Car Firms Sued for 'CD rip' System, BBC Reports | GM Takes Another Hit

[Pupik]

This post made me think of "first-sale doctrine" rule. Do you think these people (which is filling suit) want to make that "all music CDs are licensed, not sold", just like computer software? 💡

That's been pretty much the case in America since the 1980s, when rulings on Video Cassette recording came into play. One copy, and the recording company/distributor dictates the terms of the agreement. From there, it kind of split apart form music and movies, and how they could be "broadcast" in public versus private, and which was which.

If you're a mobile DJ for a radio station, I could honestly see where this ruling on Ford/GM might infringe, as it would blur the lines between private use or re-use versus public distribution. But they're not likely to just crank up the stock radio and attract attention for publicity purposes, they're going to use some sort of heavy-duty equipment and have gone though all that FCC licencing mumbo-jumbo.

 

[White & Nerdy]

In my days, we didn't buy cars with stereos or AC. We just bought cars. And none of this namby pamby central locking... or locks for that matter... or even those sissypants doors... or those consarn it electric starters. Yew had ta crank that sucker by hand.

-

I do believe iTunes, being digital distribution, already includes license for the music offered.

Of course, music not offered on iTunes but ripped from a CD... that's another matter... but I think enough companies are on-board with iTunes for it not to become an issue, and the software itself is pretty restrictive on how it copies to your iPhone or iPod.

-

Which all goes out the window when you consider those converted files can simply be copied straight off your hard drive.

You know... like any Joe Schmoe can pull the hard drive from his car to illegally rip the music contained in the proprietary software to the internet... oh, wait... it's harder?

I think you're the one with a black-and-white opinion. Could there not possibly be any middle ground between "I don't want 10 zillion expensive and complicated luxury gadgets on my car" and "I wish cars still had crank starts and manual ignition advance"?

 

[niky]

Yes, there can be middle ground.

It's "I want this on my car, but I don't give two whits about what other people want on their cars."

Or: "I may not like certain things, but I'm willing to keep an open mind about them."

Aside from the home or office, many car owners spend most of their time in their cars. Sitting in traffic. Having stuff to relieve the boredom inside that automobile while it's sitting still is not a bad thing in such situations.

Saying that people shouldn't have anything inside their cars that isn't necessary is like saying your office cubicle should have nothing but an AM clock radio and an 8086 desktop terminal.

If a car is something entertaining to use only on weekends, I wouldn't mind. But I'm not everyone, and I'm not going to prescribe everyone else suffer the same levels of discomfort I'm willing to suffer for driving excitement that really isn't possible on your daily commute.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Well the problem is though, like I've said before, almost no one makes a mainstream car that's basic and sporty. Many of them have been displacement-downsized massively while gaining weight. Sporty exterior options like body kits and larger wheels are usually tied to higher, more expensive, more luxurious, more feature-laden trim levels and option packages, and in family sedans, the manual transmission is usually available only with the base engine. That's why high-powered RWD MT sedans are good - with them around, you don't have to give up on ever enjoying driving again because you have a family. Unfortunately, with Pontiac gone, Holden and Ford Australia winding down, and the Toyota Chaser long gone and never sold in the US to start with, those may soon go extinct (excluding foreign luxury brands), crushed under a combination of ridiculous fuel economy & emissions regulations and possibly, a preference shift within the car culture.

Honestly, I almost don't want Pontiac brough back. Because any lineup that could survive in today's regulatory climate and mass tastes would be an utter insult to the once-proud purveyors of cheap speed.

 

[niky]

basic and sporty.

Miata. FRS. Small, light, and faster than any V8 of the smog-choked 70s, and still faster than pony V6s from the 80's and 90's.

Sporty exterior options like body kits and larger wheels are usually tied to higher, more expensive, more luxurious, more feature-laden trim levels and option packages

Here's the problem. You lament the lack of basic cars, then lament that the expensive options are on the expensive option-laden optional trim.

That's precisely the type of thinking that leads to that situation. People want more stuff, so car manufacturers bundle more stuff together.

In the meantime, basic packages nowadays usually get power windows, a stereo with USB and climate control. Which is basically all you want. Body kits? Big wheels? Those make you slower, weigh you down, make the car more expensive to buy and maintain (you know how cheap good UHP tires are in 18" or 19" sizes are? They aren't... there's a reason the track-stripped BRZ RA comes on 16" wheels.)

Of course, that's got nothing to do with "CD Rip" systems... except for the fact that people want them and are willing to pay for them, so manufacturers put them in.

Ten years ago, you got console screens with control-puck interfaces only on the most expensive cars.

Just last week, I drove an X5 for a secondhand car article. This is a car that was only replaced this year. And, wouldn't you know it? That once state-of-the-art iDrive system feels prehistoric. It pales in comparison to what Honda or Mazda give you with their touch-interface, multi-control fully integrated infotainment systems. Honda is getting Apple CarPlay in the near future, which means goodbye to built-in hard drives and CD rippers... just plug in your iPhone, open up your already vast iTunes library, and go.

