Here's how it works:

1) The simple act of copying a piece of copyrighted material is, by law, illegal. The copyright holder can sue the copier for damages, based on the number of instances copied.

2) There are exceptions to number 1. The most important exception for this discussion is called the AHRA, the Audio Home Recording Act. It allows for people at home to make copies of music for personal use only. There are some very specific pieces of wording used in the AHRA which define certain kinds of electronic devices and the implementation of SCMS (copy protection), but for the most part, if it's for personal use, you're free to do more or less whatever you want.

Well, there's also the matter of fair use, which RIAA and for that matter the AHRA conveniently ignores. My understanding of the AHRA is that it's legal codification of the RIAA's blank media extortion, and that it establishes the requirements for SCMS.

In my personal opinion, MP3.COM was stupid for thinking they could get away with it. I say let the RIAA ream 'em for a while.

I think MP3.com knew they were pushing it. I also think it will be a while before the dust settles on this one. The laws obviously have problems here, and there's going to be a lot more sturm und drang before this one is all over, viz. Metallica vs. 335k fans.

If that's OK, what's wrong with automating that function in the player, as I described in my first post?

To us techies, there's no difference between having the function automated and having to press a button. But to the lawyers, there is. The operator of the copying device needs to make a conscious decision to begin the copy process.

Good point. So the design evolves a bit. You now have a 6-disc changer in the trunk, and you can select a disc (or even individual tracks) to "store" for future playback. Still no way to get music out of the box, like the current empeg car, and a deliberate act is required to rip a track.

There's an interesting wrinkle in all of this, and I've mentioned it before in another thread on this BBS. The RIAA hold the position that it's illegal to rip a CD onto your hard drive, period. They claim that the AHRA doesn't protect you for this type of copying. The only copying that the AHRA allows, according to them, is with tapes and minidiscs, or digital media which implements the SCMS copy protection.

Oh, it's better than that. The RIAA propaganda makes it sound like the AHRA doesn't protect you at all, but "we promise not to sue you if you play by our rules."

But I've looked through the AHRA, and it doesn't say that. At least not in my interpretation of the wording. What it says is that all home copying on any media is legal, and that only certain devices are required to implement SCMS. The act specifically excludes computers and CD-ROM drives from needing to implement SCMS.

This is interesting. Can you point me to an online source of the text of the AHRA? In particular, how do they define computers and cd-rom drives? That has to be a pretty blurry line these days. (Apex or Raite/Yamakawa anyone?)


I think this is why no home user has ever been sued for ripping CDs. The RIAA would like to spread the propaganda that CD ripping is always illegal in all cases, but it's just hot air at this point. As I understand it, CD ripping only becomes illegal when the rips you make get sent to someone else because that crosses the line past personal use. At that point, it's both the ripping and the distribution which are illegal.

Doesn't the Rio case set a precedent in this matter? (It's been too long since I've read that decision.)

I'm trying to figure out the empeg car for the computer illiterate, and the "changer that remembers" model seems pretty appealing, though I think there would have to be some better case law before anyone will step up to the plate to build one. I think the DMCA doesn't apply since there's no copy protection on CDs, and the ripping function could have some RIAA-be-gone boilerplate attached to the "confirm" button. Other thoughts?


-Zandr
Mk.I #150