17 U.S.C. § 1008
Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1999–2020 · leading case: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). “First, Napster asserts that its users engage in actions protected by § 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008 . Second, Napster argues that its liability for contributory and vicarious infringement is limited by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.”
All. of Artists & Recording Companies v. Gen. Motors Co., 162 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D.D.C. 2016). “See 17 U.S.C. § 1008 . However, copyright owners (typically, musicians, producers, and other members of the music industry) are entitled to sue DARD manufacturers and distributors for violations of the AHRA’s requirements.”
Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011). “4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., which provided some exemptions in other situations from copyright liability for infringements “based on the noncommercial use by a consumer.”
In Re Aimster Copyright Litig., 252 F. Supp. 2d 634 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “*649 17 U.S.C. § 1008 . The main purpose of the AHRA was “to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use.”
All. of Artists & Recording Cos. v. Gen. Motors Co., 306 F. Supp. 3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “Compare 17 U.S.C. § 1008 , with S. Rep. No. 102-294, at 2 (1992).”
Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys. Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). “As the Senate Report explains, “[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use.”
Johnson Augustus Powell v. State of Alabama., 72 So. 3d 1268 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “See 17 U.S.C. § 1008 . ‘[T]his legislation will end the 22-year-old debate and make it clear that home taping does not constitute copyright infringement.”
All. of Artists & Recording Companies, Inc. v. Denso Int'l Am., 947 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “” 17 U.S.C. § 1008 (emphasis added). This provision makes no mention of immunity for making digital audio copied recordings, but instead digital musical recordings.”
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.