Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Soulskill posted about a month and a half ago | from the i-buy-a-car-every-time-i-want-to-steal-some-music dept.

The Courts 317

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.

cancel ×

317 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Time Shifting? (4, Insightful)

pjh3000 (583652) | about a month and a half ago | (#47564981)

Time Shifting? Worked for the VCR.

Re:Time Shifting? (1)

msauve (701917) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565025)

Time shift physical media? What's that?

Re:Time Shifting? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565037)

This is totally a trolling lawsuit. I mean, just look at their website [aarcroyalties.com] .

It's fucking stock wordpress.

Re:Time Shifting? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565083)

That site really is laughable, I'm amazed there aren't more animated GIFs.

Re:Time Shifting? (4, Funny)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565139)

They went to the trouble of selecting The Coraline Theme [wordpress.com] . 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.

Paying their clients (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565587)

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.

Re:Paying their clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565605)

You owe me a new keyboard.

Re:Time Shifting? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565075)

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.

Re:Time Shifting? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565329)

The Act actually protects against distributing digital audio recording devices that specifically don't obey the DAT tape's DRM system. It doesn't say anything about home taping in general.

Re:Time Shifting? (4, Informative)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565479)

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.

Re:Time Shifting? (5, Informative)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565321)

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

They'll have no problem knocking this down whatsoever.

Re:Time Shifting? (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565575)

Does not look like they are sueing in the 9th circuit.

I hope the recording companies lose (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47564991)

This suit is a joke and I hope the courts make the recording industry pay for this crap.

1st? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47564993)

Yeah, right, because the purpose of the entertainment centre in the car surely is "to rip copyrighted material"...

Re:1st? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565005)

But those pirates are copying Fords and giving them away with billions of dollars worth of music on it!

Over $1 a track (2)

Himmy32 (650060) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565001)

If the royalties they get is over a dollar for every track, I guess we are blessed that digital music stores can sell tracks for under that. The iTunes store is truly benevolent for giving away money...

LMFTFY: Over $1 per THEORETICAL track (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565427)

These royalties are to be paid over the ability to rip, not over actual ripping. Meaning these are royalties to be paid over theoretical music, not actual playing or storing, merely the possibility that such might happen.

Next sue everyone else (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565009)

Next sue everyone else for smartphones to ipods...
judge will just pass this off as a deranged and useless lawsuit that holds no merit within the confines of the earthly realm...

Good luck with that. (5, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565021)

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.

Re:Good luck with that. (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565135)

I'm pretty sure that GM, Ford, Chrysler, and all the Japanese automakers will team up for this one, simply because they're not using the same system in the JP models, doesn't mean they won't in the future.

Re:Good luck with that. (2)

mkoenecke (249261) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565393)

I have the same capability in my 2011 Infiniti G37. (Don't tell AARC!)

Re:Good luck with that. (3, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565437)

80% of the music in my iTunes came from CDs..."ripped" straight from the plastic. I an convert those all to MP3s.

So they should be suing Microsoft and Apple.

Re:Good luck with that. (4, Informative)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565361)

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 [wikipedia.org] - 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?

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565533)

You should probably read that a little closer. In fact, read this:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/p... [harvard.edu]

See, it doesn't apply here because the express intent of the device n the car is to record music.

However, this part may apply:
"Because no additional copies can be made from the Rio, the Rio makes less copies than the SCMS would permit."
Can you copy music from the Cars device? If not, they got nothing. If you can, then you may have an issue.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

jandrese (485) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565599)

Somehow I doubt that Ford and GM have a way to copy music out of the system. That's just not what those things are designed to do.

The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (5, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565047)

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

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565115)

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

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (2)

quantaman (517394) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565183)

Assuming that ripping your own CDs is actually legal.

If it's not legal then the case gets a lot more interesting.

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565301)

I'm actually surprised people still have CDs. My first gen ipod touch is smaller than a CD box and fits much more, plus I can easily change the contents when I bring it back home for a recharge/sync. For the record, still lasts about 10 days of playback in the car (omg battery not replaceable!).

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (2)

sg_oneill (159032) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565313)

Assuming that ripping your own CDs is actually legal.

As long as you don't distribute it, its totally legal. No doubt about it.

I don't even know how you would violate the law with this thing. It'd probably involve a custom firmware.

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565407)

It is considered "Fair Use" as defined in Sony v Universal (the Betamax decision). Because it's private use, and is only considered "place shifting", there is no copyright infringement to be found unless you redistribute the shifted media.

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (1)

Dan East (318230) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565449)

You can do illegal things with a pen and a piece of paper, or a kitchen knife, or any computer, tablet, or cell phone. It is not the responsibility of the manufacturer to attempt to engineer a product that it is impossible to use for an illegal purpose. There is a legitimate use for what Ford and GM has done - people who own music on one media format can time-shift that music for later playback with less manual handling of physical media which is dangerous while driving.

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565199)

This is not really true. You bought a license to play that music. The CD is how they distributed the media to you. If you want the music in a different format, you'll need a license for that too. This is the stupidity of copyright law.

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (4, Insightful)

cHALiTO (101461) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565317)

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 :)

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565395)

In the UK there is still no private copying exemption from the Digital Economy Act and other related copyright law, despite recommendations to do so.

One would hope that the UK government, having little else to do in its final year of office, would sort this out. Instead, they'd rather get tough on migrants and the causes of migrants....

Re:The Alliance of Artists should lose this suit (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565513)

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

No, you're not thinking about this the right way! Clearly people are buying these cars and then selling them pre-loaded with the music on them. The music is clearly worth more than the cars, so it's all a clever infringement scheme. /s

How do you know they bought the CD? (0)

oneiros27 (46144) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565603)

I think the lawsuit is stupid, as they'd have to prove that the 'primary' reason for this device is to be able to rip music.

But your claim that they're the owner of the CD isn't necessarily true. You could borrow a CD from the library, or a friend. How's the device to know if you actually own it?

And what happens if you *did* own the CD, but you then sold or gave it away? Do you still have the right to have the music in your car?

What if you haven't sold the CD, but it's now scratched or melted, and therefore unplayable? Do you still have to keep the physical copy to have the continued right to listen to it from your ripped backup, or can you dispose of the physical item?

Personally, I hope this goes to trial, and that the car manufacturers refuse to settle. I'd like a judge to finally weigh in on what is or isn't legal, so that these groups can't threaten legal action just to try to get settlements.

Car analogy? (5, Funny)

sinij (911942) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565049)

Could someone explain this to me with a car analogy?

Car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565081)

It's like driving a ford or gm auto and realizing you got screwed buying it ?

I don'g have much more then that.

Re:Car analogy? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565177)

You wouldn't rip a car in your home entertainment system, yada yada yada...

Re:Car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565399)

yada, yada, yada being the tip-off to real truth...

Re:Car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565379)

Could someone explain this to me with a car analogy?

Imagine you have a few cars. While driving them for the first time you record your journey and then instead of driving a car again you replay your recording on your home entertainment system.

Sounds silly, but if we assume that the experience of driving has some value (instead of getting to some place), then replaying it without driving again could be... well... an act of piracy!

And imagine lost income of all those petrol stations, paid roads, speeding tickets not issued, etc. A horrible act of piracy that need immediate legal actions.

Unbelievable (5, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565053)

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.

Re:Unbelievable (2)

JosKarith (757063) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565261)

Difference to previous lawsuits is that here they're going after the American Auto Industry - one of America's sacred cows. Expect to see these shysters going home with million-dollar legal fees and their asses handed back to them on silver platters.

Re:Unbelievable (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565267)

I can't believe this idiocy is still going on

Imagine it's 1987. The local "indie" record company and the local record shops get together and roll out (incredibly expensive) CD burners that can burn discs of whatever the customers want from the catalogue of that "indie" record company for the price of a normal albumn. Launch day happened and suddenly everyone's knee deep in lawyers and the police are chasing customers out of the shop - the parent record company called the cops on their partly owned "indie" record company that turned out to not be as "indie" as everyone thought (especially after they owed a lot in legal costs).
There's been decades to stop the idiocy. People are ripping and downloading because of many missed opportunities, missed due to short term greed.

USB Import (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565071)

Good thing I loaded my hard drive up with tracks loaded onto a flashdrive saving space, the environment....and my time. Who the hell buys/uses CD's anymore? Wish that format would die already.

Re:USB Import (0, Troll)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565101)

Who uses a flash drive anymore...it's all about the cloud...get with the times grandpa.

Re:USB Import (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565185)

Who uses the cloud anymore... it's all about bio-implants... get with the times grandpa.

