Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Capitol Records Motion To Enjoin ReDigi Denied

Posted by Soulskill on 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.'"

10 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Greedy Scum by gweihir · · 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 · · 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 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they will "buy" a new law...

    3. Re:Greedy Scum by Cryacin · · 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
  2. Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Congrats to NewYorkCountryLawyer.

    1. Re:Read Ray Beckermann's motion and enjoy! by Mathinker · · 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...

  3. ReDigi may still be liable for damages by Sqr(twg) · · 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 · · 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
  4. enjoyable lines thus far by Anonymous Coward · · 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?)

  5. Very interesting territory by sohmc · · 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.