Slashdot Mirror
Capitol Records Motion To Enjoin ReDigi Denied
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.'"
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.
Congrats to NewYorkCountryLawyer.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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?)
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.
A hot bench is when the judge has a lot of questions for the lawyers.
John
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
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.
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
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
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
What is "a hot bench"?
It means the judge or judges have read the briefs thoroughly and are highly prepared.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful