Slashdot Mirror
Selling Used MP3s Found Legal In America
bs0d3 writes "After some litigation; ReDigi, a site where people can sell used MP3s has been found legal in America. One of the key decisions the judge had to make was whether MP3's were material objects or not. 'Material objects' are not subject to the distribution right stipulated in "17 USC 106(3)" which protects the sale of intellectual property copies. If MP3's are material objects than the resale of them is guaranteed legal under the first sale' exception in 17 USC 109. Capitol Records tried to argue that they were material objects under one law and not under the other. Today the judge has sided with the first-sale doctrine, which means he is seeing these as material objects."
You could. If you deleted all of your copies, and if only one person was able to download them.
The main reason for this ruling was that it obeyed the first law of economic thermodynamics - products were neither created nor destroyed, only transferred.
The judge simply denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendant which means the case will go to trial.
Actual source of information: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/judge-denies-record-labels-request-to-shutter-used-mp3-store.ars
In short selling of used mp3's hasn't been answered yet (the summary is wrong).
What is the mass of an MP3?
An African or European MP3?
Completely wrong response. Following this judge's decision, you can indeed give them away, so long as you are only giving away the copies that you purchased.
This story is bogus. It looks like yahoo news misquoted a arstechnica acticle. Then some blog sourced the yahoo new article. There was no ruling on First Sale. The ruling only states there is no need for an injunction. The judge is going to rule on First Sale in a few weeks.
No, selling used mp3s has not been found legal. If you trace the link's back to the original source you get this article at Ars:
**Judge denies record label's request to shutter "used" MP3 store**
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/judge-denies-record-labels-request-to-shutter-used-mp3-store.ars
The judge still thinks ReDigi's arguments are likely to fail and that Capitol Records will prevail. The only thing that is significant is that ReDigi's case isn't over yet at the motion stage.
There has been no definitive ruling by the courts in this litigation. The judge only denied Capitol Records request for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi to force them to cease operations while the litigation proceeds. That, most likely would have forced ReDigi out of business, which may well have been what the judge was thinking about. We won't have any real answers about this until after a trial and, presumably, the inevitable appeals.
More Info here and here
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
The linked story is from some fly-by-night news site that cites a Yahoo! news posting that totally misinterprets an ArsTechnica posting that actually analyzes the actual decision (which is hosted on Wired.) Somehow in this online news game of telephone, it went from the actual story, posted accurately earlier in the day by NewYorkCountryLawyer, that the judge denied the plaintiff's motion for an injunction to the sensationalist story that the judge had ruled in favor of the defendant and ruled that their business is legal. Denying the injunction means that ReDigi gets to keep doing business during the trial. That's it, nothing more. They could still lose at trial. The trial hasn't even started, let alone been decided in a way that would mean that reselling mp3s is legal.
In short, this is a misinformed dupe of the story posted by NewYorkCountryLawyer earlier in the day. Read and comment on that one because this is sensationalist garbage. Nothing to see here. Move along.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
So, there are 5 links in the summary. One is a previous slashdot story, one is ReDigi's homepage, two are just links to law texts, and the last one is, I guess, TFA. So I followed it, and found a shady ass blog post hosted on some random site on port 82. It had links though, mostly the same links as TFS, but it added what seemed like a source hosted on a Yahoo blog. Better, but still not really reliable, and the facts were starting to change. So I followed that blogs source, and got to Ars. OK, now something vaguely reliable. But the facts were a lot murkier, and it sounded a lot like the same story from two days ago, linked in TFS. Ars has two relevant, recent links. One is to Wired, so now it really starts to sound legit, except the Wired article is from February 2nd, and says "a ruling could come any day now". The other Ars link is to a pdf ruling. Finally, the truth will be revealed. Here is the text of the brief, in it's entirety:
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge:
For the reasons stated on the record at today's conference, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is HEREBY DENIED.
As directed by the Court at today's conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, by Monday, February 20, 2012 at 4:00 p.m., the parties shall submit a proposed case management plan and scheduling to my chambers at the following email address: sullivannysdchambers@nysd.uscourts.gov. A template for the order is available at http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=judge_info&id=347. SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2012 New York, New York
Isn't Internet news great?
You can't, remember copyright? I have to give a "right to copy" a permission or a license to distribute my digital goods. Software, recordings, photos etc. are all covered here and copyright makes any second-hand market or distribution illegal by default unless authorized by the copyright holders.
I heard there was a recent court ruling that found otherwise, saying that at least in the case of mp3s that they constitute 'material objects' and are thus subject to the First Sale Doctrine exception to the distribution right.
I can't remember where I heard this though.
The enemies of Democracy are