Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules That Resale of MP3s Violates Copyright Law
Redigi runs a service that lets you resell your digitally purchased music. Naturally, they were sued by major labels soon after going live, with heavyweights like Google weighing in with support and an initial victory against pre-trial injunctions. But the first actual court ruling is against them. Pikoro writes "A judge has sided with Capitol Records in the lawsuit between the record company and ReDigi — ruling that MP3s can only be resold if granted permission by copyright owners. From the article: 'The Order is surprising in light of last month's United States Supreme Court decision in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons, which reaffirmed the importance and applicability of the First Sale Doctrine in the United States of America.'"
Redigi vows to appeal, and claims that the current version of their service is not affected by the lawsuit.
Frist Sale!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Clearly the judge is a firm believer in piracy, else he wouldn't have made that ruling. Seriously though, people are trying to sell "used" mp3's?
bio->bi_end_io(bio, error);
Redigi's business model relies upon making copies. The Thai bloke was importing copies. He wasn't making copies.
This will be an interesting case to follow, with possible consequences for reselling other digital goods like games.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Sell a copy ?? How about 1000 times ?? Easy !!
What about Flac and the other variety of formats that could be sold? This is a huge can of worms that no one will be able to bolt the lid on no matter what the judicial rulings are.
Didn't the supreme court just rule that the "first sale doctrine" stands?
In other words, if I buy a book, I can sell it to somebody else.
If I sell the mp3 and delete it off my computer / mp3 player, what is the difference between a book and an mp3 of a book?
"Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce," Judge Sullivan wrote. "However, courts have not previously addressed whether the unauthorized transfer of a digital music file over the Internet -- where only one file exists before and after the transfer -- constitutes reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The court holds that it does."
Someone needs to audit the bank records for this judge. From his statement it is clear that the judge understands, at least to some extent, the implications of the decision that he is making. That he would issue a summary judgement on such an issue is bordering on misconduct.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
..so, I bought an MP3 for either $1.29 or 99 cents, the artist maybe gets 5 cents of that? ..and now I want to resell it? For what price? I can understand a $20 CD with a bunch of tracks that nobody wants to listen to, or a $60 video game if I don't have a budget flush with cash.. but $1? ..and so the original owner...err..excuse me.."license holder" promises they are going to erase the MP3 from their storage after they transfer the file to the third party buyer?
Wow.. short of the label not carrying the song in their catalog anymore I don't know why you wouldn't go to the original source.. I'm sure there are reasons - like someone got tired of their entire music collection and selling it for $20..
In fairness, it does actually say "Pikoro writes" in TFS.
Sure, I can say that I deleted the Mp3, but how can I prove it?
I might have copies of it elsewhere, on memory sticks.
Personally, I think a fair price for mp3's is under 10 cents these days.
And I think when you actually go to the trouble of "buying" one, then you should be able to redownload it in the future.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
buy directly from artists.
This is not reddit, you submit a story, and an editor (like Unknown Lamer) picks it for the homepage, usually with a link to the submission and your name somewhere.
Apart from 'lame' not being used as a reference concerning mp3s, nothing went wrong here, right?
At one time artists
I stopped reading there. Anyone that brings "artists" into this discussion is bringing a record company-sponsored fallacy into the argument.
The discussions about copyright at this level have NOTHING to do with artists. Zero.
You might be right on the rest of the points, but you're conflating record companies and artists. It's exactly what the RIAA wants you to do and it's one of the things that has prevented smart discussion on music copyrights since the DAY that mp3 was invented.
It's easy to understand the judiciary. Whichever party has the most money wins.
Now where's my law degree?
and then send the music to the new owner on that.
Let the music industry argue about how the royality fee they got with the CD-R Music was not enough.
Reselling 'used' mp3s is a stupid idea to begin with, but I wouldn't be surprised this opens the door to making it illegal to resell physical music media. Just look what they're trying to do in the video game industry.
I don't understand why 1st sale doctrine can't be applied to digital content. The easily copied argument applies to CDs which only take a few minutes to copy. 1st sale doctrine applies to CDs. It seems that now that Capitol Records is on the digital media bandwagon, they want to change the rules. When will the insanity stop. Is the US going to take a step back into prosecuting people for witchcraft again?
This could work, and I had actually thought about it as a business, however, it could exist legally if there was effective DRM of the media you try to resale. Thus you could unlicense and relicense the same file.
Good thing you know you are an idiot. Thanks for saving me the effort of telling you.
This will be an interesting case to follow, with possible consequences for reselling other digital goods like games.
One of the key points seemed to be that no physical good was exchanged; so a DVD version of the game would be re-salable under TDoFS but a digital version such as from Steam or iTunes would not be. the judge said that because the transfer involved copying a file it was infringing; whereas a physical version form teh copyright owner would not.
