The RIAA and music publishers, concerned that consumers' ability to make perfect digital copies of music would destroy the market for audio recordings, had threatened to sue companies and had lobbied Congress to pass legislation imposing mandatory copy protection technology and royalties on devices and media.

The AHRA establishes a number of important precedents in US copyright law that defined the debate between device makers and the content industry for the ensuing two decades.

DAT was available as early as 1987 in Japan and Europe, but device manufacturers delayed introducing the format to the United States in the face of opposition from the recording industry.

The recording industry, fearing that the ability to make perfect, multi-generation copies would spur widespread copyright infringement and lost sales, had two main points of leverage over device makers.

[1] Despite their strong playing hand, the recording industry failed to convince consumer electronics companies to voluntarily adopt copy restriction technology.

[2] These efforts were defeated by the consumer electronics industry along with songwriters and music publishers, who rejected any solution that did not compensate copyright owners for lost sales due to home taping.

[1] A year later the songwriter Sammy Cahn and four music publishers, unhappy with the absence of a royalties provision in the Athens agreement, filed a class action copyright infringement suit against Sony.

[4] The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief that would have prevented the manufacture, importation or distribution of DAT recorders or media in the United States.

In July 1991, Sony, as part of larger agreement between the recording industry and consumer electronics makers, agreed to support legislation creating a royalty scheme for digital media.

It also protects the legitimate rights of our songwriters, performers, and recording companies to be fairly rewarded for their tremendous talent, expertise, and capital investment.

The distinction between covered and non-covered devices or media dictates whether royalties must be paid and whether the SCMS copy control technologies must be included.

The RIAA filed suit to enjoin the manufacture and distribution of the Rio PMP300, one of the first portable MP3 players, because it did not include the SCMS copy protection required by the act, and Diamond did not intend to pay royalties.

Given their willingness to block all distribution of all digital audio recording media and devices in the United States, that the combination of SCMS and the price premium imposed by royalties was intended to cripple the market.

Revenues for the Copyright Office's Digital Audio Recording Technologies (DART) Fund peaked at $5.2 million in 2000, and have been declining, at times precipitously, ever since.

However, it fails to resolve the home taping debate "conclusively," as it only permits noncommercial, private recording to digital devices and media when certain technology is used.

Though there are no reliable figures on the subject, the meager returns to the Copyright Office's DART fund amidst widespread copying and dissemination of digital music suggests that a great deal of copying, noncommercial or otherwise, is accomplished using devices not covered by the AHRA, such as portable MP3 players, computer hard drives, and most CD burners and CD-Rs.

"[22] Similarly, language in the RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia decision suggests a broader reading of the Section 1008 exemptions, providing blanket protection for "all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" and equating the spaceshifting of audio with the fair use protections afforded home video recordings in Sony v. Universal Studios: In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the act's main purpose – the facilitation of personal use.

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."

As manufacturers or distributors of DARDs, Samsung and Pioneer are immune from suit so long as they satisfy the requirements under the AHRA, including payment of royalties to the US Copyright Office, on a quarterly basis, for each device distributed.

XM is currently licensed, under Section 114 of the US Copyright Act, to provide the recording industry's music via a digital satellite broadcast service.