Re: Circumvention Technology?

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> I own a minidisc recorder. What's different about this?

Your Minidisc recorder specifically looks for and responds to the Serial Copy Management System; it reads a code indicating that protection is asserted in an "original," makes a copy, and (if protection had been asserted), changes the code on the copy to indicate "copy." If that copy is then played and the digital signal passed to another SCMS device, it won't make a copy.

The Rio records MP3, a format in which the SCMS information is not carried. The consumer's first "copy" is made on the computer hard drive, which is not considered a "digital audio recorder" under the AHRA. The RIAA claims that the copy made on the Rio, being the consumer's second one, is the "serial" copy and thus OUGHT to be prohibited IF SCMS had been implemented in the MP3 format. (Diamond claimed the Rio is covered by a computer software exclusion from the defintion of "digital audio recorder.")

The judge held that the Rio is a digital audio recorder but that, even if the copy it makes is considered the "serial" copy,** it is not the Rio's fault if there is no SCMS information to respond to, and cited the AHRA's legislative history and Technical Reference Document as indicating that, where a recorder covered by the Act encounters a signal with no SCMS information whatever, it should, essentially, treat the signal as if received from an analog input. This allows the copy to be made and one further generation of serial copying from the copy. Thus, whether the Rio is considered as the first or second generation digital recorder, it is allowed to make a copy. As the Rio has no digital output, the court need not decide whether the copy can be copied. So, the court said, the Rio effectively complies with the outcome intended under the law (leaving open the possibility that others may have had a responsibility to insert SCMS information further upstream when the signal was converted to MP3), but, as it is a digital audio recorder, about $2.50 will go into the royalty pool.

End result: compared to your Minidisc, no difference! Thus far.

**Question: If every instance of copying on a non-covered device made the next copy the "serial" copy, does existence of a buffer, or use of an exempt professional recorder prior to distribution, make any subsequent copy the serial copy, even if it's of no or marginal utility to the consmer?

Bob Schwartz
<shebam[_at_]access.digex.net> Received on Mon Nov 02 1998 - 01:14:22 GMT