Interestingly, a strong DRM system that ensured only 1 person could use the item might not infringe since you could transfer the key w/o copying the file. A service such as Steam could then provide a new licensed copy of the file and prevent the original key holder form using the game.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Anyone that brings "artists" into this discussion is bringing a record company-sponsored fallacy into the argument.
Bullshit. I get sick and tired of slashdot zealots who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a fucking paid shill.
I couldn't care less about record companies or artists owning private jets and stately homes. All I know is that artists need to get money from somewhere, and a lot of us aren't particularly interested in going to live concerts now that we're over 18. I don't see why the people paying to see the artist live should subsidise me by letting me pay nothing to listen to the music at home.
But yeah, obviously I must work for the RIAA to think that, because everyone either believes exactly the same things you do or they're wrong.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
nearly word for word
Wait, are you implying the editor actually edited it? Heresy!
Reselling media is only evil and wrong this week. It'll be absolutely fine, 'innovative' and mainstream as soon as Amazon, Apple or Google starts doing it:
http://www.zdnet.com/amazon-lands-patent-on-marketplace-for-selling-on-used-digital-content-7000010917/
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/07/apples-digital-content-resale-and-loan-system-could-allow-drm-transfers-between-end-users
The object of copyright is referred to a 'work'. I have not been able to find a coherent definition of a 'work'.
Is it a physical thing? Is it an immaterial form? Is it a sequence of bits?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
So it does. Didn't see it cause it was formatted at the end of the sentence instead of where it normally goes. I stand corrected.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Just challenge the resale of licenses, then.
Where did I call anyone a paid shill? I said it was pushing forward a RIAA-centered version of the argument.
I also don't care if record executives get paid... as LONG as the artist gets paid in a fair way. And that's the rub. The RIAA is pushing forward ideas that take care of the artists when they *don't*. They've spend around 100 years of the recording industry making sure they screw their artists.
I am all for the artist getting paid. I care about it a lot MORE than an RIAA middle man getting paid and I'm smart enough to know that the whine that the RIAA pushes forward about the artist are disingenuous.
Ah.. I must of hit a nerve.
Do artists who've been dead for three+ decades still need to get money from somewhere as well?
This is why people steal music and movies instead of purchasing them. Screw Me, No Screw You!
The problem is that you never had physical posession of the work. As its digital, you can make a perfect copy. What is to stop someone from downloading a ton of MP3s from some file-sharing site, then trying to sell them on a place like this? What is to stop you from buying music on amazon or itunes or having a streaming subscription to Rhapsody, taking the files, using the analogue hole, saving as an mp3, selling on the site, and still keeping your original files?
The only way that you could resale digital media is if it was DRMed, and in that case, the company would have to allow you to deauthorize your machine and pass it on to someone else, but even still, you can convert to another DRM free format in many cases, which, once again, allows you to keep a copy.
I can't see how the First Sale Doctorine would apply to this case. You HAVE to have some type of physical media for first sales doctorine to be able to apply, otherwise there is no way to really track if something is pirated or not.
Although I guess you could argue that I could make a copy of a DVD or CD or something, but its not in the original case with the original cover with the original pressing, so the copy really has no value.
So the lesson is that any digital licensed "good" should be REQUIRED to come with a physical copy of a license, that can then be transfered using the first sale doctrine?
Aside of the strict legal blablabla, the future will be limited by the increase of the cost of controlling and hunting the copy. Because the privacy will always be a sensitive subject, there is no way for a simple system to control any possible copy. The situation will be more and more complex, and so will be the tools that try to search something. And complex tools cots a lot. Who will pay for it ? Yes, the customer. At one point at one point of cost, others business models will be more profitable for the artists than obliterate a lot of money in making potential customers angry.
If technology makes a workers job obsolete, he is forced to go back to school and adapt or take a pay cut. If he tries to form a union the courts block him.
If technology makes an IP owners business model obsolete, he forms a lobbying group and the courts happily cripple technology and innovation for him so he can maintain his status quo.
*Must have. Must of doesn't make any sense.
Bullshit. I get sick and tired of slashdot zealots who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a fucking paid shill.
Wait what? The record companies have a long record of on the one hand whining about how the piracy is hurting the artists and on the other hand fucking the artists as hard as they can.
Many of us on slashdot are sick and tired of the lies and hipocracy spewed forth by the abhorrent organisations.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This Judge seems to have a fundamental misconception as to how computers work. Whenever you "move" a file it first copies the file and the deletes the original. As others have noted even simple processes like playing the file will reproduce, uncompress & run simple conversions on audio files to make it usable by the computer. This ruling could, in theory, outlaw all kinds of reasonable activities. From simply playing your MP3's to moving from an older PC to a new one.
Not sure about three+ decades, but 2Pac seems to keep producing new stuff.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Judge explain to me how and MP3 is different than a tape or record dont look at anyone in your own words.
