Capitol Records Motion To Enjoin ReDigi Denied

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Capitol Records Motion To Enjoin ReDigi Denied

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 7, 2012 @10:21PM from the nice-work-mr-beckerman dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The motion by Capitol Records for a preliminary injunction against used digital music marketplace ReDigi has been denied. After hearing almost two hours of oral argument by attorneys for both sides, Judge Richard J. Sullivan ruled from the bench (PDF), holding that plaintiff had failed to show 'irreparable harm.'"

103 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Greedy Scum by gweihir · 2012-02-07 22:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

These greedy scum cannot get enough and know no bounds. At least some sanity is left in the legal system as this ruling shows.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1. Re:Greedy Scum by ciderbrew · 2012-02-07 22:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They'll just take it as a crap judge or needing a better lawyer. I don't think they'll go away with any sort of sanity.
2. Re:Greedy Scum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 23:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or they will "buy" a new law...
3. Re:Greedy Scum by Cryacin · 2012-02-07 23:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm just waiting for the day that they try to sue the judge and say that he has caused "irreperable harm" to their lawsuit.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
4. Re:Greedy Scum by Dunbal · 2012-02-07 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sanity? I read it as "you're missing a few zeros on that bribe offer".
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
5. Re:Greedy Scum by Phoghat · 2012-02-07 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  "some" being the operative word there. "some" means not a hell of a lot
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
6. Re:Greedy Scum by hwhite13322 · 2012-02-08 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  I just want to know more about that crap. Thanks God we have hahaped for it!
7. Re:Greedy Scum by gweihir · 2012-02-08 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, yes.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
8. Re:Greedy Scum by jimshatt · 2012-02-08 00:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  ^ Modded funny. Almost as funny as when they sued the government of Ireland...
9. Re:Greedy Scum by plover · 2012-02-08 01:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What happened is the judge decided that "if the plaintiff keeps doing what they're doing, they are not doing so much damage that they will send Capitol Records into bankruptcy." This ruling only means they won't be taken down today.
  If Redigi loses the case, though, the judge will still hold them liable for any actions for the entire time they've been operating.
  It's a good sign for Redigi that the judge doesn't think the damages are so astronomically high that they would bankrupt Capitol. But it says nothing about the potential outcome of the suit.
  
  --
  John
10. Re:Greedy Scum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  The crap judge said that their lawsuit had merit, and was likely to prevail in court. He just didn't think Capitol had show irreparable harm warranting an immediate injunction before trial.
  So yes, he's a crap judge, but like most crap judges biased towards big business and not existing law like the first sale doctrine, or the intent of that law. Never forget who helped with the campaign bills to put the judges on the bench in the first place.
  There is no such thing as a fair trial until you can ensure fair judges, and that won't happen in the US, where the golden rule is slightly different from elsewhere.
11. Re:Greedy Scum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  The more I read on cases like these, the more it's sounding every day.
  Why not create a petition asking the Obama administration to submit new laws/regulations to STRENGTHEN consumer rights and the First Sale Doctrine? I bet we can get the requisite number of people to sign it - post the petition link to Slashdot, Reddit, and a few other strong tech sites and let the signatures fly.
  If crap like this continues public libraries will have to be shut down because book publishers will insert "you only have a license to read this paper book, you don't own it" clauses into the copyright notice on the back of the title page.
  And remember when a dumbshit bribed judge bought the MafiAA's "throwing a promotional CD into the trash is unauthorized distribution" bullshit?
  I find it hilarious, because I remember George Dumbya Shrub talking about the "ownership society" while his party passed laws that were even worse than the DMCA, quietly gutting consumer rights behind our backs... what he meant is, you don't "own" anything you buy any more.
12. Re:Greedy Scum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Ownership society is all about the 1% owning the rest of society. I think you'll find that little project is nicely on track. In fact it's probably ahead of schedule.
13. Re:Greedy Scum by gweihir · 2012-02-08 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Thats is how I understand it also.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
14. Re:Greedy Scum by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just waiting for the day that they try to sue the judge and say that he has caused "irreperable harm" to their lawsuit.
  It wouldn't surprise me :)
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
15. Re:Greedy Scum by Phernost · 2012-02-08 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  He who has the gold, makes the rule?
Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by Mister+Liberty · 2012-02-07 23:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Congrats to NewYorkCountryLawyer.
1. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by Mathinker · 2012-02-07 23:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If someone had told me, when I was 18, that one day I'd be reading court transcripts with great interest, I'd have thought he was insane.
  And yet, here I am! Yet another way the world has changed, since way back then...
2. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by larys · 2012-02-08 00:23 · Score: 2
  
  I know how you feel. After being terrorized by math teachers in high school, I wonder what my former self would say to me enjoying math with some good college professors now. Oh well, you know you're alive when life's surprising the hell out of you, right? ;)
3. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-08 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Page 27, lines 3 - 12. Mr Mandel for plaintiff:
  
  "If you make a copy and then put it up somewhere else in order to distribute it, it isn't that particular copy anymore that you're distributing. And that is basically the whole essence of the first sale doctrine is that it didn't include the right to reproduction any more than if I had a book or CD that I could photocopy, give the copy to my friend, and then decide I don't want this book anymore, I'm going to throw the book in the garbage. That wouldn't be covered by the first sale doctrine, and neither is this. It's logically no different. "
  
  Most cogent argument I've heard against resale of digital files. I don't agree (do read the document in full for the hypothetical iPod sale situation), but it's a damn good point.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
4. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-08 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Good thing I still buy physical media.
5. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-02-08 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Page 27, lines 3 - 12. Mr Mandel for plaintiff: "If you make a copy and then put it up somewhere else in order to distribute it, it isn't that particular copy anymore that you're distributing. And that is basically the whole essence of the first sale doctrine is that it didn't include the right to reproduction any more than if I had a book or CD that I could photocopy, give the copy to my friend, and then decide I don't want this book anymore, I'm going to throw the book in the garbage. That wouldn't be covered by the first sale doctrine, and neither is this. It's logically no different. "
  In order to use a digital work, the work must be copied into computer memory, and if compressed or DRMed must be manipulated by the device before it can be listen to or viewed. (Even if only a little at a time)
  
  The courts have decided that if you pay for a work, you get to do what is necessary to use it. You can even make a copy in the form of a backup to prepare for an accident.
  
