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.
I'd agree with you, except when you purchase an MP3 you are not actually 'buying a product', you are licensing it's use. In the law, there's a big difference. Next time, look a bit closer at that huge agreement you skip past on iTunes, Amazon and the like.
First sale allows people to resell legally made copies. A copy is defined in the statute as a material object in which a work is fixed. Thus, a file on a computer isn't a copy, but the hard drive the file is written to is. You're free to sell the hard drive with the music on it, but not to reproduce the file over the network, regardless of whether you delete the local file or not. Basically, you can't move a copy -- a hard disc, a flash drive, etc. across the net. It's physically impossible.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If I pay to download a song from iTunes or wherever, in what way is it false to call that a purchase of digital goods?
You didn't buy anything, you paid a fee to download a file.
I get to legally listen to the song, the same as if I had bought it on a CD. The physical CD was never what I was buying anyway.
Yes, it was. You don't own the songs on the CD, only the CD. Nobody owns a song, not even the copyright holder, who only holds a "limited" time monopoly on its publication. Buy the CD, rip it to MP3 and resell the CD. You're not breaking the law, since you didn't publish anything.
I really don't see why anyone was surprised at this ruling.
Free Martian Whores!
The temporal movement of bits to allow sound reproduction does not constitute "fixing." Note that there are specific restrictions on public performance, so a theater can't just buy a DVD and show that to a paying crowd.
"If I want to move an MP3 from one hard disk to another on my computer then I'm doing exactly the same. Am I not allowed to do this?"
Depends on the license you received with the MP3. Looking at the iTunes store terms (yea, they're technically not MP3, but this the the largest distributor, so good as an example):
and Amazon
So, the both licenses allow you to make copies, to authorized devices and CDs (Apple), or "for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use" (Amazon). You're also allowed to make a backup copy.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Except CD's are drastically overpriced. Also, you have to deal with purchasing an entire disc for maybe only two songs you actually want to listen to. No, don't buy the CD if it isn't what you really want, because then you're supporting the mediocrity of the artists and the overpowered corporations behind them.
Amazon's top 3 in music today:
The 20/20 Experience - MP3: $10.99, CD : 11.47
Delta Machine: MP3: $14.99 CD $16.79
Based on a True Story: MP3: $9.49 CD: $9.99
Considering that the CD costs include shipping (super saver or prime), the CD doesn't seem overpriced considering that you get a physical object that you actually own and can resell.
If you don't have to have the latest albums when they come out, then you can buy used CD's, which typically cost less than the MP3, even with delivery costs included.
In case you have forgotten, RIAA v Diamond is the lawsuit that declared MP3 players legal, (format shifting and space shifting) and Betamax enabled time shifting.
The judge makes this logic, which is flawed:
Whenever a digital file is transferred, it moves from one 'material object' to another 'material object'. Title 17 has mixed definitions about what that means, but one interpretation is that when a different 'material object' has the content placed upon it, that constitutes creating a copy, which is a protected right. He rules that it does not matter if the original data is destroyed or not, it is considered a new instance of the work and is a protected right.
In RIAA v Diamond, the court declared that logic unreasonable, saying: “any recording device could evade regulation simply by passing the music through a computer and ensuring that the MP3 file resided momentarily on the hard drive.”
According to this judge's interpretation, ANY transfer of data to a new 'material object' requires the blessing of the copyright holder. That means we cannot legally transfer our files to a second hard drive, since it is a new material object. We cannot legally transfer the files from a PC to a laptop, since it is a new material object. We cannot transfer files to a smart phone or tablet or other device, because they are different material objects. We cannot transfer data "to the cloud", because it is one or more new material objects.
This ruling will be remanded to the judge within a few months.
In some ways I think the judge is trolling or admitting that he has no clue. His background is narcotics law and money laundering (and rubber-stamping plea bargains for prosecuters). He has no real experience with IP law. He's probably just waiting for the appeals court to tell him what the ruling is supposed to be since he doesn't have any clue.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement