Slashdot Mirror
Ford, GM Sued Over Vehicles' Ability To Rip CD Music To Hard Drive
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.
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.
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
Could someone explain this to me with a car analogy?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
What stops me from doing the exact same thing, but on a computer! (patent pending)