|
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) amended the United States copyright law by adding Chapter 10, "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media". The act enabled the release of recordable digital formats such as Sony and Philips' Digital Audio Tape without fear of contributory infringement lawsuits. The RIAA and music publishers, concerned that consumers' ability to make perfect digital copies of music would destroy the market for audio recordings, had threatened to sue companies and had lobbied Congress to pass legislation imposing mandatory copy protection technology and royalties on devices and media. The AHRA establishes a number of important precedents in US copyright law that defined the debate between device makers and the content industry for the ensuing two decades. These include: * the first government technology mandate in the copyright law, requiring all digital audio recording devices sold, manufactured or imported in the US (excluding professional audio equipment) to include the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS). * the first anti-circumvention provisions in copyright law, later applied on a much broader scale by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. * the first government-imposed royalties on devices and media, a portion of which is paid to the record industry directly. The Act also includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial ''analog'' audio copying, and for digital audio copies made with certain kinds of digital audio recording technology. == History and legislative background == By the late 1980s, several manufacturers were prepared to introduce read/write digital audio formats to the United States. These new formats were a significant improvement over the newly introduced read-only digital format of the compact disc, allowing consumers to make perfect, multi-generation copies of digital audio recordings. Most prominent among these formats was Digital Audio Tape (DAT), followed in the early 1990s by Philips' Digital Compact Cassette (DCC) and Sony's Minidisc. DAT was available as early as 1987 in Japan and Europe, but device manufacturers delayed introducing the format to the United States in the face of opposition from the recording industry. The recording industry, fearing that the ability to make perfect, multi-generation copies would spur widespread copyright infringement and lost sales, had two main points of leverage over device makers. First, consumer electronics manufacturers felt they needed the recording industry's cooperation to induce consumersmany of whom were in the process of replacing their cassettes and records with compact discsto embrace a new music format. Second, device makers feared a lawsuit for contributory copyright infringement. 〔Joel L. McKuin, ''Home Audio Taping of Copyrighted Works and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992: A Critical Analysis'', 16 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L. J. 311, 321 (1994).〕 Despite their strong playing hand, the recording industry failed to convince consumer electronics companies to voluntarily adopt copy restriction technology. The recording industry concurrently sought a legislative solution to the perceived threat posed by perfect multi-generation copies, introducing legislation mandating that device makers incorporate copy protection technology as early as 1987.〔S. 506 (1987), H.R. 1384 (1987), and then S. 2358 (1990).〕 These efforts were defeated by the consumer electronics industry along with songwriters and music publishers, who rejected any solution that did not compensate copyright owners for lost sales due to home taping.〔S. Rep. No. 102-294 (1992).〕 The impasse was broken at a meeting in Athens in 1989, when representatives from the recording industry and the consumer electronics industry reached a compromise intended to enable the sale of DAT recorders in the United States. Device manufacturers agreed to include SCMS in all consumer DAT recorders in order to prevent serial copying. The recording industry would independently pursue legislation requiring royalties on digital audio recording devices and media.〔McKuin〕 A year later the songwriter Sammy Cahn and four music publishers, unhappy with the absence of a royalties provision in the Athens agreement, filed a class action copyright infringement suit against Sony.〔Cahn v. Sony Corp., No. 90 Civ. 4537 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 1991).〕 The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief that would have prevented the manufacture, importation or distribution of DAT recorders or media in the United States. The suit brought Sony to heel. In July 1991, Sony, as part of larger agreement between the recording industry and consumer electronics makers, agreed to support legislation creating a royalty scheme for digital media. In exchange, Cahn and the publishers agreed to drop the suit.〔Lewis Kurlantzick & Jacqueline Pennino, ''The Audio Home Recording Act and the Formation of Copyright Policy'', 45 J. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A. 497, 500–01 (1998).〕 With all the major stakeholders satisfied, the bill easily passed both houses of Congress. President George H. W. Bush signed the AHRA into law in 1992 proclaiming " S. 1623 () will ensure that American consumers have access to equipment embodying the new digital audio recording technology. It also protects the legitimate rights of our songwriters, performers, and recording companies to be fairly rewarded for their tremendous talent, expertise, and capital investment. This will be accomplished by fairly compensating these artists for the copying of their works and by creating a system that will prevent unfettered copying of digital audio tapes."〔Statement on Signing the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Administration of George Bush: White House Press Release, Oct. 29, 1992.〕〔http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v07/07HarvJLTech377.pdf〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Audio Home Recording Act」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|