Establishing derivation is at the crux of all legal matters surrounding diffusion models. It has not yet been clearly established. If it is, then I'd agree with you. Until then, I think it's a bit more up in the air.
Also, IIRC, RIAA did not bring many resources to bear against e.g. "home taping" itself, because they could essentially never know that it had occured. The overwhelming majority of their efforts went into trying to takedown people distributing multiple copies.
The Kashtanova case does not cover derivation in any real way, but is really about copyright attribution choices between human and software.
The Warhol case specifically tests a fair use claim, not a derivation claim.
RIAA and others in general sued a lot of people including bar owners for playing their songs etc , there were also some enforcement via private companies with three strike policies and so on especially in Europe .
They went after ISPs and torrent sites which only hosted magnet links and many others who shouldn’t have been really sued
The goal was to create a very hostile environment for downloading songs to protect their interests - “you wouldn’t download a car!”
It was never the goal nor ever realistic to actually pursue enforcement action against every offender , the idea was to change behavior with all the related actions .
They did end up changing behavior, people just didn’t want the hassle, or be in fear so paying for streaming for access had a stronger value proposition, it was not what the RIAA planned , but benefits enormously today.
They may have gotten the AHRA passed, but they essentially lost in every important way:
> "This exception was crucial in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.,[14] the only case in which the AHRA's provisions have been examined by the federal courts. 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. The 9th Circuit, affirming the earlier District Court ruling in favor of Diamond Multimedia,[15] ruled that the "digital music recording" for the purposes of the act was not intended to include songs fixed on computer hard drives. The court also held that the Rio was not a digital audio recording device for the purposes of the AHRA, because 1) the Rio reproduced files from computer hard drives, which were specifically exempted from the SCMS and Royalty payments under the act, 2) could not directly record from the radio or other transmissions. "
From the AHRA itself:
> 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.
and from Wikipedia again:
> In regard to home taping, the provision broadly permits noncommercial, private recording to analog devices and media. 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.
> Two reports by the House of Representatives characterize the provision as legalizing digital home copying to the same degree as analog. One states "in the case of home taping, the exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog recordings,"[22] and the other states "In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."[23]
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.
Also, IIRC, RIAA did not bring many resources to bear against e.g. "home taping" itself, because they could essentially never know that it had occured. The overwhelming majority of their efforts went into trying to takedown people distributing multiple copies.
The Kashtanova case does not cover derivation in any real way, but is really about copyright attribution choices between human and software.
The Warhol case specifically tests a fair use claim, not a derivation claim.