  Since a small amount of copying is necessary to use an iTunes download, it's not much of a stretch for the courts to allow a small amount of copying in order to sell it.
  
  I don't know exactly how ReDigi does their magic, but it's not impossible for them to render a tune unplayable on your iPod before it becomes playable on the buyer's iPod, so there's no chance that both of you could be playing that tune at the same time. As long as both the seller and buyer are playing by the rules, ReDigi is ok. The courts shouldn't shut down used record stores just because the original owner might have taped the disk before selling it.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
6. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by TheRaven64 · 2012-02-08 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's a spurious argument, because you're not buying the copy, you're buying a license to possess a copy, as the copyright industry keeps telling us. You are not transferring the copy when you resell, you are transferring the right to the copy.
  The real problem that sale itself becomes largely impossible if you permit resale of electronic copies due to the speed of transfer. Consider any piece of music, any film, or any book that you've bought a copy of. How often do you actually use them? I doubt that there is any piece of media that you own that you listen to even 1% of your time. So why not sell them when you're not listening to them, and buy them back when you want to? You can't really do this with physical goods because the effort of shipping them and the wear makes it impossible. It's quite possible, however, for 1,000 people to watch the same digital copy of a film. If you have 100 copies of a film that you sell to people who want to watch them and buy back immediately afterwards, then it's entirely possible that you'll have enough for an entire country.
  A film at iPlayer HD quality would take me 36 minutes to download on my current Internet connection, and 18 minutes at the speed of the connection that my ISP is upgrading me to (their new lowest-speed tier) this year. Even if you require the transfer of the data, then this just adds 18 minutes to the duration of the film for my period of ownership (I can start watching it before it's finished transferring it, but I can't start returning it until I no longer want to own it). So a typical film can be sold and returned every 2 hours. In the course of a year, a single copy can be sold and returned over 4,000 times (there is probably someone in one time zone that wants to watch it at any given time).
  A lot of the things I watch are at least 10 years old (not because I object to new stuff, just that there is - obviously - ten times as much stuff that I want to watch produced in the last ten years than in the last one year, and I haven't got around to watching some of it yet). If a studio could sell one copy and have it watched 40,000 times, then how would it stay in business? The upper bound on the number of copies of a film that they could sell would probably be about 10,000 - and that's for a real blockbuster.
  Of course, the sensible conclusion to reach here is that 'selling' is now the wrong model for these goods. A better idea would be providing a service that gave convenient access to all new productions and a mechanism for funding the creation of new ones...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
7. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by delinear · 2012-02-08 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  By that logic though, it's impossible for us to buy the record labels' music, because we're not getting the file we paid for, we're getting a copy of a copy of a file at best (assuming both the distribution website makes a copy of the original and my PC downloads a copy of that, in reality there could be many more steps in between). That either means we're buying a license - in which case the license should be transferable regardless of whether we're giving them the original file or a copy OR we're not getting what we paid for and everyone who downloads from legal music services is actually downloading a file they have no rights to. This all just goes to highlight how stupid it is trying to apply physical laws to digital transactions in the first place.
8. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-08 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  Every file uploaded to ReDigi's cloud storage service is assigned a unique identifier, allowing duplicated to be identified easily. One would presume this is a hash function, but Mr Beckerman makes reference to an identifier assigned by iTunes. Either way, this file is then deleted from your computer by the software. It is now accessible from the cloud storage service provided by ReDigi.
  
  To sell the file, you mark it as for sale, which is a manual process (you must select the files and press I Wish To Sell These Files; It's not presumed upon upload). When purchased, the file itself is not copied anywhere else; The unique identifier assigned earlier is attributed to the purchasers account. They may now access the file, and the seller may not. No copying, other than the necessary (important word) transfer from the original owners' computer to the cloud storage service provided by ReDigi has occurred. "ReDigi cannot police the universe" as Mr Beckerman puts it. Removable devices still containing the song will be checked when connected to the PC, but other than that it's outside of ReDigi's control (just the same as if you'd copied the CD to a device then sold the CD).
  
  An interesting point: Capitol's lawyer states that selling an iPod containing music you wish to sell is protected under First Sale doctrine. It would then follow that the buyer putting the music onto the PC is protected space shifting (as is putting music onto the iPod in the first place), and buying back the iPod minus the music would again be First Sale. Kind of like a high-tech SneakerNet.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
9. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-08 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  And what is being sold by ReDigi is the right to access a file stored upon their cloud storage service which has been offered for sale by the original owner. The file itself is the original taken from the owner, and transferred to the purchaser.
  