I couldn't care less about record companies or artists owning private jets and stately homes. All I know is that artists need to get money from somewhere...
And how much do artists* take in from the sales of their albums? If the labels are here to help the artists, then it's certainly a big share. But all I hear/read points in some other direction.
* When I say "artists, I'm not talking about U2, Britney Spears, Linkin' Park or any other big name, who basically have made all the money they'd ever need if they weren't wasting it in Ferraris, coke, or whatever. I'm talking about small bands who are starting their careers and make their first albums through a label. Those with basically no power to negotiate the terms with the label.
They just passed a law that allows everything to be resold. Music, DLC, Online Games, Operating Systems that come "tied" to systems. They are all allowed to be resold. Licensed or not, they are allowed to be resold. This guy should just move his business there and be protected under EU law.
no really try and catch me
time to gt the baseball bats out kids and start beating the man over the head for stupid laws....remember if your in jail your not paying taxes.....
They don't have to negotiate with the labels.
There are more and more successful independent bands these days, thanks to a computer & software that does most of what the labels used to subsidize.
Now, they get to hit the road and just play & sell their own music.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
If not being sure if the "origional" (which is actually a copy too!) is destroyed can be used to negate the first-sale doctrine, I wonder how long it will take to prohibit the re-sell of, lets for the moment say, figurines, because 3D-prints of the same could be created before the sale (Assuming 3D-copies look the same as the origional ofcourse).
Or maybe that does not matter, and the seller is happy with its copy and he really does sell the origional.
Just a thought ...
I don't see why the people paying to see the artist live should subsidise me by letting me pay nothing to listen to the music at home.
Then is it against your morals to listen to the radio? Or perhaps you consider radio paid because you have to listen to ads. You never surf to another station when an ad break comes, is that right?
Why do you talk as if the only way for artists to make money is live concerts or sales of copies of recordings? There are other ways, and they do work. The industry should have been working more on them in the 20 years since it became obvious that the ability to make copies was very democratic and both impossible and harmful to attempt to keep from the public. Instead, they have opted for this idiotic dead end of trying to deny copying to the public, and they've not been at all scrupulous about it. They've made idiots of themselves, again. This time, they've pushed this lost cause so hard and so long they've also made themselves into public enemies. Recall that they fought cassettes, VCRs, AM radio, and even player pianos. 100 years ago, they were actually opposed to copyright, fearing the cost and administrative overhead of securing rights to use various artists' work. Hollywood was set up on the west coast to get as far away as possible from the rights holders of Broadway, who were abusing their "rights" to make it difficult to employ the then new technology of film. Those rights were meant to ensure that artists receive compensation, not stop progress. Now the RIAA and MPAA are the crotchety, moralizing, hypocritical, senile, negative deniers of reality, sense, and progress. They're so afraid of losing what they never really had that they won't reach out and embrace a far richer world. That's okay. But they're also greedy, trying to prevent us from embracing it, and that's not okay. They want easy copying for themselves, and think they have a natural right to keep easy copying from the rest of us. They've done a good job of confusing the issues and the public, convincing many that if we don't stamp out piracy, the world of music will end. They're dinosaurs trying to pretend that the meteor never struck.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Then maybe they should stop using the word "purchase" and instead use the word "license".
Ditto for digital game "sales"
If I can't sell them, can I just give them away when I am done with them?
Not sure about three+ decades, but 2Pac seems to keep producing new stuff.
That is because 2Pac isn't dead.
This is just another example of the disconnect between the studios and their customers. Studios believe that they are selling a license but customers believe that they are buying a product. The studios don't want to be explicit about this because they know that customers would revolt. That is why they work behind the scenes (a court case is behind the scenes for most people) to impose their view of the world without making an announcement. Customers won't like it at first, but eventually people will learn to adjust. However, as part of that new paradigm, studios should provide a free backup service so that the media travels with the person and not a particular downloaded copy.
This being said, I have no idea how someone can generally sell an mp3 in the traditional sense absent some sort of registry system. In theory, if I delete my copy of an mp3 before "selling" it to someone else that has the same character as selling a CD. However, there is no way to know if I actually deleted my copy absent some sort of ownership registry. Selling a CD has that same problem because there is no way to know if someone made a digital copy before selling the physical media. However, that is an enforcement problem and not necessarily a copyright problem assuming that everyone follows the rules.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
Or used books. Or used software. Or ...
The person selling who then uses the MP3 file after selling is committing copyright infringement. Until that happens, no copyright infringement has taken place.
However, Apple are getting away with it because they're
a) bigger
b) USA
A copy required for the use of the work as intended is not a copy controlled by copyright.
Why someone would buy a digital product is beyond me. Youre buying nothing. You purchase something you cant lend to a friend, sell, trade in, put on ebay or put in the closet to pull out again in 20 years. You don't actually own a digital product.
