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.
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.
Not in Europe it wont thank god, seeing as we've already had a sane ruling in the opposite direction for software.
I'd say this will have no effect over here, but I'd be wrong. For some reason companies seem scared to death of setting up Europe only, or generally non-US only sites that offer services to people outside the US that are much wanted by users but forbidden by US law but not laws elsewhere. I guess at very least the US has been successful in scaring most startups/established companies into believing it really does have universal jurisdiction when it comes to laws relating to the digital world.
In fairness, it does actually say "Pikoro writes" in TFS.
It's easy to understand the judiciary. Whichever party has the most money wins.
Now where's my law degree?
Clearly this guy is simply a moron who does not have a clue about the subject matter. For example, his claim would forbid me from transferring a file over the internet to myself, but would allow people to indiscriminately transfer files over a network (your average college dorm or library contains millions of songs distributed across many computers). If he were to expand his definition to include local transfers, then you could not even copy a file from one directory to another.
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
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
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.
Do artists who've been dead for three+ decades still need to get money from somewhere as well?
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
The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that the original seller is not entitled to any special consideration once the sale completes.
So whether something was "intended to be resold" is irrelevant - you sold it to me, so I can resell it without your permission.
I also see arguments based around "copying" as being what copyright is about; it's not - distribution is what it is about.
Reselling is about transfer of ownership, not distribution. That on the technical level this transfer of ownership consists of a copy followed by a delete, should not matter - when the operation completes, there is only 1 file, so there no "copy" took place.
When all other methods of communication fail, try words.
A copy of the work was made to allow the purchaser to download it in the first place, hence the reason it is required for the use of the work. The copyright owner can copy it as many times as they want perfectly legally but as soon as it changes hands and the copy of the work is authorized for the use of the purchaser. If that copy is not able to be resold as a standard good under the doctrine of First Sale, technically nothing that anyone purchases should be allowed to be resold as the original design was copied and replicated en masse for resale in the same way as an MP3 is, albeit with much more work involved and typically a much lower profit margin.
Technically you can argue that the physical structure at the molecular level is different in each of the physical products, but if the molecular structure of the product is the key, then I can replicate and resell anything on the market without fear of repercussions. Ultimately just because MP3s are more easy to copy doesn't make them ineligible for First Sale protections. It is not the onus of the purchaser to ensure the product can't be easily copied, it is their responsibility only to legally purchase the product for personal use and, in the event that they wish to resell said product, transer ownership to the new purchaser legally under First Sale. With regard to digital sales, as long as the product is no longer usable or copyable by the original purchaser, I don't see a single bit of difference.
The copyright owner cannot be the owner of the files in question unless it is designated as a rental and sold as such. If they do not own the copy of the original that they sold, the purchaser owns that file or files and can therefore transfer that ownership to whomever they want.
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
technically nothing that anyone purchases should be allowed to be resold as the original design was copied and replicated en masse for resale in the same way as an MP3 is, albeit with much more work involved and typically a much lower profit margin.
All of those copies were authorized by the copyright holder. Once a copy is delivered to you, you are not authorized to make additional copies.
Technically you can argue that the physical structure at the molecular level is different in each of the physical products, but if the molecular structure of the product is the key, then I can replicate and resell anything on the market without fear of repercussions. Ultimately just because MP3s are more easy to copy doesn't make them ineligible for First Sale protections.
Sure, if you sell the physical disk that the MP3 was originally delivered to. But if you make a copy from that disk to another disk, you have copied without authorization. It's the same as if I buy sheet music. I can sell that sheet music if I want, but I'm not entitled to photocopy it and deliver the photocopy to another person, even if I destroy the original. There are some exceptions like fair use, which is why libraries have copiers, but the baseline rule of copyright is that you cannot make any copies without authorization.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I spent some time yesterday reading the findings in full, and the courts ruling is compliant with copyright law. The issue is that copyright law is out of date, but that's not the courts responsibility, necessarily. Take that to the Supreme Court. You're allowed to make a copy to use it (fair use) such as loading into memory, putting onto your MP3 player, etc. In fact, Capitol Records didn't even contest that a user is allowed to upload a copy to a third party service in order to access it for personal use (ie, a cloud storage locker). What they contested was that if you then try to sell that reproduced version of the file (which, under copyright law, it is - it's a reproduced version even if the original doesn't remain anymore), then that copy falls outside the bounds of fair use and becomes an illegal copy at which stage it can't be sold. In other words, it's the act of trying to sell it which makes it an illegal copy.
This is clearly a case where copyright law needs to be updated. Under the ruling, the only way to sell an MP3 is to sell the computer you first downloaded it on, and include the MP3 with it. According to the ruling, technically, even putting it onto a disk and selling the disk is a breach, although it'd be very difficult for anyone to prove you didn't first download it to the disk - although if they had reason to believe you didn't (ie, sitting in a stall selling CDs with MP3s that you say you purchased legally) a warrant would quickly sort that out.
It feels like what's needed is an open, distributed form of DRM which doesn't rely on static servers, and where the rights assigned to the file can be changed at the whim of the user, not a third party. And copyright law updated to reflect the nature of our digital world.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk