or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Judge denies right to resell iTunes songs, digital media still protected under copyright laws
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies right to resell iTunes songs, digital media still protected under copyright laws

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
A U.S. district court judge on Saturday issued a ruling against the resale of songs purchased through digital outlets like Apple's iTunes, finding that the unauthorized transfer of digital music is illegal under the Copyright Act.

The judgment was handed down by U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan, who found in favor of plaintiff Capitol Records' suit against ReDigi, an online marketplace for "digital used music," reports AllThingsD.

ReDigi


While ReDigi offered a number of counter examples to Capitol's copyright assertions, including a first-sale doctrine that allows companies like Netflix to earn profits on the transfer of DVDs, Judge Sullivan was unimpressed. According to the court, there is a clear separation between digital content, like MP3s, and physical content like CDs.

ReDigi acts as an intermediary between people who want to recoup some of the costs associated with buying digital music, and buyers. Transactions are made in the digital domain, or online, with ReDigi taking a certain percentage of each sale for providing the forum and means to transfer.

Judge Sullivan noted in the order that courts have "consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner?s exclusive right to reproduce," though the question as to whether the unauthorized transfer of said music over the internet constitutes "reproduction." Ultimately, the jurist found that such transfer does in fact do so.

It should be noted that "transfer" as it is being argued in the case is not the duplication of songs, but instead the sending of a single asset so that only one file exists before and after the transfer.

The partial summary judgment calls for both parties to file a joint letter by April 12 regarding how to handle remaining issues such as Capitol's performance and display rights as well as ReDigi's secondary infringement of common law copyrights. Also to be discussed are damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

post #2 of 27
An interesting case. It does make a solid argument for NOT removing physical readers of computers, since it means suddenly your music becomes non transferable ^^

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #3 of 27
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
It does make a solid argument for NOT removing physical readers of computers, since it means suddenly your music becomes non transferable.

 

Not really…

post #4 of 27

So the judge said you're not allowed to own the 1's and 0's stored on your HDD or Flash memory. We have moved one step closer to you never owning anything, you will be only borrowing or renting it. And will have to pay ever time you use it.

 

Let see we could buy and sell, LP's 45's, 8-track, Cassetts, CD, DVD, and not that we are at the end of the road and the music industry do not see the next method of selling the same song to you yet again, you are no longer allow to set the mp3.

post #5 of 27

Nothing new here; move along, citizens. Welcome to the stupidity of IPR laws in the US - at least truly civilized countries don't follow the same DMCA-driven standards as Judge Sullivan above.

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

An interesting case. It does make a solid argument for NOT removing physical readers of computers, since it means suddenly your music becomes non transferable ^^

 

What do you mean by non-transferable? I can transfer music to all my devices using the internet, USB drives, WiFi... etc.

post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

 

What do you mean by non-transferable? I can transfer music to all my devices using the internet, USB drives, WiFi... etc.

Did you not notice the context of the article, or are you purposely trying to be a smartass?

post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Did you not notice the context of the article, or are you purposely trying to be a smartass?

 

His arguing that you need a removable media reader for computers because music are non-transferable. That's not in the context of the article. Learn to read please.

post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

An interesting case. It does make a solid argument for NOT removing physical readers of computers, since it means suddenly your music becomes non transferable ^^

??? The way I read it is that you cannot sell or pass-on the downloads to anyone else, unlike physical media once you've finished with it & deleted any copies, but you can do what you want to sharing it amongst your own devises, as always.

post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

What do you mean by non-transferable? I can transfer music to all my devices using the internet, USB drives, WiFi... etc.

It means that one cannot sell the digital music they purchased online like one can with CDs. You can have a yard sale and sell your digital music that's on a physical medium but you can if it's on your hard drive.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #11 of 27

Government of the people, by the corporation, for the corporation...

post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It means that one cannot sell the digital music they purchased online like one can with CDs. You can have a yard sale and sell your digital music that's on a physical medium but you can if it's on your hard drive.

 

This was never allowed anyway and I just don't understand why this means we suddenly need media readers on computers. With digital downloads you don't have to pay for a whole CD/album just to because you like one song.

post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It means that one cannot sell the digital music they purchased online like one can with CDs. You can have a yard sale and sell your digital music that's on a physical medium but you can if it's on your hard drive.

Yep. I personally don't see a problem with it. All my purchases on iTunes have been made with the expectation that I wouldn't be able to (or want to) on-sell them.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

This was never allowed anyway and I just don't understand why this means we suddenly need media readers on computers. With digital downloads you don't have to pay for a whole CD/album just to because you like one song.

You have first sale rights with physical media, but for whatever reason we lose that with digital downloads.
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


You have first sale rights with physical media, but for whatever reason we lose that with digital downloads.

 

The reason was mentioned in the article. The right to reproduce is exclusive to the copyright owner. There is no way to sell a digital downloaded file/song/movie without creating a copy of the originally downloaded file. With physical media you are selling the original not a reproduced copy. This is the difference.

post #16 of 27
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post
There is no way to sell a digital downloaded file/song/movie without creating a copy of the originally downloaded file.

 

Why not? Oh, well, if we want to get pedantic, yeah, but why is this an issue? Just make it not an issue. Make the end-product situation identical to the physical world.

 

When you sell away your album or song, it's removed* from your account purchases and from all of the devices on which you've put it. Automatic deletion. How's that so difficult?

 

*Not actually. The removal is for your ability to redownload it. It will still show up under your purchases in case you wanted to buy it again (and, of course, for purposes of recollection). Just have it greyed out with a "$0.99" button next to it instead of "Download".

post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Why not? Oh, well, if we want to get pedantic, yeah, but why is this an issue? Just make it not an issue. Make the end-product situation identical to the physical world.

 

When you sell away your album or song, it's removed* from your account purchases and from all of the devices on which you've put it. Automatic deletion. How's that so difficult?

 

*Not actually. The removal is for your ability to redownload it. It will still show up under your purchases in case you wanted to buy it again (and, of course, for purposes of recollection). Just have it greyed out with a "$0.99" button next to it instead of "Download".

 

I checked out their website and I'd bet $$$ that I could rip a physical CD I own and then sell the digital copies to ReDigi and they would have no way of knowing where my songs came from. Do you think that would be acceptable?

 

What's to stop me from making a "backup" before I sell a song? Sure I lose the "download" ability, but if I have backups then what do I care about re-downloading?

 

The only way this could work is with DRM. When you sell a song your copy gets "de-authorized" and the other person gets "authorized". And we know how people feel about DRM.

post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Why not? Oh, well, if we want to get pedantic, yeah, but why is this an issue? Just make it not an issue. Make the end-product situation identical to the physical world.

 

When you sell away your album or song, it's removed* from your account purchases and from all of the devices on which you've put it. Automatic deletion. How's that so difficult?

 

*Not actually. The removal is for your ability to redownload it. It will still show up under your purchases in case you wanted to buy it again (and, of course, for purposes of recollection). Just have it greyed out with a "$0.99" button next to it instead of "Download".

 

It is an issue because the reason the copyright law exist is to give the copyright owner the exclusive right to sell copies of his/her work. By allowing the sale of digital music/movies you are taking that right away and give it to someone else. This is a legal issue and to solve it you have to rewrite the copyright law... good luck with that.

 

Regarding you solution of removing the sold item from your purchases.. are you serious?!! Do you think Apple, Amazon, RIAA et al want this to happen or help make it happen?!

 

Beside, the issue is not removing the sold item from your iTunes account. Even with CD you can keep a copy of the content of you sell it. This is a law issue not a technical issue.


Edited by NasserAE - 4/1/13 at 8:51pm
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

Nothing new here; move along, citizens. Welcome to the stupidity of IPR laws in the US - at least truly civilized countries don't follow the same DMCA-driven standards as Judge Sullivan above.

You haven't really stated what is different there.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


You have first sale rights with physical media, but for whatever reason we lose that with digital downloads.

There are a number of differences in laws when it comes to tangible and non-tangible goods (some vary by state). Sales tax laws differ in this regard at times as well. As for used markets, it's much easier with digital downloads assuming they can be sold. You don't have to worry about a cd being scratched. If your hard drive crashes or the file is corrupted, it can be downloaded again via your itunes account. You don't have to go to a music store that carries used cds or look through their selection. It's extremely easy to redistribute, which likely complicates the business model for content producers. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to turn it into licensed content much like you have with software. Either way the cost is already lower for a song than it would have been for a cd single. You can buy whatever songs you like, and they're cheap. You don't need disc changers. At the current pricing model, you still likely spend less than you would have with cds.

post #20 of 27
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
I checked out their website and I'd bet $$$ that I could rip a physical CD I own and then sell the digital copies to ReDigi and they would have no way of knowing where my songs came from. Do you think that would be acceptable?

 

Well, no. That's why each ecosystem would have its own system for doing this and obviously wouldn't accept files that didn't report as purchased therefrom.


What's to stop me from making a "backup" before I sell a song?

 

The metadata burnt into it that ties it to your account.


Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post
It is an issue because the reason the copyright law exist is to give the copyright owner the exclusive right to sell copies of his/her work. By allowing the sale of digital music/movies you are taking that right away and give it to someone else.

 

So it's legal for DVDs, VHS, video games, and CDs, but NOT for digital copies of said content. Yeah, that makes sense¡ 


Regarding you solution of removing the sold item from your purchases.. are you serious?!! Do you think Apple, Amazon, RIAA et al want this to happen or help make it happen?!

 

Yep, you didn't read it correctly.


Even with CD you can keep a copy of the content of you sell it.

 

Not legally… 

post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So it's legal for DVDs, VHS, video games, and CDs, but NOT for digital copies of said content. Yeah, that makes sense¡ 

 

Yep, you didn't read it correctly.