Don't want it, though? You still get a CD player.

CD Rippers are old school. No need for them in cars because people hardly buy physical CDs, anymore. And those that do already have a system to rip them at home.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well the problem is though, like I've said before, almost no one makes a mainstream car that's basic and sporty.

You're described certain market categories and missing many others.

Miata. FRS. Small, light, and faster than any V8 of the smog-choked 70s, and still faster than pony V6s from the 80's and 90's.

My MX5 was the best car I ever had. Not the fastest in a straight line but the turns.... the turns!

 

[chzsln485]

Surely this is the equivalent of banning knives because someone somewhere might say that they have "the express purpose" of harming someone. If every product that has ever existed was banned because someone might misuse it, then NOTHING WOULD EXIST. It's not GM's fault if someone misuses their CD ripping system "for the express purpose" of illegal behaviour.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Surely this is the equivalent of banning knives because someone somewhere might say that they have "the express purpose" of harming someone. If every product that has ever existed was banned because someone might misuse it, then NOTHING WOULD EXIST. It's not GM's fault if someone misuses their CD ripping system "for the express purpose" of illegal behaviour.

Their counter-argument would be that ripping a CD is normally illegal and that the CD ripping system therefore exists for the express purpose of facilitating an illegal activity. I think their filing has said something along those lines.

Ripping a CD isn't illegal if you own the rights to duplicate the music. In the UK you have the right to make one copy of a CD you purchase for backup/archival*. That'sin fact of any media you purchase, where a contract specifically disallows a copy there must be a mechanism in place to allow a replacement, that's why XBox games are only £10 for subsequent copies. Therefore this case would be found to have no merit if presented in the UK.

In the US that must differ otherwise the previous agreements wouldn't have been made but I wonder if this case might prompt a change in that, the ongoing liabilities from this being upheld could be massive.

EDIT: It seems that similar archival is allowed in the US; but specifically not to a "computer hard drive", which the HDD inside the entertainment-system-in-question clearly is.

EDIT EDIT: Applies to computer software only (handled differently).

*Strictly for personal, non-distributable use. No copies may be made from that copy. No illegal copies may be made in any case.

 

[Pupik]

Unfortunately, with various media storage becoming outdated, unusable, and/or outmoded through obsolescence every 10-15 years or so, naturally the hard drive is looked at as the evil one for persisting so long.

Many cars today are slowing offering Bluetooth or USB capability without a convenient AUX port or CD slot.

 

[Grayfox]

Their counter-argument would be that ripping a CD is normally illegal and that the CD ripping system therefore exists for the express purpose of facilitating an illegal activity. I think their filing has said something along those lines.

Ripping a CD isn't illegal if you own the rights to duplicate the music. In the UK you have the right to make one copy of a CD you purchase for backup/archival*. That'sin fact of any media you purchase, where a contract specifically disallows a copy there must be a mechanism in place to allow a replacement, that's why XBox games are only £10 for subsequent copies. Therefore this case would be found to have no merit if presented in the UK.

In the US that must differ otherwise the previous agreements wouldn't have been made but I wonder if this case might prompt a change in that, the ongoing liabilities from this being upheld could be massive.

EDIT: It seems that similar archival is allowed in the US; but specifically not to a "computer hard drive", which the HDD inside the entertainment-system-in-question clearly is.

*Strictly for personal, non-distributable use. No copies may be made from that copy. No illegal copies may be made in any case.

What kind of HDD?
1.8" ZIF
2.5" SATA
3.5" SATA
Just a few SSD chips on a PCB board with a proprietary connection to the ICE?

Not many computers use 1.8" ZIF drives, only HDD based video cameras and HDD based MP3 players.

What classifies as a "computer hard drive"?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What kind of HDD?
1.8" ZIF
2.5" SATA
3.5" SATA
Just a few SSD chips on a PCB board with a proprietary connection to the ICE?

Not many computers use 1.8" ZIF drives, only HDD based video cameras and HDD based MP3 players.

What classifies as a "computer hard drive"?

Don't know, I didn't write the act, but all those things you named are reasonably identifiable as hard drives installable in a computing device. Here's a review of section 117, the "archival" part of the copyright act. Cases have even been extended to cover software placed on "silicon chips which could then be placed inside the computer". I'd say they're covering the bases fairly well.

Any way, turns out that section article is only about computer software, this article on that site is more wide-reaching.

This article suggests that copying music is still legal there but circumventing DRM isn't. Given that audio streams aren't DRM-compliant I fail to see how this case can stand?

 

[Harry6784]

People still buy CD's?

 

[BobK]

People still buy CD's?

Indeed. I haven't purchased a CD since hmm, lemme think, last Friday.