My car is my primary CD ripping device.

        I take my CD out, rip it, then disassemble the car's audio system and pull the hard drive. Take it to my home computer and upload the files.

        Piece'o'cake, why do you think I bought my car, anyway? Driving? Hahahahahahahaha.....

      That's nothing. I've set up a massive file-sharing service based around these systems. And it's completely undercover; to the casual observer, it looks like a used-car lot!

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
  3. The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they already bought the Music CD so the owner of these CD ripping automobiles are not stealing the music, and they are not capable of sharing those ripped CDs on the internet, it is just making it easier and safer for the driver because they can pay more attention to driving and not fumbling around with a CD collection while driving

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trying to link justice with logic? Good luck with that.

    2. Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit by cHALiTO · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, what license? I didn't see any license in my CD. I bought a CD. With music on it. Music protected by Copyright Law, which states, mainly, that I can't redistribute that music without permission. Whether copying those tracks to a hard drive for convenience counts as redistribution, or some other fine print part of the law in question forbids it for some reason is debatable, but there's no "license" here. I haven't signed anything, nor even had anything given for reading.

      Of course, IANAL, so/and I might be wrong :)

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean law, the American court system has NOTHING to do with Justice, hasn't for a LONG time...

  4. Car analogy? by sinij · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could someone explain this to me with a car analogy?

    1. Re:Car analogy? by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      Could someone explain this to me with a car analogy?

      Imagine you have an iPhone, and you rip CDs in iTunes to fill it up with copies of your music. Now, you want to go down to that place on the corner where they serve really good lunch. You put in your earbuds, crank up the ripped music, and start walking to lunch. As you proceed down the street, a lonely old man staggers and falls. You rush over to help him, and realize he's having a heart attack. You use your iPhone to call for emergency services, and wait with the man for help to arrive. While you are sitting on the sidewalk, and a greasy man in a cheap suit walks up and says "I'm a lawyer, and I'm going to sue you for not saving this man's life." Just then, a cop driving a Ford screeches to a halt, running over the lawyer, backing up, and hitting him again.

      It's the opposite of that.

      HTH. HAND.

      --
      John
  5. Unbelievable by tbannist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe this idiocy is still going on. This seems to be clearly format shifting for personal use which should be entirely legal. I hope this lawsuit gets tossed out of court and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendants legal costs.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  6. I had to look up the AARC by Jahoda · · Score: 5, Informative

    I had actually never heard of these trolls. According to wikipedia, "AARC is a non-profit US royalty collective, assembled by the US music industry in conjunction with the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, that protects the rights of featured artists and recording companies(sound recording copyright owners) both domestically and abroad in the areas of hometaping/private copy royalties and rental royalties"

    In other words, lawyer parasites.

  7. Prediction: Undisclosed Settlement by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Neither side wants this to go to court, and both sides know it. The AARC wants a settlement they can point to for high pressure settlement letters to other defendants, and the car companies want a non-revokable license for these devices. I'd give it a 90%+ confidence that this will result in an undisclosed settlement within a year, and while we won't know the number they settle for, I'm guessing it won't be enough to make a blip on the car companies' quarterly reports.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  8. Isn't this exempted? by Sockatume · · 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...

    That Exemption was specifically to allow for home taping from CD to DAT and Minidisks, so it seems appropriate here.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  9. Paying their clients by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is totally a trolling lawsuit. I mean, just look at their website.

    It's fucking stock wordpress.

    Maybe they're just being frugal. Maybe they're trying to pass on as much money to the artists they represent as possible.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  10. Re: 1st? by omnichad · · Score: 4, Funny

    but doesn't having 10GB of ripped Justin Beiber songs raise the resale value of a car...

    No, I think that would take this from being legal to being a crime.