Slashdot Log In
What Does the Audio Home Recording Act Really Allow?
Posted by
Cliff
on Tue Mar 07, 2000 02:28 PM
from the knowing-your-rights dept.
from the knowing-your-rights dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
What Does the Audio Home Recording Act Really Allow?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 402 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Some Key Points (Score:3)
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.
Misinformation (Score:3)
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.
Re:Audio Home Recording Act (Score:3)
"No action may be brought under this title
alleging infringement of copyright *based on* the manufacture [of a device or medium]
Re:What about MTV (Score:3)
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.
Re:Should I have to consult a lawyer to live my li (Score:3)
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.
It's bullshit (Score:3)
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 ] [dhs.org]
The Diffrence is: (Score:3)
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [dhs.org]
Re:Should I have to consult a lawyer to live my li (Score:3)
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.
----------------------------------------------
Wait, let me get this straight... (Score:3)
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.
What about MTV (Score:3)
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?
AHRA <-- Grrrrrr... (Score:3)
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?
Re:Some Key Points (Score:4)
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
Re:Why doesn't /. find a lawyer and ask? (Score:4)
---
No just the important parts of it (Score:4)
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.
Re:This is a crock (Score:4)
This is one of Life's little engineering principles:
When you build a better mousetrap, you breed a smarter mouse.
Yes and no--what I found out (Score:4)
"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.
Some Key Points (Score:4)
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".
------------
Express your opinion (Score:4)
Hilary Rosen's bio [riaa.com] 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?
Re:DMCA != AHRA (Score:4)
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.
RIAA Press Announcement (Score:4)
Should I have to consult a lawyer to live my life? (Score:5)
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?
Re:Some Key Points (Score:5)
What you get when you buy a music CD is *not* a license to the content. You buy, and own, one copy of that recording. It's known in legal circles as the Right of First Purchase. You own that copy, you can play it, you can sell it, you can bury it in your back yard. If not for right of first purchase, used record and CD shops would be illegal, and despite what the RIAA says (and they get up in a huff about this every few years) they are not. You can't copy it legally, because then you would have two copies and you only own one. (Though the law allows you to make a copy for archival purposes, so long as you don't use both of them at once.)
Now, since you don't own the content (assuming you are not the copyright holder) you can't use it to make money (like radio ad revenue) without paying the copyright holder a royalty, generally via ASCAP or BMI. Similarly you can't record your own version of the music without paying the copyright holder a royalty, generally via the RIAA's Harry Fox Agency.
What the DMCA did was bring US copyright law into compliance with the World Intellectual Property Orgaization Performances and Phonograms Treaty which established a new copyright for the producers of a phonogram (i.e. the record companies). This new and additional copyright gives the producer control of digital distribution, with explicit control over on-demand distribution of the content of the phonogram. So, for the first time, the record companies have a legal right to the music just by virtue of owning the studio and paying the engineers. (In less enlightened times, they would get similar control by forcing the artist to sign over part or all of the copyright in exchange for money or distribution access.) The Librarian of Congress is tasked with the duty to determine fair license fees for copyrights, and the discussion is underway. The record companies are lobbying for exorbitant rates for the phonogram producer copyright, but are strangely reluctant to use their political muscle to lobby for higher rates for the copyrights traditionally held by artists (which can be fairly described as a pittance).
So, when they say it's about protecting the artists, they are lying through their teeth.
RIAA v. Diamond (Score:5)
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 [weekly.org]
This is a crock (Score:5)
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.
Re:Misinformation - or is it? (Score:5)
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
Re:This is a crock (Score:5)
The result: There are only a few models of standalone CD recorders and DAT machines on the market, because they require expensive (remember the kickback) media, and implement the onerous SCMS protocol.
Not only that, but the law made a distinction between "professional" and "non-professional" digital audio recorders. Only "non-professional" models are required to implement SCMS. As a result, most "non-professional" DAT decks have disappeared from the market, leaving only the "professional" models, which oddly enough cost about as much as the "non-professional" models did before the law.
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.
Public 1, RIAA 0.
In attempting to take control of all consumer recording technology, the RIAA has unintentionally driven the market towards the only digital recording technology with NO copy controls whatsoever, NO kickback fee, and a direct connection to the internet. It's the RIAA's worst nightmare, and they forced it into being through their ignorant, heavy-handed legal tactics.
This web page is an attempt to lie to the public to make people believe that their perfectly legal activities are somehow illegal because they do not use RIAA-crippled hardware and media.
Call it damage control. It's still a lie.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Re:Audio Home Recording Act (Score:5)
The Audio Home Recording Act is at:
h