Slashdot Mirror
Google Asks Court Not To Enjoin ReDigi
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Google has sought leave to submit an amicus curiae brief against Capitol Records' preliminary injunction motion in Capitol Records v. ReDigi. In their letter seeking pre-motion conference or permission to file (PDF) Google argued that '[t]he continued vitality of the cloud computing industry — which constituted an estimated 41 billion dollar global market in 2010 — depends in large part on a few key legal principles that the preliminary injunction motion implicates.' Among them, Google argued, is the fact that mp3 files either are not 'material objects' and therefore not subject to the distribution right articulated in 17 USC 106(3) for 'copies and phonorecords,' or they are material objects and therefore subject to the 'first sale' exception to the distribution right articulated in 17 USC 109, but they can't be — as Capitol Records contends — material objects under one and not the other."
In other news, the RIAA have lobbied to introduce new legislation today requiring that all cakes are sold with a second, identical cake to permit posession and consumption without additional cost to an already struggling entertainment industry.
"We certainly can't let the law get in way of making money." That's been the RIAA's argument so far...
google asks the court to decide wether:
- files (eg mp3) are material objects which can be resold etc or:
- files are not material and therefore the laws regarding those are invalid.
You're probably thinking of a circuit split. These can be resolved if the Supreme Court decides to take a case that involves a circuit split; otherwise, lower courts would have to abide by the authority of their particular circuit.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Well the money is certainly a good reason for Google to be involved, and good for the court to know it's not just considering an academic issue.
On the other hand, Google's actual argument doesn't depend on money. And they are right in a very obvious sense. When you need to upgrade your DVD to a bluray, they tell you " you only own the media, you need to buy a new one". When you complain about how you shouldn't have to pay $25 for a DVD that costs less than a dollar to manufacture, they tell you " the price of the media isn't relevant, your paying for a license." they've been playing all kinds of games like that. It's always " heads I win, tails you lose".
IANAL, but in a recent story, we heard that Capital Records was suing ReDigi, a service that allows people to re-sell used MP3s, claiming that they such resale is not permitted by law. Google wants to put forth an argument that it is.
The exclusive rights a copyright holder has (which are enumerated in 17 USC 106) include the exclusive right to make and distribute "copies" and "phonorecords". There are some other exclusive rights such as making derivative works and public performance, but they are not relevant here. But under 17 USC 109, the owner of a lawfully made "copy" or "phonorecord" is permitted to sell that copy or phonorecord, without any authority from the copyright owner. Google argues that either owners of MP3s have this resale right, or else MP3s are considered neither of these things and their creation and distribution is not restricted by law at all, because the same terms are used in both sections of the law.
In 17 USC 101 both of these words are defined as "material objects" of some sort. Capitol apparently argued that MP3s are not material objects and thus not subject to the right of resale, but Google pointed out that this same argument would make the actions of copying and distributing MP3s not fall under the restrictions of copyright at all.
I prefer the Italian: avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca ("to have the barrel full and the wife drunk")
MP3 files are both a wave form and a particle stream, but not simultaneously. The RIAA will tell us which and when.
But 17 USC 106(3) just says:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ...(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Now, Google could say that "copies" implies a material object, but it's certainly not there in the plain language. In fact, 17 USC 106(6) goes on to discuss digital audio transmissions, and doesn't distinguish them as being non-material.
Actually it is there, but you have to go up to 17 USC 101, Definitions to see that they are defined as material objects. But more importantly, the same "copies and phonorecords" wording is used in both 17 USC 106 and 17 USC 109, so regardless of how they are defined, the same objects subject to copyright restrictions, once legally obtained, are also resellable.
17 USC 106(6) is interesting. It specifically restricts public performance by digital transmission, which might be seen as drawing a distinction between digitally transmitting them to specific people you know and digitally transmitting them to the general public, as might happen on YouTube or p2p networks.
See that's the exact attitude that's gotten us into such a mess. Corporations are made of people! Yes, they exist to make money but that's not an excuse to leave ethics at the door, you can (and should) make money without being a dickhead.
Yes, and while technically the bad things that corporations do are done by people, those people are not held accountable. If they were, half of the banking industry would be in jail.