17 U.S.C. § 1001
Definitions
Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in par. (12)(B), is classified to section 482 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Pub. L. 102–563, § 4,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1996–2020 · leading case: All. of Artists & Recording Companies v. Gen. Motors Co., 162 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D.D.C. 2016).
All. of Artists & Recording Companies v. Gen. Motors Co., 162 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D.D.C. 2016). “MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (“AHRA”), 17 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., re *9 quires manufacturers, importers, and dis-tributers of “digital audio recording devices” (“DARDs”) to incorporate certain copying…”
All. of Artists & Recording Cos. v. Gen. Motors Co., 306 F. Supp. 3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge On February 19, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order that addressed a threshold question of law regarding the applicability of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 ("AHRA"), 17 U.S.C. §§ 1001 - 1010, to…”
Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys. Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). “B RIAA brought suit to enjoin the manufacture and distribution of the Rio, alleging that the Rio 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…”
Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011). “391, which fully extended federal copyright protections to sound recordings but exempted certain reproductions of sound recordings made for personal use, and (2) the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), Pub.”
Abkco Music, Inc. & Abkco Music & Records, Inc. v. Stellar Records, Inc., & Performance Tracks, Inc., 96 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 1996). “Tracks does not claim that the actual definition of “phonoreeord” in Section 101 includes the visual capabilities of its CD + G’s, but rather contends that the Copyright Act has not kept pace with new technology, and that Congress, in view of its definition of “digital music…”
Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 651 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2011). “The federal Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 taxes digital media to subsidize prerecorded media, 17 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (though the tax has, as many taxes do, a punitive purpose as well — to discourage illegal copying of recordings).”
Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Blagojevich, 638 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2011). “For example, the federal Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 taxes digital media to subsidize prerecorded media, 17 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; the Illinois Coal Technology Development Assistance Fund taxes gas and electrical utilities to pay for the development of coal technologies, 30…”
All. of Artists & Recording Cos. v. Gen. Motors Co., 306 F. Supp. 3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge In the technological world that existed at the time that Congress enacted the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 ("AHRA"), 17 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. , the *424 music industry faced an existential threat brought on by Digital…”
United States v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Rather, the Ninth Circuit was discussing the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1001 , and the statutory exemption for home taping which protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings.”
Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Liu, 656 F. Supp. 2d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “17 U.S.C. § 1001 (8) (“To ‘manufacture’ means to produce or assemble a product in the United States.”
Johnson Augustus Powell v. State of Alabama., 72 So. 3d 1268 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “In 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (“AHRA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The AHRA achieved, among others, the goal of “[affording] immunity to home tapers who make copies without direct or indirect commercial motivation.”
In Re Deep, 279 B.R. 653 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2002). “§ 512 ) and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 ( 17 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.). The Movants filed their reply briefs and declarations on February 5, 2002.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.