  The file leaves the sellers PC for cloud storage; It is deleted from the seller's PC by the client software. There is only one copy of the file. The file is assigned a unique identifier to prevent duplicates being sold. The identifier is assigned to the owner's account so they may access the file. When the file is marked for sale and thereby sold, the unique ID is assigned to the buyers' account; The file itself is not copied, moved, duplicated, shifted, or anything else. The new account may access that very same uncopied file, and the seller may not. This is the important distinction being made; The file is the same one the original owner bought the license to own, and it is this file that is on the cloud service, this file (license to own) which is purchased.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
10. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by TheCRAIGGERS · 2012-02-08 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  A film at iPlayer HD quality would take me 36 minutes to download on my current Internet connection, and 18 minutes at the speed of the connection that my ISP is upgrading me to (their new lowest-speed tier) this year. Even if you require the transfer of the data, then this just adds 18 minutes to the duration of the film for my period of ownership (I can start watching it before it's finished transferring it, but I can't start returning it until I no longer want to own it). So a typical film can be sold and returned every 2 hours. In the course of a year, a single copy can be sold and returned over 4,000 times (there is probably someone in one time zone that wants to watch it at any given time).
  This is true, but you also have to consider the time / PITA it would take to do this. Considering the cost of most media (even as inflated as they are) it's not worth your time to do this. Granted, you could attempt to start some kind of brokerage service that would do all that for you behind the scenes, but then you have that cost added into the mix, as well as the pain of having all your media in a perpetual state of limbo.
  So once you've bought all your media and resold it (for slightly less of course) each month, you're basically talking a monthly service charge. Probably easier just to subscribe to a service to begin with and be done with it. Granted you might have to deal with a slightly worse library to choose from, but on the flipside, you won't buy a song off somebody only to get Rick Rolled, either.
  Speaking of, how would you deal with people creating their own content and selling it as another artist's? Basically, counterfeit goods? Doesn't seem like hashes and the like would be all that useful in this case, since you have to work with people's already existing media libraries... or is this more of a caveat emptor thing?
11. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by twmcneil · 2012-02-08 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I was reading Ray's brief yesterday at work. I started to chuckle on the first page. Mid way through the second page I was laughing out loud so much that my co-workers asked me what I was reading. Imagine their disbelief when I responded "A law brief."
  
  If a simple layperson like myself is allowed, may I say that if you read only one law brief this entire year, this is the one you should read.
  
  Awesome work Ray!
  
  --
  "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
12. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  If someone had told me, when I was 18, that one day I'd be reading court transcripts with great interest, I'd have thought he was insane.
  If someone had told me, when I was 18, that one day tens of thousands of people would be out protesting on the streets against a "trade agreement" that imposes draconian copyright rules on ordinary members of the public, I'd have thought the same. And yet, in Poland this already happened and February 11, all over Europe it is happening again.
  What is worrysome though is that the Judge apparently said
  
  at a hearing on Monday that Capitol had a strong "likelihood of success on the merits,"
13. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by TheRaven64 · 2012-02-08 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is true, but you also have to consider the time / PITA it would take to do this
  
  What PITA? The point is, if this were allowed, then a service could be set up to do this. To its users, it would appear like a streaming / rental service, but instead of paying the studios a higher price for a streaming license it would just pay them the $10 per copy and stream it to as many people as wanted it (but only one at a time).
  
  So once you've bought all your media and resold it (for slightly less of course) each month
  Huh? Why for slightly less? We're talking about digital copies. There is no detectable difference between the original and the version that 4,000 people have watched already. You'd buy one copy, sell it, buy it back, sell it, buy it back. You wouldn't have to use real money, you could use tokens that you issue, so 'selling' and 'buying' just mean incrementing and decrementing a value in a database.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
14. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by TheCRAIGGERS · 2012-02-08 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  What PITA? The point is, if this were allowed, then a service could be set up to do this. To its users, it would appear like a streaming / rental service, but instead of paying the studios a higher price for a streaming license it would just pay them the $10 per copy and stream it to as many people as wanted it (but only one at a time).
  I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying the service would buy a copy, and then stream it to only one person at a time? If so I think you're delusional. If you're saying that I, myself will pay the $10 and stream it, getting kickbacks from all the people who listen to it, you're still delusional. Both methods are a bit too close to "distribution" in my eyes, and in any case what you're describing is a brokerage service in both cases, which I discussed later in the paragraph you quoted. Or maybe I didn't understand your description.
  