Granted I have bought 4 or 5 songs off amazon for like 99 cents each but I wouldn't buy entire albums, video games or programs or movies digitally. Its a waste of money that only appeals to impatient customers who cant wait a extra couple of days for something and only care about "right now".
Good thing I ripped all my music into flac, so I can share it freely!
And was it one of these independent artists that sued this company?
When you were a kid, your parents made the rules and you just had to live by them.
That is not the case in a democracy. Stop thinking about it in a "government knows best", "the rules are the rules", and "I must always obey authorities" way.
If you think you SHOULD be able to sell, or let your kids inherit, your digital music files, and current laws will not allow it, GET THE LAW CHANGED. It's really as simple as that. Rules aren't really there to be broken, but rules are there to be changed with changing circumstances. The circumstances need not change based on the rules if a large majority considers the new circumstances more desirable than the previous ones.
The only PROBLEM is how to get this done. Current legislative and political environments favour Big Business... but a grassroots campaign supported by alternate (I should say: re-purposed) large-scale media can still work, see SOPA/PIPA.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Thanks for following the conversation.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Quit buying shit from these bastards. I don't.
Just "borrow" a music cd from your local public library.
One thing that I haven't seen discussed is if the lawyers for the music industry have overstepped purchasers' legal rights. Just because iTunes, Amazon or Capitol Records' legally drafted EULAs say a person can't do this doesn't mean that's all there is to it. Remember the EULAs that used to be included in software boxes that said once you open the box, you can't return it. In this case, even though it was a legally drafted contract, it took away the purchasers' rights because it was hidden from the user. In this case, it's going to be up to the judges (assuming there will be appeals) to try and find if/how the contracts adhere to the law.
I know you may say that CD prices are expensive based on what new CDs sell for.
But go back to say 2004 and earlier, and you will find for the most part the cost of CDs is practically nothing. You can buy 90% of CDs for $2 or less (plus shipping).
Most of the time, you can buy a CD for $1 or less.
For most part, prices of old CDs are still cheaper than mp3s of these albums.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
You can edit/modify their idtags, change pictures, etc. it won't be like the original. :O
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
If we can't resell MP3s, simply change the file extension, or convert it to another format. Then it's not an MP3 anymore! Why hasn't anyone thought of this?
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
No, Apple is selling tracks after negotiating a license with the labels. Allofmp3 was selling tracks under a loophole in Russian law that was intended for radio. Apple tries to make sure that you can't use a store outside of a jurisdiction where they have licensed the music (e.g. using the US store from the UK). It is possible to buy iTunes gift vouchers online from third parties to bypass this, but Apple can at least claim that they are attempting to try avoid it. In contrast, allofmp3 had a site in English, even though that wasn't the official language anywhere where they had a license to distribute music, and took credit cards from anywhere.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What about all the books found in used book stores? Sounds like a double standard to me. Sounds like the typical bullshit we have to put up with in the "free" country.
This decision is in no way surprising to anyone who knows copyright law. US Copyright law *explicitly* states that you do not have a right to resell digital copies, and if those guys had a lawyer advising them on their business when they set it up, they should be suing him for malpractice now. Look up "First Sale Doctrine" if you're having trouble sleeping.
If you're a cynic (as I am) this is evidence of the ridiculous influence of copyright owners on Washington.
However, there is *some* rational for this - if you buy a CD and then sell it to someone else, no new copies have been made. But, if you buy an MP3, and then sell it to someone else, to do so, you must make a copy. Which means you're now in copyright territory, since you're selling a copy of the work without the author's permission.
Now, personally speaking, I think if you're going to certify your copy has been destroyed, this shouldn't be a problem - but that's the law, now, and has been for more than a decade (maybe longer, I started paying attention when I was at EMusic ca. 1998).
You're right about Apple, but FWIW there are a number of US companies who do things that are legal in the US, but illegal in Europe and for some reason get away with it.
It's usually to do with privacy, and whilst some companies who are victims of millions of pounds of Microsoft lobbying for punishment in the EP like Google get rapped for it, others like Facebook who have very clearly broken the Data Protection Act in the UK (and equivalent in many European countries) continue to get away with it. For example, Facebook opted my account in to allowing friends to allow 3rd parties to access friends data (hence my data). This is a clear breach of the DPA as the only person who can authorise these 3rd parties to access my data is me, no one else can do it on my behalf.
I contacted the ICO over it and they simply didn't care, yet when I contacted them about a fairly large European recruitment agency illegaly selling on my CV they dealt with it within days - there's clearly a disparity between how they treat European companies and US companies in this area at least.
The judge is missing the point.
Users don't buy mp3 files they buy licenses to play mp3 files.
The first sale doctrine should mean that anyone is free to resell the license to use.