Re:USB Import (1)

buzzsawddog (1980902) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565217)

Come on grandma, you mean your grandparents were not genetically modified to grow storage media? What are bio-implants?

Re:USB Import (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565249)

Come on grandpa, you mean you still have physical bodies? Leave this mortal plane of existence.

Re:USB Import (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565235)

Grandpa was with the times, and used the cloud when it was developed... more than 40 years ago. You damned kids and your music, you wouldn't know good for bad.

Not all recording artists are on Amazon MP3 (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565287)

Who the hell buys/uses CD's anymore?

People who are fans of recording artists who choose not to sell their music on Amazon MP3. For example, AC/DC and Garth Brooks are noted for their opposition to sales of downloadable singles. Other artists like the Beatles are exclusive to iTunes, which is fine if you use OS X or iOS but leaves, say, Android users behind.

Re:Not all recording artists are on Amazon MP3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565611)

There are a number of bands which refuse to release their singles to online stores. Tool is an example.

The reason why the music industry was killed was because of single track sales. A band could make a living by selling CDs, even if they made a fraction of what the disk sold for. A single track. No way. This is partially why the mainstream music is corporate rock, and corporate rock only, compared to the past where you had corporate rock... and a LOT of other bands that were promoted. So, one can blame the single track sales on why you see more Britney Spears and Justin Bieber and no Nine Inch Nails.

Re:USB Import (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565467)

Who the hell buys/uses CD's anymore?

(raises hand)

My CD from the 80s (yes, I still have a few) and 90s and 00s didn't disappear. I buy CDs from bands at shows. (And usually rip them, eventually.) And doing business with the forms of Pure Concentrated Evil known to mankind as Apple and Amazon is not an option, so digital download options are limited.

Re: USB Import (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565607)

I see a fan of Time Bandits here. Nice!

A Military Campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565073)

It is clear here, That we need to send in troops, to deal with these AARC radicals. If not troops, I suggest a year long bombing with sorties running around the clock.

Oh Goody! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565103)

Maybe both industries will declare war on one another and wipe themselves out! Well, at least all the lawyers anyways. We can keep the engineers. They could be useful.

Re: Oh Goody! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565355)

No matter which direction this goes, you can be certain that the lawyers will do very well for themselves.

AARC is ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565109)

Every computer can copy music cds digitally and cars have had tape cassettes even before that. I can't believe they waste the courts time with crap like this!

unsensitize me with benevolent empathy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565117)

that's not what this is http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kevin+arnett what's this about? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=conscious+conscience+spirit call this 'weather'? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather as we chant proactively http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk9mV8qBiEk

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. (like textual predators?) If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org or sing a long time strong if you will http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug7IgB8MfWE the language of the heart is practically foolproof... see you there...

Surprised it took so long (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565119)

I wonder why they didn't sue earlier.

Also only a landlubber would use such a system, a savvy pirate would use something that plays the looted music he already has! Aarrrrr!

I had to look up the AARC (5, Informative)

Jahoda (2715225) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565121)

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.

Re:I had to look up the AARC (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565315)

The AHRA was basically DMCA 2.0; it created a government mandate that certain products must use DRM, made circumvention of that DRM illegal, and mandated that all the companies using the DRM must pay royalties to the AARC.

Re:I had to look up the AARC (1)

operagost (62405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565609)

The AHRA predates DMCA by several years.

Please have GM do the right thing... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565125)

And fight this for "fair use" in court and completely and utterly fuck over the RIAA and record labels in their war against the people.

GM is big enough to get this fixed. but I guarantee it will all disappear as soon as they push back.

A car's PRIMARY purpose is TRANSPORTATION ! (3, Interesting)

redelm (54142) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565131)

Lawyers grasping hard again: They are complaining about a small (by weight or cost) part of car that rarely is removed or operated outside of it. The primary purpose of the car is transportation, not to extract digital music. Even if the Jukebox is a paid optional extra, that doesn't change the primary purpose of the car!

Re:A car's PRIMARY purpose is TRANSPORTATION ! (3, Funny)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565163)

No, a car's primary purpose is picking up chicks. Getting around is just a by-product of its intended function.

Re:A car's PRIMARY purpose is TRANSPORTATION ! (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565473)

A car's primary purpose is to advertise the size of a guy's dick(*), in order to facilitate picking up chicks. Getting around is just a by-product of its intended function.

FTFY

* Although an inverse function is typically applied here, for some reason the chicks in question don't seem to notice or care.

