| 翻訳と辞書 |
| RIAA v. Diamond ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Recording Industry Ass'n of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.
In ''Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc.'', 180 F.3d 1072, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1115 (9th Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit applied the Audio Home Recording Act to the Rio digital audio player manufactured by Diamond Multimedia, concluding that the Rio was not a "digital audio recording device" under that statute.
==Issues==
The RIAA brought suit against Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc, (Diamond), "alleging that the Rio (device manufactured by Diamond ) does not meet the requirements for digital audio recording devices under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (the "Act"), because it does not employ a Serial Copyright Management System ("SCMS") that sends, receives, and acts upon information about the generation and copyright status of the files that it plays." The Rio was defined as a portable digital audio device which "allows a user to download MP3 audio files from a computer and to listen to them elsewhere." The lower court denied the RIAA's request for injunctive relief, holding that the RIAA had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and the RIAA appealed. On appeal, the ninth circuit upheld the lower court's decision to deny injunctive relief but found that the lower court had erred in holding that the Rio was a covered device under the AHRA. The court noted that in order to be a digital audio recording device, the Rio must be able to reproduce, either "directly" or "from a transmission," a "digital music recording."〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/MP3/rio.html )〕
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「Recording Industry Ass'n of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|