Slashdot Mirror
ReDigi Defends Used Digital Music Market
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "ReDigi has fired back, opposing Capitol Records's motion for a preliminary injunction. In his opposition declaration, ReDigi's CTO Larry Rudolph explains in detail (PDF) how the technology employed by ReDigi's used digital music marketplace effects transfer of a music file without copying, but by modifying the record locator in an 'atomic transaction,' and how it verifies that only a single instance of a unique file can enter the ReDigi cloud system. ReDigi's opposition papers also point out plaintiff's own admissions that mp3 files are not 'material objects' or 'phonorecords' under the Copyright Act, and therefore not subject to the Copyright Act's distribution right, and defend ReDigi's used digital music marketplace and cloud storage system (PDF) on a number of grounds, including the First Sale exception to the distribution right applicable to a 'particular' copy, the Essential Step exception to the distribution right applicable to a copy essential to the running of a computer program, and Fair Use space shifting."
"Then what gives them the right to tell us we can't resell it?"
The government does.
Since 2005 people have been asking me all kinds of questions about what you can do with your digital music after purchasing it. Now along comes a case where I'm actually litigating, and the court will be deciding, those types of issues, and the comments seem to be all off topic. Oh well.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Every time products get deliberately borked in order to sell non-borked versions at a higher price, a part of me gets very angry. I can see the commercial sense in it, but it does not stop the anger.
Would you like a slice of toast?
The issue is the first sale right, the idea that something downloaded is still your property and you can do with it as you wish. It is very important that these guys win.
Besides, clearly there is a market for used MP3s and for that matter used CDs, even if they only fetch pennies. Particularly for teenagers without real jobs or people who are simply poor that kind of money actually matters to them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So? If I started a bookstore with a single copy of each book and printed a new copy for each customer on demand I'd still be bound by first sale wouldn't I? Who cares when the copy is made.
Doesn't matter--they have the rights to copy and they're selling that copy. Therefore, under first sale doctrine, you should have the right to resell that copy. The fact that your copy was made on-demand should be completely irrelevant. If it were an on-demand printing press or CD burner, you'd have the right to resell the book or (physical) CD, even though it was generated on-the-spot. Why would it be different for a file?
In fact, a DVD or BluRay is simply a set of files that have been copied to an intermediate storage medium. What possible reason can you offer for suggesting that the rules are different simply because the storage mechanism is different?
You answered your own question: 99 cents a track. For what they're paying the artists, plus distribution costs, 10 cents a track would be fair. But they're still charging the same for a bunch of bits from a server that costs a fraction of a cent to deliver as they did when that music was pressed onto a big vinyl disc by a multi-ton press, packaged with a printed cardboard sleeve and trucked to the store.
And the artist still gets 5% of it if they're lucky.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
What possible reason can you offer for suggesting that the rules are different simply because the storage mechanism is different?
It's the same reason that pro-piracy advocates use: IP goods are not the same as physical goods. If IP can't be stolen (it's merely being copied), then there's no way to enforce sale of a "used" IP either. There's absolutely no way to enforce that when you sell your copy of the IP, that you are selling the your original copy and not merely a copy of your copy.
All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.
Pick one: artifical, government-enforced/DRM-managed scarcity + first-sale doctrine, or IP-should-be-free + no used sales. Those are your logically consistent options.
This is not explicitly true. Many products are routinely sold that can be obtained for free, given the labor of obtaining is a sufficiently arduous task. The person is really buying the convenience of a harvested product.
Take for instance, oxygen, or nitrogen gas. (Especially nitrogen). You gan collect copious quantities of it for free. However, the task of harvesting and refining it is nontrivial, and possibly expensive in both time and invested infrastructure. As such, somebody that basically just pumps and superchills ordinary air, and in so doing fractionally distills out the nitrogen and bottles it (the nitrogen itself is still free), they can sell it as long as there is a demand.
Another example is dirt. You can scoop up dirt for free too, but people still buy it routinely.
See also: manure, compost, etc.
The value of the files, which can be easily sourced, is in the increased convenience of the service, and any implied goods accompanying that service, such as legal indemnification for posession. (Eg, you won't get sued by the riaa for downloading it.)
This value is set by what peope are willing to pay for it. Profitability can only occur if the price people are willing to pay is greater than the costs of offering it for sale.
You could argue that it could never be profitable... that's a reasonable argument. But you can't argue that it can't be sold. (One can sell at a loss.)
The real problem here is that this operation sets real limits on what the ACTUAL market value for the recording industry's digital products really are, instead of the artifically insisted upon values presented in court during infringement cases, and also the cumulative effects that such a service would produce.
Specifically, the recording industry relies on continually reselling copy from its back catalog. (60s and 70s classic rock, 80s music, 90s music, etc...) there is a demand for this because the old storage mediums break down with age, and require replacement. A digital resale locker like redigi permits the new sales of theroetically unaging copies (mp3s don't wear out....) to change hands potentially unlimited numbers of times. Coupled with continued first hand sales, an increasing supply of second hand files can theoretically end up in redigi's possession, saturating the market.
This will greatly impact the ability of the riaa and member labels to continue to snack on replacement/redundant copy sales, which accounts for the vast majority of their revinue stream.
That's why they hate redigi, and also why we should embrace redigi.
With all due respect, you're kind of thinking about this backwards.
Suppose a group of 100,000,000 people each have on average $500/year to spend on music. If tracks each cost $1, they each get 500 tracks and a collection of, say, 500,000 artists each gets on average $100,000.
Now suppose each track costs $0.10. Each buyer still has the same amount of money to spend, so now they can each buy on average 5000 tracks from the same 500,000 artists and each artist still makes on average the same $100,000.
Changing the price doesn't change the amount of disposable income people have, but it sure as heck changes the number of songs they can buy. And more volume means better network effects and more efficient markets (i.e. each artist gets heard by more customers, and so the ones with the best sound are the ones whose concerts get sold out, rather than the ones with the best marketing).