  Huh? Why for slightly less? We're talking about digital copies. There is no detectable difference between the original and the version that 4,000 people have watched already. You'd buy one copy, sell it, buy it back, sell it, buy it back. You wouldn't have to use real money, you could use tokens that you issue, so 'selling' and 'buying' just mean incrementing and decrementing a value in a database.
  Oh, so you think this service will be free? Who will pay for the massive infrastructure & bandwidth costs? (Yes, bandwidth, this would never fly as P2P.) Or what about the lengthy courtroom trials the RIAA and MPAA would undoubtedly drag this service through? Also, and IANNYCL (I am not NYC Lawyer) but I would imagine that the distinct act of buying and selling the file would help insulate you from the aforementioned illegal distribution problem. Buying something for the same price as you later sell it for on a grand scale would probably not count as a "sale" in a Judge's eyes. Companies get in trouble with the SEC for doing that exact same thing. Same thing for the idea of exchanging "tokens" which mean absolutely nothing in an economic sense. At that point all you have is a P2P file-sharing service slightly dressed up. I doubt a judge would even have to get bribed to see that for what it is.
15. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  I was reading Ray's brief yesterday at work. I started to chuckle on the first page. Mid way through the second page I was laughing out loud so much that my co-workers asked me what I was reading. Imagine their disbelief when I responded "A law brief." If a simple layperson like myself is allowed, may I say that if you read only one law brief this entire year, this is the one you should read. Awesome work Ray!
  Wow thank you very much for that :) But let me make one correction. It wasn't "Ray's brief", it was "Ray and Ty's brief".
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
16. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by TheRaven64 · 2012-02-08 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying the service would buy a copy, and then stream it to only one person at a time?
  If resale of electronic items is permitted under the first sale doctrine, then it is 100% legal for a service to buy one film from, say, iTunes or Amazon, sell it for one token in their own currency, stream it, and then buy it back in exchange for one token in their electronic currency. A service like Netflix, instead of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for streaming rights could just buy a few hundred copies - sell them and buy them back, completely transparently to the user.
  Reading the rest of your post, it's unclear whether you suffer from an inability to read or an inability to think, but it's clear that you have failed to comprehend either my original post or my reply, so I'm not sure why I expect you to understand if I explain a third time.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
17. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  you're not buying the copy, you're buying a license to possess a copy, as the copyright industry keeps telling us
  That is NOT what iTunes is saying. It says you are buying the file and that title passes to you. See iTunes terms and conditions, exhibit A to Ray Beckerman declaration, posted here
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
18. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 05:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And what is being sold by ReDigi is the right to access a file stored upon their cloud storage service which has been offered for sale by the original owner. The file itself is the original taken from the owner, and transferred to the purchaser. The file leaves the sellers PC for cloud storage; It is deleted from the seller's PC by the client software. There is only one copy of the file. The file is assigned a unique identifier to prevent duplicates being sold. The identifier is assigned to the owner's account so they may access the file. When the file is marked for sale and thereby sold, the unique ID is assigned to the buyers' account; The file itself is not copied, moved, duplicated, shifted, or anything else. The new account may access that very same uncopied file, and the seller may not. This is the important distinction being made; The file is the same one the original owner bought the license to own, and it is this file that is on the cloud service, this file (license to own) which is purchased.
  Looks to me like you've been RTFA. Are you new here?
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
19. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Congrats to NewYorkCountryLawyer.
  Thanks Mister Liberty, but we have a lot of work ahead of us. At least it is clear that we have a well informed, serious judge. Which makes me confident we will ultimately prevail.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
20. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by TheCRAIGGERS · 2012-02-08 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Reading the rest of your post, it's unclear whether you suffer from an inability to read or an inability to think, but it's clear that you have failed to comprehend either my original post or my reply, so I'm not sure why I expect you to understand if I explain a third time.
  Oh, is it ad hominem time already? Whatever.
  I understand your post just fine: why license a film at a large cost so you can redistribute it, when Netflix can just buy a few hundred copies from Best Buy and then continually sell / buy them. My point is that it isn't that easy and the idea (as interesting as it is) has other problems.
21. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by TheRaven64 · 2012-02-08 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Hi Ray. You may be right, but when you back up your assertion with a link that says 'please log in to view this page' then I am forced to disagree citing this source.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
22. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Hi Ray. You may be right, but when you back up your assertion with a link that says 'please log in to view this page' then I am forced to disagree citing this source.
  Sorry my friend :) Here is the link to which I meant to refer (he said sheepishly).
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
23. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by cynyr · 2012-02-08 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  does it also know out to delete it off my CD backup? how about the HDD in my safety deposit box? Phone? iPod? tablet? etc? Seems a bit useless to me.
  All I would have to do is copy my files before importing them into the tool... If it was a song from Amazon MP3 there may be no way to tell a new copy from the copy I sold 2 months ago.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
24. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by AK+Marc · 2012-02-08 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree, but I would also assert that MP3s are not covered by copyright law. The copyright law explicitly states "material goods" and phonorecords. An ?MP3 is neither. So the right of first sale shouldn't apply, and neither should copyright. But the RIAA wants it to be a material good for copyright and not for resale, which is the problem. It's both a material good and not a material good at the same time depending on what's best for the cartel. I'm ok with that if it were measured by what's best for the people, not the cartels.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
25. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by AK+Marc · 2012-02-08 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  I understand your post just fine: why license a film at a large cost so you can redistribute it, when Netflix can just buy a few hundred copies from Best Buy and then continually sell / buy them. My point is that it isn't that easy and the idea (as interesting as it is) has other problems.
  No more issues than "Blockbuster Video" being an unlicensed distributor. Charging for a rental of a non-rental-licensed media has been done for years for videos. So why is that only allowed on DVD/VHS/BR media, and not Internet with a client that temporarily transfers "ownership" to the PC, plays the file, then transfers "ownership" back to Netflix? "it has other problems" isn't an argument against. It's a statement of "I don't think that will work, but I don't know why, so I'll make some vague assertion of 'other problems'".
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
26. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-08 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Looks to me like you've been RTFA. Are you new here?
  Just trying to set a new, better precedent. Then again, aren't we both?
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by larys · 2012-02-07 23:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

that were purchased through iTunes, it seems, according to what's written here that they are no longer left on your hard drive once you sell them: https://www.redigi.com/download.html It seems you download software in order to use the reselling service and that software (presumably) clears them from your hard drive after selling them. I can understand that it works that way and yet, at the same time, what prevents people from renaming the file or putting it elsewhere in order to keep a copy and yet sell it at the same time? (I'm sure the record companies made this argument) The good thing is that this is the way it would work if you sold a used CD -- nothing stops you from ripping it before selling it, right? So there's nothing inherently different about the process.

I hope someone things of employing this in the ebook market. As of now, prices for ebooks are still wildly overpriced and without any way of reselling them, they're simply not worth it much of the time. If this were to come out for the ebook industry, it could help sales. I know personally, there are many ebooks that are just too expensive (especially when selling them later isn't an option -- a legal one anyway). This could help individuals to be able to afford the overpriced ebooks on the market by allowing them to make up some of the money by selling them later. It'll probably get just as much resistance from publishers, but good ideas are often thrust back, aren't they?
1. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by gnasher719 · 2012-02-08 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  I can understand that it works that way and yet, at the same time, what prevents people from renaming the file or putting it elsewhere in order to keep a copy and yet sell it at the same time?
  
  Well, that would be copyright infringement, and therefore illegal. So people won't do it, or so I would assume. Same as people don't take stuff out of shops without paying, because it is illegal.
  
  In the end, things can change ownership without any payment being made. There must be millions of songs legally purchased where the owner has died meanwhile. So I would assume that their heirs are now the proper owners of that music. Or a couple buying music together with a joint account, and they get divorced, each getting half the music.
2. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by petermgreen · 2012-02-08 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  The good thing is that this is the way it would work if you sold a used CD -- nothing stops you from ripping it before selling it, right? So there's nothing inherently different about the process.
  
