Are The Music Hard Drives In Your Car Illegal? (The Music Industry Says "Yes")

Follow Richard

2015 Ford Focus ST

2015 Ford Focus ST

The music industry ain't what it used to be. The days of dastardly contracts, ruthless chart dominance, and many, many dollars are gone, thanks to the internet and the industry's stubborn unwillingness to adapt to it.

The only things that remain the same are (a) the music industry's greed and (b) its litigiousness. (The two are probably related.) As proof, ArsTechnica reports that the music industry's de facto collections department for royalties is suing Ford and General Motors, claiming that the automakers have "refused to pay the royalties that Congress has determined they owe for the [audio] recording devices they manufacture, import, and/or distribute".


Way back in 1992 -- when Nirvana ruled the airwaves and Guns N' Roses was still marginally relevant -- the U.S. Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act. Among other things, the Act made it perfectly clear that members of the public could make analog, non-commercial audio recordings from radio and other sources without violating any copyright laws or acquiring the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.

The Act also required makers of digital recording devices and media to devise systems of copyright protection, and it levied royalties on that equipment, which -- unlike analog equipment -- could be used to make perfect copies of media. The creators of blank CDs, CD burners, and the like paid those royalties to the music industry via a newly formed nonprofit called the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies. The royalties were distributed to labels and artists in compensation for the sales they just knew they were losing because of bootlegging and all.


The Audio Home Recording Act is still in effect, enhanced by the later Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, or AARC, is still here, too. And it wants Ford and General Motors (plus two of their suppliers, Clarion and Denso) to pony up for three years' worth of unpaid royalties. 

Why should Ford and GM pay those royalties? Because AARC says that Ford's "Jukebox" GM’s "Hard Drive Device" can rip/save audio files to a hard drive and that neither of those devices uses copyright protection software. As compensation, AARC seeks:

1. Permanent injunctions against the sale of either the "Jukebox" or "Hard Drive Device" without related royalty payments.

2. Payment of outstanding royalties that have accrued during the past three years, plus damages equal to 50 percent of that total (in other words, if we're reading this correctly, 150 percent of royalties owed).

3. A penalty payment "equal to $2,500 per [digital audio recording device] manufactured, imported, or distributed by any Defendant during the three years immediately prior to the filing of this Complaint and from the date of filing until the date of judgment, to be paid to the Register of Copyrights". 

4. Attorney's fees.


We're not lawyers -- much less copyright lawyers -- so our take on this matter probably doesn't carry much weight. 

However, we do know that a similar suit was filed in 1999 called RIAA v. Diamond. That case was brought by the Recording Industry Association of America, which argued that Diamond Multimedia owed royalties under the Audio Home Recording Act. Why? Because Diamond's Rio digital audio player (remember those?) could record and play digital audio files but didn't use copyright protection software.

Posted in:
Follow Us

Take Us With You!


© 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba MotorAuthority All Rights Reserved. Stock photography by izmostock. Read our Cookie Policy.