Car Audio Systems Did Not Violate Audio Home Recording Act of 1992

Alliance of Artists and Recording Cos. V. Denso Int’l Am., Inc., No. 18-7141, 18-7172, 2020 WL 425058 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 28, 2020).

In 2014, the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, Inc. (“”AARC”) filed two separate lawsuits against various automobile manufacturers and suppliers, including General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and Mitsubishi, for violating the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (“AHRA”). These cases were subsequently consolidated and on March 23, 2018 the District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment for the defendants as to all but one of AARC’s claims. AARC then appealed the judgment and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order. In sum, the court found that: (1) digital audio recorders must be able to create a “digital audio copied recording” that qualifies as a “digital music recording,” as both terms are defined under the AHRA in order to be covered under it; (2) the hard drives in the cars were not “digital musical recordings” under the AHRA because they contain material other than sounds on them, such as “software and data,” so the devices that contain the hard drives do not qualify as “digital audio recording devices” the AHRA; and (3) it is irrelevant that the hard drives save the digital musical recordings separately from the other data and material on the hard drives because the AHRA’s definition of “digital musical recording” looks to the entire hard drive, and not the separate partitions of the hard drive.

Cars' Audio Technology May Require Royalty Payment

Alliance of Artists &Rec. Cos. v. Gen. Motors Co. et al., No. 14-1271 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2016).

Audio technology that has been installed in a number of car models since 2008 may require payment of royalties under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (17 USC 1001 et seq.), holds the court in denying the defendant car manufacturer's motion to dismiss.  The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 requires manufacturers, importers, and distributoers of "digital audio recording devices" to incorporate copying control technolgy into their devices and pay a set royalty amount for each device.  The statute has been referred to as a "compromise" and at the time of its adoption then-current technology was much different than it is today (DAT tapes were the issue then).  On defendants' Rule 12 motions to dismiss, the Court undertook an extensive and detailed analaysis of the statutory text and agreed with Defendants' asserting that a "digital audio recording device" must be capable of producing "digital audio copied recordings;" that these recordings are a type of "digital music recording;" and that the device's output must therefore comport with the definition of a digital music recording that is establisehd at 17 USC 1001(5).  However, the Court also concluded that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, could plausible demonstrate that Defendants' devices are in violation of the statute.