  One difference is with a CD you can pretty easilly tell the original from a copy (assuming here copies made with typical home equipment). Yes there is nothing stopping someone reselling the original and keeping a copy but they can't sell their copy twice without one of the buyers getting a dodgy copy.
  Sites like redigi may do some checks to try and stop double resale but as the clones pop up that will get harder and harder to ensure.
  One option would be to require all sites to register sale and resale of digital downloads in a central database with the person the database entry points at being considered the legitimate owner but that would raid concerns of it's own.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
3. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by jimshatt · 2012-02-08 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  I cannot wait to get divorced and get my collection of rainbowy semicircles!
4. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by RDW · 2012-02-08 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  I can understand that it works that way and yet, at the same time, what prevents people from renaming the file or putting it elsewhere in order to keep a copy and yet sell it at the same time? (I'm sure the record companies made this argument)
  
  Nothing, really. Their solution, for all the smoke and mirrors about 'revolutionary patent pending technology', sounds like it would make cheating a bit inconvenient, but far from difficult. However sophisticated their 'policing' software is, there'd be nothing to stop a user (e.g.) manually backing up their iPod to a second computer before each sale. The tracks will supposedly be wiped from the first (policed) computer, and from the iPod when it re-syncs, but not from the backup location.
  
  If this were to come out for the ebook industry, it could help sales.
  Harder to do this 'legally' for ebooks, which are still mostly DRMd, allowing the publishers to invoke laws like the DMCA to crack down on this type of service.
5. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by larys · 2012-02-08 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  When I said "what prevents people from renaming the file..." I was referring to the software itself and the system put in place to sell the pre-owned mp3s. I wasn't referring to the legal system.
  
  Well, that would be copyright infringement, and therefore illegal. So people won't do it, or so I would assume.
  It's a little idealistic to assume people won't do that. In fact, that quality is something that makes this system more appealing to most people. I mean, as mentioned in a previous post here on Slashdot, there isn't much physically preventing people from downloading pirated music. See this article here which was posted on Slashdot a few days ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-and-piracy-will-never-kill-you/ Yes, it's probably illegal to keep a copy of something you've technically sold but my argument isn't about the legality of it, it's about what will draw customers or not. I have never heard of an industry -- music, movies, cars, whatever... -- that takes a cut of what is sold as used so though it may technically be 'illegal', there is, in fact, little or no harm being done to the industry here. In addition, many things can be 'backed up' before selling them as used products. This may not work with cars but it works with movies, most video games, music, it can work (though more labor-intensively) with books, and that doesn't hurt these industries because they don't have a cut of these resell profits anyway.
  
  The point is that this could help other industries like the ebook industry which if it isn't, should be suffering because of its ridiculous prices. Being able to sell a 'used' copy of something is, in fact, a selling point when buying something, it increases the inherent value of an item to know, when buying it, that somewhere down the road, if you get tired of it, you can sell it and get some of your money back. This very point is why many gamers were up in arms about a new system that only allows game data to be used by a first user and then it must be re-purchased (something also posted recently on Slashdot).
  
  To put some perfect system in place to prevent people from stealing what they need/want would likely require satisfying the needs/wants of all the billions of people in the world since history has shown that trying to put laws and blockades in place to circumvent stealing is ineffective. As this ideal system would likely come long after pigs take to the sky in flight, it's important to focus on systems that have the least loss and though this system may still allow for users to keep music they've sold, it also causes much less loss overall for industries than other methods. That's the important part here.
6. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by larys · 2012-02-08 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's a good point! If it's not in place, it should be. I think that it could definitely be possible if iTunes shares its sales data with this company. If they have access to the sales data, they could create a record that flags the purchase (the individual song, not the entire purchase if it's more than one song) as no longer valid. That way, nothing short of a user literally breaking into the company's server data would allow them to circumvent the rules of only being able to sell a pre-owned item once.
7. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  Well, that would be copyright infringement, and therefore illegal.
  
  No, that's a civil matter. Nice try FUDmaster.
8. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  The good thing is that this is the way it would work if you sold a used CD -- nothing stops you from ripping it before selling it, right? So there's nothing inherently different about the process.
  One difference is with a CD you can pretty easilly tell the original from a copy (assuming here copies made with typical home equipment). Yes there is nothing stopping someone reselling the original and keeping a copy but they can't sell their copy twice without one of the buyers getting a dodgy copy.
  Sites like redigi may do some checks to try and stop double resale but as the clones pop up that will get harder and harder to ensure.
  One option would be to require all sites to register sale and resale of digital downloads in a central database with the person the database entry points at being considered the legitimate owner but that would raid concerns of it's own.
  As far as I understand it, it also checks to see if the song is in your iTMS account - if it's not, it won't accept the mp3 as legitimate. Once accepted, it will remove the song from your iTMS as well. This means you cannot sell it again.
  This sounds reasonably effective to me.
9. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by mcgrew · 2012-02-08 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  This could help individuals to be able to afford the overpriced ebooks on the market by allowing them to make up some of the money by selling them later.
  No no NO!!! God damn it, they're overpriced! If people simply stopped paying outrageous sums for literally nothing the prices would have to come down.
  And not all ebooks are overpriced, Cory Doctorow gives ebooks away for free, using them as advertising to sell real, physical books.
  You don't buy a novel, you buy a BOOK. You own that book. You don;t buy music, you buy a CD. You own that CD. You don't buy a movie, you buy a DVD. You own that DVD. If all you're "buying" is bits you've bought nothing and own nothing.
  Publishers should encourage piracy, not try to stamp it out.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
10. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by Internetuser1248 · 2012-02-08 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  You have to buy the music on redigi or itunes to get it in their system, I think (correct me if I am wrong). Renaming the files and then selling them would result in you having gotten the music for free, but taking a small monetary risk that no one else wanted to buy them. If your goal is to get the music for free and you don't mind breaking the rules to achieve that, wouldn't you just use a torrent or a p2p application and leave the credit card in your wallet? Sure it is optimistic to assume that no one is doing it, but I don't think many pirates are dumb enough to sign up for a service that makes you jump through such hoops including paying for the music when it is so easy to get for it free elsewhere.
11. Re:Since these are legally purchased mp3s... by petermgreen · 2012-02-15 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Their FAQ talks about removing it from your "computer and synced devices" but makes no mention of removing stuff from iTMS accounts. Do they really have an agreement with apple or other method for removing stuff from iTMS accounts? (it seems unlikely to me that apple would cooperate in such a venture given that they need to keep in the record companies good books)
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
ReDigi may still be liable for damages by Sqr(twg) · 2012-02-07 23:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Denying a preliminary injunction is not the same thing as saying ReDigi don't infringe on copyright. All the judge is saying is that this does not cause irreparable harm. That is: He believes any harm done can be repaired by ReDigi paying damages after the trial, so there's no need to shut them down now.
1. Re:ReDigi may still be liable for damages by AmiMoJo · 2012-02-08 01:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So how come MegaUpload didn't get the same kind of hearing? At the very least there should have been an opportunity for them to contest the shut down of their company in a US court before New Zealand was ordered to send in the elite anti-terror police unit.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:ReDigi may still be liable for damages by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  I see your point, and I agree.
  But, this is the technicality: MegaUpload staff are being charged with Conspiracy to commit Copyright Infringement under a criminal statute (well, maybe "materially assisting", or "contributory infringement", or whatever the terminology of the theory is).
  This, on the other hand, is entirely about one party suing another in civil proceedings under the doctrine of equity.
3. Re:ReDigi may still be liable for damages by YojimboJango · 2012-02-08 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Judge looked at the charges, mentally tosses out the bs, then looks at the defendants assets.
  Megaupload: "These guys probably won't be doing business after this."
  ReDigi: "If they are guilty they're probably good for the fines."
  That's probably the difference (IANAL).
4. Re:ReDigi may still be liable for damages by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-08 02:11 · Score: 2
  
  Because it's a civil vs. a criminal case.
5. Re:ReDigi may still be liable for damages by AmiMoJo · 2012-02-08 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's a civil vs. a criminal case.
  So if someone manages to convince the authorities that you are a criminal instead of suing you then basically you are fucked? There is no due process or chance to defend yourself, they just send in armed police and shut you down?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:ReDigi may still be liable for damages by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-08 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ongoing criminal activity is generally considered something that police are empowered to put a stop to.
7. Re:ReDigi may still be liable for damages by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Correct.
thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 00:01 · Score: 0

for the post
ReDigi have done their homework by Pecisk · 2012-02-08 00:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nothing really more to say, haven't followed this one that closely, but as I read in ArsTechnica ReDigi have made sure that their system is according to (their interpretation) of the law, which is still much higher level than Megaupload.
This case also will be really interesting, because it clashes author rights to control distribution of copyrighted work and first sale doctorine. And juge seems to be sane so whatever his decision will be I will treat with respect.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
1. Re:ReDigi have done their homework by jimshatt · 2012-02-08 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Current sanity does not guarantee future sanity, though. But it's probably probable.
A bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 00:18 · Score: 4, Funny

We should let Capitol dismantle the first sale doctrine, and you know why? The movie and record industries are America's most important source of everything! They bring in billions of dollars, and movies like Transformers underpin the very heart of what it is to be America. I just hope that religious fundamentalists, at home and abroad, don't realize the damage they could do, for example if they were to spray bullets around 1025 F ST N.W, 10th floor, Washington D.C. Oh the tragedy if a plane were to be slammed in to Capitol's offices!
I really hope they terrorists never discover America's soft underbelly, and in particular I hope that they don't fuck UMG and MPAA executives up their arses with splintered chair legs before setting them alight - this would be a massive insult to Americans! Screw you terrorists! So long as Lamar Smith lives (he draws Mohammed hentai) then America shall not fall! His address is easily locate or online, but he's perfectly safe in Austin or Washington, and is so tough that he requires far less security than less worthy targets.
1. Re:A bigger problem by Captain+Hook · 2012-02-08 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  They bring in billions of dollars
  Not based on Hollywood Accounting ;-)
  
  Oh the glorious irony, their tax dodge from year . now makes it look like they don't bring in enough money to be worth saving as an industry.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
2. Re:A bigger problem by plover · 2012-02-08 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  We should let Capitol dismantle the first sale doctrine, and you know why? The movie and record industries are America's most important source of everything! They bring in billions of dollars, and movies like Transformers underpin the very heart of what it is to be America.
  I see you got the form letter back from your Senator, too.
  Regarding the rest of your post, mock threats against senators just aren't as funny as they used to be. Pick on crazy Asian dictators instead, they're still in style today.
  
  --
  John
3. Re:A bigger problem by glop · 2012-02-08 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, politicians know how to judge industries worth saving based on contributions to their campaigns and to super PACs. The economics are merely indicators but campaign contributions tell the Truth.
  And I am sure Hollywood accounting allows for plenty of lobbying and campaign contribution. After all, money spent on politicians can't be profit and if it's not profit then you don't have to give their share to the right holders or the government.
  So lobbying is indeed compatible with Hollywood accounting.
4. Re:A bigger problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Lamar isn't a senator. He's a congressman and a moneyed whore.
enjoyable lines thus far by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 00:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

My favorites parts so far:
(p43, lines 15-18)
Mr. Beckerman: There has to be evidence on this side and some evidence on that side. There can't be some evidence on this side and some lawyer speculating as to what he thinks may be going on.
(p44, lines 10-12)
[Beckerman continues...]
where is that evidence? There has to be some threshold for bringing a lawsuit instead of terrorizing people in the first place.
(aside, is there a Godwin equivalent to equating things with terrorizing?)
1. Re:enjoyable lines thus far by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  LOL! Mod parent up.
2. Re:enjoyable lines thus far by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  FYI: the way to cite to such a record is like this page:lines.
  43:15-18
  44:10-11
  Don't mean to be pedantic, but it's very early for me and maybe someone will find this interesting/useful for later posting. Seems easier.
3. Re:enjoyable lines thus far by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  > aside, is there a Godwin equivalent to equating things with terrorizing?
  The history of Hitler and Nazism will never change, so Godwin's law will mostly stay the same, I'd say. The word "terrorism" on the other hand, has now been used and misused for so long it now refers to school ground fist-fights, kids posting silly messages on Twitter ("we will destroy America"), overeager can-doer SMS messages ("let's blow away the competition"), or filling law suits over music copyrights.
4. Re:enjoyable lines thus far by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  [Beckerman continues...]
  where is that evidence? There has to be some threshold for bringing a lawsuit instead of terrorizing people in the first place.
  If this was any other topic people would be screaming about how outrageous it was to equate such and such to terrorism. But nooo, it's about the evil recording companies, so OF COURSE it's okay. Hypocrites.
5. Re:enjoyable lines thus far by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong, Mr. AC.
  It'd also be okay if it was about the TSA.
  The TSA and the music & movie companies. They're terrorists, on /. Anyone else, they'd be screaming.
  
  Hypocrites
  Correct.
6. Re:enjoyable lines thus far by Patch86 · 2012-02-08 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  "Terrorize" was and is a word completely separate from "terrorism". The Wolf in Red Riding Hood terrorized the Granny; that doesn't make the Wolf a terrorist.
7. Re:enjoyable lines thus far by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  "Terrorize" means to cause terror (fear), so it's entirely appropriate given that their litigation campaign is designed to scare people into settling.
  If they were being called terrorists, you might have more of a point.
Very interesting territory by sohmc · 2012-02-08 00:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

The large majority of first-sale doctrine cases were about actual objects (e.g. CDs, books, Lego Playset, etc). This case is strictly about a digital object, which both exists and doesn't exist.
It exists in the fact that a storage medium (a physical object) contains it. It doesn't exist in the sense that the file cannot be handled traditionally.
I've felt that the law is severely lacking in the digital area but, in all honestly, found that it's difficult to write laws for something that can be created out of nothing. I believe in principle that I should be able to sell my MP3s if I don't want them anymore. There is obviously a market for them. But I don't see how this will work in a world where I can sell the object but still keep it at the same time.
This is not possible with tangible objects, at least not until the Star Trek replicator is invented.

--
We don't live in Shouldland.
1. Re:Very interesting territory by foniksonik · 2012-02-08 01:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The outcome if nothing else will set the value of a digital good to be a) the same as its physical counterpart (disc) or b) less than as it has no resale value.
  If you can't sell that music you bought or licensed then its value should be much lower.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
2. Re:Very interesting territory by Daas · 2012-02-08 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  The record companies have argued for years that downloading a record illegally was the same thing as stealing a CD from the store. I can only hope this argument comes back and slaps them in the face now.
  My only concern now is : with iCloud (and other music stores), you can re-download the songs you've purchased as many times as you want, deleting the file from your computer will not be enough.
3. Re:Very interesting territory by SlashDread · 2012-02-08 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Star Trek replicator"
  We have 3d scanners/printers. Today. Granted, they are not very cost effective yet.
4. Re:Very interesting territory by Hatta · 2012-02-08 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  I believe in principle that I should be able to sell my MP3s if I don't want them anymore.
  Unfortunately, the fair market price for a copy of a digital work is zero. This is the basic economic fact the industry and the courts need to catch up with.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
5. Re:Very interesting territory by Solandri · 2012-02-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  But I don't see how this will work in a world where I can sell the object but still keep it at the same time.
  You aren't selling the MP3. You're selling the license to legally listen to it. Licenses and contracts get sold and traded all the time, and they don't physically exist. Yes they're usually (but not always) written on paper, but if you lose or destroy the original, a copy is usually a sufficient substitute. And if you sell the rights contained in the contract to someone else, there's no problem with you retaining a copy of the MP3. Just like if I sell my garden hose to my neighbor, I may still have access to it but I no longer own the rights to use it (without his permission).
  
  Yes I'm aware contracts can have non-transferable clauses. I'm actually fine with that if it would force the RIAA (and MPAA) to decide whether they're selling a product or a license. Right now they're trying to have it both ways; treating it like a product when it suits them ("You scratched your CD? Tough, buy a new one."), and treating it like a license when it suits them ("You can't sell it!"). Nail it down so it's one or the other, and a lot of these issues we're arguing over simply disappear. They're not thorny issues created because digital files are something new which the law has never had to deal with. They're thorny issues created because of the RIAA's self-contradictory stance on what exactly it is they're selling.
6. Re:Very interesting territory by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-02-08 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  The media thing is unclear. Some software and DVDs will be replaced for a fee, but I have not seen something similar for audio CDs. The main issues I see here are with DRM and time. If these fuckers are trying to prevent me from making a backup, then what happens if my discs craps out in 10 years time? How about 20 years? Will they still be offering me a replacement for the content I already hold a license for, or will I be forced to buy a new one? That's certainly a blurring of the transaction, and they are certainly trying to have it both ways.
  License agreements should not be able to override doctrine of first sale. As digital products become more common, it's important that we maintain this doctrine if we don't want to end up in a situation in which access to products must always be a one-on-one transaction between consumer and producer. Let them use DRM if they must to try prevent resale. Rather this than law that allows such a fundamental right to be signed away in license agreements. The right to re-sell products and transfer license agreements should be integral in the law.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
What is "a hot bench"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 01:07 · Score: 0

Question for Ray Beckerman / NewYorkCountryLawyer, or for anyone else WIAL (who is a lawyer) or WINALBPOOS (who is not a lawyer but plays one on /.) and actually knows the answer:
What is "a hot bench"? (page 51, lines 10-14):

Beckerman: I am speaking to an incredibly hot bench, so I don't feel I need to repeat everything in my papers.
the Court: Hot I think is sort of -- warm, warm and inviting, like a hot bath.
1. Re:What is "a hot bench"? by plover · 2012-02-08 01:13 · Score: 2
  
  A hot bench is when the judge has a lot of questions for the lawyers.
  
