Oct 3, 2018 in Law

RIAA filed suit against the manufacturers of an MP3 player branded as Rio. RIAA sought to halt production of the Rio alleging that the device was illegal under AHRA.

            The Audio Home Recording Act states that no person should import, distribute or manufacture any audio digital recording device. This Act defines an audio digital recorder as anything that can make a digital copied audio recording for private use. It is designed for primary purpose of making an audio digital copied recording. It can operate alone or as a part of another device and it is usually for private use.

The mp3 player device did not need to comply with the serial copy management system because it was not a digital audio recording device. Rio mp3 player is unable to directly reproduce the digital music which is a  type of the material object in which only materials and sounds  and only instructions that are incidental to the sounds are fixed.

A Rio mp3 player records from the computer hard drive. The computer hard drive is not a digital audio recording device because it contains material objects that are not incidental to the fixed sounds. Computer hard drives contain other programs like word processing programs which aren’t incidental to any music files stored on the hard drive.

I agree with the district court's ruling that the RIO is not a digital audio recording device and thusdoes not need to comply with the Serial Copy Management System requirements. This is because the Rio mp3 player is a device that a user can use to download MP3 audio files from a computer’s hard drive. The user can then use headphones to listen to the music from the mp3 player. It is portable thus suitable for people who are traveling. Under the Act's definition of audio digital recording devices, computers are not audio digital recording devices as their first priority goal is not to create digital copied audio recordings. Packard, Ashley (2010)
                                                                Essay 2

If another company, which is not a competitor to Medical Miracle, starts using Miracle Medical Vitamins in its advertising, Medical Miracle can prevent it. Any trademark owner can bring an action on the trademark dilution. The company may be causing a blur to the product which is brought about by the use of a trademark on the goods that are not similar to the miracle medical vitamins. This brings about weakening of the trademark.
            In case, Medical Miracle pursued an infringement claim it may not be granted because the company is not its competitor. In this case the company may not be selling similar products with the medical miracle company.
            If Abel has completed the source code for the software and spent over 500 hours on the programming for MM’s device in which about a half of the programming is Abel’s own creation and the other half is source code that is fairly commonly used in all hand-held computer devices, MM may not be given the copyright protection from the program. The program lacks originality because the programs were from other handheld computer devices.

The fact that Abel spent so many hours on the program does not have any weight in whether the program will be protected because the copyright is given according to originality. The copyrights are given according to the creativity and originality.

The case of Feist publications vs. rural telephone service would help in coming to a conclusion on this issue. Feist copied white paper listing from the rural telephone services and came up with its own white and yellow pages publication. Rural telephone sued for the infringement of rights and the court ruled in its favor. (Bettig, Ronald V.,1996)

Related essays