Our Music Systems Can't Do Serial Copying, GM Says in Amended AHRA Counterclaim
The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies "lacks any evidence" that in-dash navigation and music systems marketed in General Motors vehicles for the past three years "are capable of reproducing any material objects that qualify as ‘digital musical recordings,’" GM argued in an amended answer and counterclaim to AARC’s allegations that Ford, GM and their suppliers have violated the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). That and other factors prove that GM car infotainment systems containing hard drives onto which consumers can upload music from their CDs do not "fall within the scope" of the AHRA, GM said in the amended answer to AARC's complaint (case number 1:14-cv-01271) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (see 1407310086).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
GM in an Oct. 10 filing devoted large chunks of its original answer in the lawsuit to arguing against the AHRA’s constitutionality on due process and First Amendment grounds. Among other points, GM argued then, the AHRA "uses the defined term ‘Serial Management Copy System’ without defining it." Lacking such definition on SCMS, the AHRA also "lacks any constitutionally or statutorily enforceable standard," it said.
In its amended answer and counterclaim filed three weeks later, GM delved less into the AHRA’s unconstitutionality and more into arguing why its car infotainment system was not the type of product the AHRA’s framers had in mind when they drafted the legislation in 1991. Unlike digital audio tape or audio CD recorders or blank media envisioned under the AHRA, GM’s in-dash navigation and music systems "are incapable of reproducing music in a digital recording format in the form of a material object," nor do they "store or record to" any "removable" or "detachable" media, the automaker said. An "ordinary consumer" can’t use the GM systems "to export music stored" on the systems "to any other device or medium," nor can that consumer record music stored on the systems "to any other device or medium," it said.
According to GM, "if a consumer stores, on the consumer’s own in-dash automobile system, music from a genuine, commercial CD that the consumer legitimately purchased, that is not an instance of ‘unauthorized serial copying’ within the meaning of the AHRA." It said that "many common devices used for reproducing recorded music, such as mobile phones, tablets, portable MP3 music players, and desktop and laptop computers, have no obligation to comply with the AHRA, to prevent serial copying, or to create, preserve or modify headers with copyright and generation status information on music files when making reproductions of music files, including from digital musical recordings."
Consumer ownership of "AHRA-regulated" blank media, such as blank digital audio tapes or MiniDiscs, is "extremely rare" in the U.S., and GM car infotainment systems can’t accept any of them for playback or storage, said the firm. As for the allegation its car infotainment systems lack the SCMS functionality required under the AHRA, the GM systems "prohibit serial copying in general, because they do not effectuate the creation of any recordings on media that can reasonably serve as the source of further reproductions," GM said.
SCMS also remains largely undefined under the AHRA, and in the law's 22-year history, no one under AHRA provisions has ever petitioned the Commerce Department to draft rules and definitions for its interpretation or enforcement, GM said. AARC also has "no evidence that any alteration of GM’s in-dash navigation and music systems to conform to SCMS or its equivalent, or to prohibit unauthorized serial copying, would promote or increase music sales, leading to greater pass-through income to AARC" or those it represents, it said.
Unless the court grants "the declaratory relief that GM seeks," AARC will continue to "assert its allegations of wrongdoing against GM and others and will continue to cause GM irreparable injury and damage," the automaker said. "A judicial determination and declaration thus are necessary to protect GM from uncertainty and harm."
AARC, which wants Ford and GM to pay the creative community an estimated AHRA royalty of $8 for every vehicle shipped with an infotainment system, was unswayed by GM’s amended filing. "GM's response is an exercise in missing the point," AARC Executive Director Linda Bocchi emailed us. "It ignores the fundamental trade off at the heart of the AHRA -- legal certainty for companies that make covered devices in exchange for modest royalties on recording devices and protection against serial copying -- and asks the court to second guess the policy decisions that Congress has made." All the "legal gymnastics in the world cannot hide two basic, undeniable facts," Bocchi said. "GM is refusing to pay artists, songwriters and labels royalties that are clearly required under the law, and AARC is determined to collect what these music creators are owed."