  --
  John
2. Re:What is "a hot bench"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Gracias, plover. So is the judge's rejoinder of "warm bath" his rebuttal that he's not TOO questioning, just questioning enough?
  Is a judge who's a "hot bench" good or bad or is it someone who doesn't like poorly formed arguments or poorly formed statements?
  It's very interesting to read the court transcript. Much more interesting than I had anticipated it would be.
3. Re:What is "a hot bench"? by plover · 2012-02-08 01:31 · Score: 2
  
  Usually it means a well-informed judge, one who is taking a very active interest and is trying hard to understand the evidence. I would say it's a "good" thing because the ruling is likely to be based on a fair interpretation of both the law and facts. That doesn't mean it will weigh towards either the plaintiff or defendant, but that the ruling will be seen as solid.
  
  --
  John
4. Re:What is "a hot bench"? by bgat · 2012-02-08 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Usually it means a well-informed judge, one who is taking a very active interest and is trying hard to understand the evidence. I would say it's a "good" thing because the ruling is likely to be based on a fair interpretation of both the law and facts. That doesn't mean it will weigh towards either the plaintiff or defendant, but that the ruling will be seen as solid.
  ... which makes the fact that the Judge ruled from the bench even more telling. It means that the Judge thought the evidence presented was so obvious, so unmistakable, and so overwhelmingly in favor of one side that further, reasoned review was unnecessary.
  Judges rarely reach those conclusions.
  
  --
  b.g.
5. Re:What is "a hot bench"? by plover · 2012-02-08 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and it might just indicate a judge who is trying to provoke each side to elicit a statement revealing hidden intentions. Someone carelessly uttering a "yeah, we knew this part was wrong, but ...", or a "Fair Use doesn't apply to digital" kind of statement. I don't think either side of this case is being represented by Amateur Hour at the Bar, however, so that's unlikely to yield fruit.
  
  --
  John
6. Re:What is "a hot bench"? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  A hot bench is when the judge has a lot of questions for the lawyers.
  Not necessarily. What I mean when I say "hot bench" is a court that has really read the papers, and done some homework.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
7. Re:What is "a hot bench"? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  What is "a hot bench"?
  It means the judge or judges have read the briefs thoroughly and are highly prepared.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Judging the comments... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 01:07 · Score: 0

I think it's clear, everyone knows this copyright crap has gone past the point of no return.
My only hope (and I got out the scene december 31st 2011) is that the new laws and labels don't make it so that the bands can't survive, I hope common sense and constitutional law essentially to rule the day.
Capital Records, I consider an in between label, they have resources and muscle to crank out a decent music video, yet I always hear the bands (from the bands) are barely scraping, yet nobody actually calls them "EVIL" like UMG. Last time I checked things were OKAY, but not looking all that bright either (hello morningwood.) In my opinion, these mp3 / itunes versions of music need to be more relaxed. If someone actually bought the damn thing on itunes the labels should be happy. If not then why distribute to itunes at all? This is the proper response in my opinion. Someone paid for a transaction, and now wants to shift that just like if someone found a cassette in a dusty garage sale. And similar to that dusty garage an mp3 is only 320k max. Does this bring a small amount of competition to the original source selling units? Yes it does. But so does the costs of choreographing a killer music video.
I don't have all the answers, but I know one thing, the US Constitution needs to be restored for ANY creativity to continue.
And there's nothing stopping buying a pirate CD by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 01:13 · Score: 0

Which, being pressed by a CD press looks identical to the real thing.
There's nothing stopping people selling on CDs they stole from the shops physically either.
Or using them to behead people after sharpening the edges into killer frisbees.
That isn't what this case is about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 01:39 · Score: 1

This case isn't about whether digital goods are real or not.
It's about you only get to choose one.
It's either real or it's not.
1. Re:That isn't what this case is about by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  This case isn't about whether digital goods are real or not. It's about you only get to choose one. It's either real or it's not.
  Well said.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
And ReDigi is selling sole access to the licensed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 04:23 · Score: 0

And ReDigi is selling sole access to the licensed copy.
Additionally, if the music is merely licensed,then all that is needed is a transfer of license and the data is not a copyrightable loss: the label is not selling it. Just a license.
So damages lost: Nil.
ReDigi may decide to pay that Nil dollars if the label will refund their costs defending themselves against an extortion case that the label knew was valueless.
The oral argument by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-02-08 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you can wade through the 66 pages of oral argument, you'll see that the judge was well informed, asked pertinent questions, and had an understanding of the ramifications of his decision. He asked an interesting string of hypotheticals about what he might be able to do with a group of BeeGees songs he'd purchased from iTunes and placed on his iPod.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. Re:The oral argument by cynyr · 2012-02-08 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  I like Mr. Mendel argue the length of the cable between hard drives makes a difference. I fail to see how uploading to redigi is different than moving a file between harddrives on my linux computer (and windows too i think), where it copies the file to the target device and then deletes the original copy.
  I agree that the judge was well informed, or so it seemed. I'm still confused how Mr. Mendel can see a CD with a file on it, as different than a file on a harddrive in the cloud. They seem the same to me, and in light of the technical measures that redigi claims to be taking, those files would be harder to copy than the CD with a file.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Thank Goodness! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 07:06 · Score: 0

A judge that finally recognizes the First-Sale doctrine!