Re:A car's PRIMARY purpose is TRANSPORTATION ! (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565501)

Well, that would be the primary purpose of THIS car, but not all of them: http://www.poultrycast.com/fil... [poultrycast.com]

Re:A car's PRIMARY purpose is TRANSPORTATION ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565391)

they arent complaining about the car. they are complaining about the audio system (or rather some subcomponenet of it...the cd drive or whatever). The primary purpose of the audio system is not transportation. That said, you are correct that the PRIMARY purpose of the audio system is not to rip music.

So according to the AARC every burner is illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565137)

These guys are worse than patent trolls.

Re:So according to the AARC every burner is illega (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565375)

So WTF are their rules ?
If I follow their stupid logic....
I write a song and record it.
I receive my song on a CD but wish to dump tracks to my car's media storage.
So.. do I sue myself ?

Since when.... (0)

thieh (3654731) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565143)

Since when was buying a car to rip CD's a better idea than buying a computer to do so?

The automakers needs to (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565151)

tell them to piss off. These are privately own CD/DVD and a person can rip what they want.

Good luck with that (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565173)

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

So, the primary purpose of the CD system is ripping CDs is it? Not, for instance, listening to the radio, playing CDs, or even listening to the music I have previously ripped from CDs using the system AARC is complaining about? According to their argument that would have to be the case, even to the extent of ripping a CD and then only playing it back once, to meet the "primary purpose" claim. Or is the AARC expecting to convince a jury that owners of vehicles with these devices are ripping CDs onto a hard drive in a device that they will then probably need to dismantle in order to remove and attach the drive to some other system in order to play back the ripped music somewhere other than in the car?

AARC's greedy lawyers are greedy. Music (ripped in-car, naturally) at eleven!

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565273)

Trust me, they made that argument back when CD Roms came out. They were almost made illegal because of it to. Lucky they were not, and likely had a lot to do with the advent of the internet.

At the time there was no internet, you had local BBS's. When CD roms came out, a lot of people couldn't afford them, so the BBS's got them and you could queue up for time on different CD roms that had different discs in them. Keep in mind a 100mb harddrive was HUGE at the time. A 600mb CD was unfathomable. You'd routinely find CD's that were labled "EVERY Shareware program there is!" and such. then play boy came out with one full of pics and it was all over... People queued up and downloaded from the CDs... it was revolutionary. Then the BBS's started networking themselves together so you could queue up for files from a foreign BBS.

At the time you could mail someone and you mailbox would just be your username. i.e. mine would be: charliemopps When the BBS's started networking it was possible there would be 2 user accounts with the same name... what to do? charliemopps@mybbs Sweet! Then the BBS's started linking to that new college network.. so they had to differentiate between the colleges (college.edu) and the commercial networks (mybbs.com) Eventually the BBS just became a gateway to everything else... the first ISPs...

Seriously... that's how it happened here. It wouldn't have happened without CD-Roms and naughty pics. I don't know about everywhere else, but where I live the internet came about in a very practical manner... it wasn't like someday it just descended on us from on high.

Anyways, that's your spelling mistake laden history lesson for the day.

The definition of copyright (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565191)

My limited understanding is that copyright dictates your right to copy media, and the restrictions surrounding that. Laws about software licensing consider factors such as installing software from physical media to a disk, copying code on disk temporarily to memory, how many machines you can have it installed on at once, etc.

I'm fairly sure this is a legitimate lawsuit according to the letter of the law. However, this is one of those situations where the law has become outdated and does not reflect real world use anymore. Not to mention citing the "Audio Home Recording Act of 1992" even though it's not reasonable to call a vehicle a home.

Re:The definition of copyright (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565383)

No, from the letter of the law, this is bunk. The relevant tests make the claims an absolute joke. They are just hoping to cash in, and if they get anything close to their claims, it would probably be more money than the AHRA has brought in in it's entire lifetime.

Prediction: Undisclosed Settlement (4, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565207)

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.

Re:Prediction: Undisclosed Settlement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565327)

It would be really interesting if the auto makers decided that THEY should get paid in this settlement... should be cheaper for AARC than going to trial.

This is going to come down to a battle of words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565225)

Quoted in the article from the law: "whose primary purpose is to rip copyrighted material." The PRIMARY purpose of the in car entertainment system is to play music, not rip cd's.

Fuck me! (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565227)

When is *someone* going to squash these guys.

