I was just reading one of the columns in the back of the 4/00 Roundel, which is the BMW Car Club of America magazine. The column was a rant about how BMW stereos are uniformly horrible, despite all sorts of "premium" options. In particular, the guy was complaining about UI issues and BMWs penchant for cassette players in the dash and 6-disc changers in the trunk, ranting in particular about the inconvenience of trunk mounted changers. One of the suggestions to BMW was interesting:

"Buy up a controlling interest in empeg.com, a U.K. outfit doing hard-disk-based MP3 players that can hold several hunderd CDs in a unit the size of a single-DIN in-dash receiver (www.empeg.com). That could be mounted in the trunk. To make such a device work well, you'd need some expertise with PCs and with MP3 files. But if any automaker's owners fit the profile, it's BMW's. For non-technical owners, BMW dealers could subcontract the work out to a good stereo store, or to the service manager's PC-savvy sixteen-year-old son. The owner would bring in the 250 CDs he wants ripped, providing both the source and the proof he or she owns the music. (Rip is techno-speak for converting from one format to another. It stands for raster image process, a term used by the graphics industry to describe creation of a printing plate or laser printer image. Despite what one might think, it's unrelated to rip off.) Empeg.com is one British company that knows what it's doing, has an energetic workforce, has no decaying factories, and is unlikely to break BMW's bank."

Hmmm. So he's thinking outside the box, anyway. Aside from the dig at Rover, and the really creative derivation of rip, he makes an interesting point.

It seems like a commercially viable built-in MP3 player would have some interesting issues; the empeg car's target market is a little more technologically savvy than the average BMW owner.

One thought that could be interesting (and probably covered a million times here already) would be a CD changer that simply "remembered" (ripped and spooled to disk) every CD it saw. You could load up 6 CDs, listen to them in realtime, and the system could be ripping and compressing in background.

-Zandr

One thought that could be interesting (and probably covered a million times here already) would be a CD changer that simply "remembered" (ripped and spooled to disk) every CD it saw. You could load up 6 CDs, listen to them in realtime, and the system could be ripping and compressing in background.

---

Good Idea, BUT.. I think the recent won-lawsuit against mp3.com for a similar service (albiet internet based...) would prevent anyone from exploring that option for a while:(
-mark

...proud to have one of the first Mark I units

Good Idea, BUT.. I think the recent won-lawsuit against mp3.com for a similar service (albiet internet based...) would prevent anyone from exploring that option for a while:(

I was about to dismiss this out of hand...but the mp3.com suit was a real screwup on the court's part.

As near as I can tell, the precedent set by that suit directly contradicts RIAA vs. Diamond. My read of the situation was that building the database was the infringement, not distributing it. Where's the line between that and ripping CD's you've purchased to play in your Rio or empeg? If that's OK, what's wrong with automating that function in the player, as I described in my first post?

-Zandr
Mk I #150

As near as I can tell, the precedent set by that suit directly contradicts RIAA vs. Diamond. My read of the situation was that building the database was the infringement, not distributing it. Where's the line between that and ripping CD's you've purchased to play in your Rio or empeg?

I'm going to jump in here and say a bunch of stuff off of the top of my head. I'm no expert, but I have read through the summary text of some of the legalese that both the RIAA and the pro-copying groups have published. I could be wrong, though...

The suit didn't exactly say that building the database was the only infringement. It happens to be the main thing they got 'em on, but the distribution of the songs in the database was illegal as well. It turns out that it's all part of the same law.

Here's how it works:

1) The simple act of copying a piece of copyrighted material is, by law, illegal. The copyright holder can sue the copier for damages, based on the number of instances copied.

2) There are exceptions to number 1. The most important exception for this discussion is called the AHRA, the Audio Home Recording Act. It allows for people at home to make copies of music for personal use only. There are some very specific pieces of wording used in the AHRA which define certain kinds of electronic devices and the implementation of SCMS (copy protection), but for the most part, if it's for personal use, you're free to do more or less whatever you want.

3) When MP3.COM copied those CDs into the database, they were not protected by the AHRA because they are a commercial entity and the copying was not for personal use. The act of offering the songs for download (regardless of the security measures implemented) cinched the definition that the copies were not for personal use and that a copyright infringement was clear. The number of copies that were distributed is how the RIAA can define the monetary damages to be levied against MP3.COM.

In my personal opinion, MP3.COM was stupid for thinking they could get away with it. I say let the RIAA ream 'em for a while.


If that's OK, what's wrong with automating that function in the player, as I described in my first post?

To us techies, there's no difference between having the function automated and having to press a button. But to the lawyers, there is. The operator of the copying device needs to make a conscious decision to begin the copy process.

Imagine if your friend stuck one of his CDs into such a player. Then you'd own a copy of the copyrighted material without having to intervene. I know it sounds legally gray, and it is. But most companies wouldn't want to open that can of worms (although I think I've seen a piece of PC player/ripper software that can do what you described). For instance, Empeg doesn't offer a piece of ripper software at all. I think it's very shrewd of them to avoid the issue that way.

There's an interesting wrinkle in all of this, and I've mentioned it before in another thread on this BBS. The RIAA hold the position that it's illegal to rip a CD onto your hard drive, period. They claim that the AHRA doesn't protect you for this type of copying. The only copying that the AHRA allows, according to them, is with tapes and minidiscs, or digital media which implements the SCMS copy protection.

But I've looked through the AHRA, and it doesn't say that. At least not in my interpretation of the wording. What it says is that all home copying on any media is legal, and that only certain devices are required to implement SCMS. The act specifically excludes computers and CD-ROM drives from needing to implement SCMS.

I think this is why no home user has ever been sued for ripping CDs. The RIAA would like to spread the propaganda that CD ripping is always illegal in all cases, but it's just hot air at this point. As I understand it, CD ripping only becomes illegal when the rips you make get sent to someone else because that crosses the line past personal use. At that point, it's both the ripping and the distribution which are illegal.

Tony Fabris
Empeg #144

Just another proof that the RIAA (and their sisters the MPAA) are prepared to shaft their customer as long as it gives them some more money.

Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.

I think the magazine person who wrote that is not correct with regards to the definition of "rip" -- I've seen rip used in the MOD / Soundtracker days to refer to ripping the music out of executables and whatnot. Just because printers have a term RIP doesn't mean it applies here. Big whoops on his part.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Calvin

Au contraire, mon frere (hoping that my minimal understanding of French is working today).

The reporter has, IMHO, the clever tack of using a slightly different interpretation to avoid the 'nasty' implications of the word 'rip'. E might not be correct technically, but it'll placate the hordes. And besides, it's closer than a completely made-up pretense.

So I think e did the right thing.

Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.

Either use the term correctly or do not use it at all. That's my stance.

Calvin

Here's how it works:

1) The simple act of copying a piece of copyrighted material is, by law, illegal. The copyright holder can sue the copier for damages, based on the number of instances copied.

2) There are exceptions to number 1. The most important exception for this discussion is called the AHRA, the Audio Home Recording Act. It allows for people at home to make copies of music for personal use only. There are some very specific pieces of wording used in the AHRA which define certain kinds of electronic devices and the implementation of SCMS (copy protection), but for the most part, if it's for personal use, you're free to do more or less whatever you want.

Well, there's also the matter of fair use, which RIAA and for that matter the AHRA conveniently ignores. My understanding of the AHRA is that it's legal codification of the RIAA's blank media extortion, and that it establishes the requirements for SCMS.

In my personal opinion, MP3.COM was stupid for thinking they could get away with it. I say let the RIAA ream 'em for a while.

I think MP3.com knew they were pushing it. I also think it will be a while before the dust settles on this one. The laws obviously have problems here, and there's going to be a lot more sturm und drang before this one is all over, viz. Metallica vs. 335k fans.

If that's OK, what's wrong with automating that function in the player, as I described in my first post?

To us techies, there's no difference between having the function automated and having to press a button. But to the lawyers, there is. The operator of the copying device needs to make a conscious decision to begin the copy process.

Good point. So the design evolves a bit. You now have a 6-disc changer in the trunk, and you can select a disc (or even individual tracks) to "store" for future playback. Still no way to get music out of the box, like the current empeg car, and a deliberate act is required to rip a track.

There's an interesting wrinkle in all of this, and I've mentioned it before in another thread on this BBS. The RIAA hold the position that it's illegal to rip a CD onto your hard drive, period. They claim that the AHRA doesn't protect you for this type of copying. The only copying that the AHRA allows, according to them, is with tapes and minidiscs, or digital media which implements the SCMS copy protection.

Oh, it's better than that. The RIAA propaganda makes it sound like the AHRA doesn't protect you at all, but "we promise not to sue you if you play by our rules."

But I've looked through the AHRA, and it doesn't say that. At least not in my interpretation of the wording. What it says is that all home copying on any media is legal, and that only certain devices are required to implement SCMS. The act specifically excludes computers and CD-ROM drives from needing to implement SCMS.

This is interesting. Can you point me to an online source of the text of the AHRA? In particular, how do they define computers and cd-rom drives? That has to be a pretty blurry line these days. (Apex or Raite/Yamakawa anyone?)


I think this is why no home user has ever been sued for ripping CDs. The RIAA would like to spread the propaganda that CD ripping is always illegal in all cases, but it's just hot air at this point. As I understand it, CD ripping only becomes illegal when the rips you make get sent to someone else because that crosses the line past personal use. At that point, it's both the ripping and the distribution which are illegal.

Doesn't the Rio case set a precedent in this matter? (It's been too long since I've read that decision.)

I'm trying to figure out the empeg car for the computer illiterate, and the "changer that remembers" model seems pretty appealing, though I think there would have to be some better case law before anyone will step up to the plate to build one. I think the DMCA doesn't apply since there's no copy protection on CDs, and the ripping function could have some RIAA-be-gone boilerplate attached to the "confirm" button. Other thoughts?


-Zandr
Mk.I #150

Well, there's also the matter of fair use, which RIAA and for that matter the AHRA conveniently ignores.

Well, they don't ignore it. It's just a different set of rules that really doesn't apply to home copying. That's why I didn't bring it up.

My understanding of the AHRA is that it's legal codification of the RIAA's blank media extortion, and that it establishes the requirements for SCMS.

For the most part, it is. And not only blank media extortion, but hardware copy-device manufacturing as well. (For those who don't know this yet, all blank digital recording media and home recording hardware such as DAT drives/tapes is taxed, with the proceeds of that tax going to the RIAA as reimbursement for home copying. That's where they get some of their money. By my reasoning, this means they've already signed their pact with the home-copying devil, so what are they whining about?)

But it also has a paragraph ("Section 1008") that states no infringement can be alleged based on the noncommercial copying done by a home user. It's that paragraph which protects us, and is, in fact, our reward for paying that extortion money in the form of manufacturer taxes passed onto consumers. The whole reason for the tax is so that we can copy stuff at home.

I suppose that the RIAA is up in arms because we're doing all this shit on PC's which are exempt from the tax. Section 1008 protects us with a blanket statement, while the tax only applies to specific media formats, with computers exempted. But like I said, they're the ones who signed away their souls in '92- it's no fair trying to take it out on us.

Can you point me to an online source of the text of the AHRA?

Like I said, I'm no expert and most of the hot air I'm spewing is based on summaries more than the actual detailed text. One day I'll learn how to speak Klingonese and be able to decipher the real stuff. Anyway, here's the links for you:

Summary:
http://www.hrrc.org/ahrasum.html
Full Text:
http://www.hrrc.org/ahra.html

Enjoy!

Tony Fabris
Empeg #144

Aside from the dig at Rover

Just wondering, what does that mean?
If you're referring to Land Rover, which BMW owns (for now), then I understand the connection. My Discovery has an in-dash radio/cassette, and the 6-disc changer he was talking about. I'd have to agree with him on that point at least. I've found that my Land Rover is incredibly well built, but the stereo equipment leaves something to be desired.

I don't understand whether he was suggesting that BMW seek out someone to design a new mp3 box for trunk (or boot, I know we've got British people here), or if he's suggesting that BMW start putting empegs in all their cars. That would be really cool, and from what I've seen, the empeg (both versions) would look good in every single vehicle BMW makes.

Just a thought.

Have any car companies contacted empeg about this? It's something they should really jump on.