Anything can happen in a US court (2)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565269)

As an American with an above average grasp of the US legal system thanks to a long time friend who is an attorney, I can tell you that anything can happen if this case goes to court. Should the AARC lose? Yes. But will they? Who knows? Juries aren't made up of people who understand technology. If Ford and GM's lawyers botch the case or the jury has quite a few members who are obsessed with punishing rules breakers, the AARC can win. I agree that it seems likely that an undisclosed settlement will be reached. The AARC probably knows that most likely it won't prevail so getting something is better than losing in court and getting nothing and GM and Ford would prefer not to take the risk that a crazy jury will rule against them and view a limited settlement as the best option available. Even having judges decide cases is no guarantee against craziness. I know of one case where a court was overruled by an appellate court who accused the original court of making up the law out of nothing on the case in question. My attorney friend told me that he agreed with the appellate court ruling but he'd never seen a court use that kind of language before in slapping down another court.

Re:Anything can happen in a US court (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565347)

A jury verdict in this type of case is meaningless as the issues will be decided by judges at a higher level. It is even doubtful there are any issues of fact to be decided by a jury. Even better a high profile case like this one is likely to have judges assigned who are knowledgeable in the applicable laws. While the outcome may be uncertain, we can bee sure the legal process will take years.

Re:Anything can happen in a US court (2)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565615)

"As an American with an above average grasp of the US legal system thanks to a long time friend who is an attorney, I can tell you that anything can happen if this case goes to court. Should the AARC lose? Yes. But will they? Who knows? Juries aren't made up of people who understand technology."

So much for your knowledge. You do know that the car companies could ask for this to go in front of a judge instead of a jury, right? And that all it's going to take is a note of RIAA v Diamond and also a mentioning from Chapter 92 of Copyright code to end this case as it's already been decided by higher courts than the one the case is going to.

Coming from someone that spends a LOT of time in court dealing with this kind of nonsense as an expert witness.

Did they take on Apple? (1)

Mente (219525) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565271)

There is this software called iTunes. It lets you put a CD into a computer and rip it and store it on this thing called an iPad or iPod or iPhone. I think this has already been established as acceptable use.

Re:Did they take on Apple? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565381)

Damn...I already bought a car to start a music piracy business and now you say it's that easy!

Re:Did they take on Apple? (1)

Ronin Developer (67677) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565389)

Apple is also authorized and licensed to resell music for this purpose with it's iTunes service.

And, I do believe the courts have ruled in favor of copying music from CD's to MP3 and similar (i.e iPod) devices for personal use.

Time to shut these asshats down once and for all. Sadly, it will probably result in a settlement vs a legal ruling so this crap will keep on haunting the rest of us.

cheapskate components (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565279)

10gb hdd? how skinflintish can it get? corepirate nazis must be thrilled with themselves & their cash awards

Isn't this exempted? (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565295)

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... [copyright.gov]

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

Infiniti's too! (1)

leroybrown (136516) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565299)

I just bought an off-lease 2011 Inifiniti G37x and the dealer hadn't removed the previous owner's music. It was AWFUL, The Best of Kenny Loggins was the best album of the ~100 ripped to MusicBox.

Once I removed all of the previous owner's music, I found the entire system nicely designed and performant.

And Honda (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565463)

Our Pilot does the same thing.

Re:Infiniti's too! (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565517)

Performant is a particularly cromulent word.

I know (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565323)

GM should just install android in their cars, the put the grooveshark app in by default. Problem solved. Record companies seem to want to be made obsolete asap.

Time to make some popcorn (1)

robstout (2873439) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565367)

I just wish it was the RIAA. Then it would be an epic fight.

don't buy shitty music - problem solved. (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565405)

If everybody stopped supporting these overbearing assholes things would be different. Unfortunately, people support them through purchases of shitty music.

Better solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565461)

A good lawyer and a good assassin cost about the same, but only one makes sure the body never comes back out from under the bridge.

Big-money corps need to get back to their roots and start beating people till their eyes bleed.

how do I do this on my ford? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47565475)

have not seen this feature.

Why not Audi? (1)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565563)

My Audi does this. Why isn't the VW Group on the defendants list?

Words mean things (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a month and a half ago | (#47565565)

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

Look up the word "primary" in the dictionary. Ford does not install entertainment systems in their cars for the "primary" purpose of ripping CDs.

Words mean things.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>