 

Not legally… 

 

1) Go to my earlier post (Post # 15) or read the article. When you sell DVDs, VHS, video games, and CD you are selling the original purchased work not a reproduction. For example, you cannot sell your backup copy of a CD, DVD, or VHS if you lose your original media.

 

2) What I didn't read correctly? You are trying to give a solution to something completely different. Read the article:

 

"though the question as to whether the unauthorized transfer of said music over the internet constitutes "reproduction." Ultimately, the jurist found that such transfer does in fact do so."

 

3) I didn't say it is legal.


Edited by NasserAE - 4/1/13 at 9:31pm
post #22 of 27
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post
…you are selling the original purchased work not a reproduction. For example, you cannot sell your backup copy of a CD, DVD, or VHS if you lose your original media.

 

No, you're selling a reproduction of the work. If it's not the original tape on which it was recorded, it's a copy. If the issue at hand is "original purchased work", then by simply moving your files to someone else's computer, you can LEGALLY SELL a digital copy.


3) I didn't say it is legal.

 

That's sort of the argument at hand…

post #23 of 27

So why don't ReDigi just create an application for their users that actually transfers files instead of relying on users copying and then deleting the original? It should be easy to create an application that does actually "transfer" files bit by bit.

post #24 of 27
You don't own particular 1s and 0s on your media device. You own a right to access content legally. It's a prop for capitalism that underscores its growing absurdity and irrelevalance. It's needed to provide motivation for people with insufficient capital to toil even tho we are approaching a level of automation that will make this unnecessary and unworkable. It is maintained by stakeholders in the existing setup who aren't afraid to resort to state violence to maintain their social position.
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

So the judge said you're not allowed to own the 1's and 0's stored on your HDD or Flash memory. We have moved one step closer to you never owning anything, you will be only borrowing or renting it. And will have to pay ever time you use it.

 

Let see we could buy and sell, LP's 45's, 8-track, Cassetts, CD, DVD, and not that we are at the end of the road and the music industry do not see the next method of selling the same song to you yet again, you are no longer allow to set the mp3.

 

Read the court's judgement.  The judge specifically says that he is following the copyright law and other court precedents, and is not trying to change the copyright law, because that's the legislature's job.  Your argument is not with the judge, it's with Congress.
 
Regarding "we have moved one step closer to you never owning anything" and "you are no longer allowed to sell the MP3":  you seem to be laboring under a misconception that you used to "own" your digital download, but now you don't.  You never did "own" it in the sense that you could never resell it or transfer it to someone else, legally.  Nothing has changed here.  The court has simply reaffirmed it.  Just because it happens to live as 1's and 0's on your HDD or Flash, doesn't change anything.  
 
Yes, you can buy and sell used physical media containing recordings.  Nothing has changed there either.  
 
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas View Post

 

Read the court's judgement.  The judge specifically says that he is following the copyright law and other court precedents, and is not trying to change the copyright law, because that's the legislature's job.  Your argument is not with the judge, it's with Congress.
 
Regarding "we have moved one step closer to you never owning anything" and "you are no longer allowed to sell the MP3":  you seem to be laboring under a misconception that you used to "own" your digital download, but now you don't.  You never did "own" it in the sense that you could never resell it or transfer it to someone else, legally.  Nothing has changed here.  The court has simply reaffirmed it.  Just because it happens to live as 1's and 0's on your HDD or Flash, doesn't change anything.  
 
Yes, you can buy and sell used physical media containing recordings.  Nothing has changed there either.  
 

Actually that is not true, The Content owners tried to argue when this whole file sharing controversy started that consumers never owned the rights to the content on the CD or other physical media in the first place. Therefore they could not make digital copy only another physical copy under the copyright laws nor were you then allow to sell the original. Well this whole argument went down a rat hole real fast as you would image and the courts threaten the entire music industry is consumer fraud.

 

Content owner do believe you do not own and never owned the content, as such you do not have a right to resell what you bought. They base this on the fact the "one" original is in their possession and what you bought on a CD or other physical media is just a copy of the original. Thus you have no rights to the sell since they still retain the 'one" original. 

 

They are using a similar argument with an mp3 they believe that every mp3 file is actually the "one" original, again we know is not true since most all mp3 file are crap copy of the actually 'one" original file which contains far more information than any mp3 sold today.

 

If content owners had their way, you would be required to pay them a fee ever time their content ownership changed hands no matter the media type. The court have tossed this idea thus the reason the Music industry does not want people selling their mp3 they have legal bough. There are plenty of not so popular mp3 i now have which I bough and I would love to sell for $0.50 if someone would want to buy them since I no longer listen to them.

 

Anyway I stand by my statement, we moving to a point where you no longer own things and are not free to do with it as you like. Why do you think the Music industry like subscription models over a sales model, again you never own it and when you stop paying every month you no longer get to use it.

post #27 of 27
You are all mixed up. Your facts are wrong and you are conflating unrelated points, and times in history.

In particular the issue of reselling physical media with copyrighted content has been settled for decades with the first sale doctrine, at least in the USA.

Other than that you NEVER had resale/transfer rights to content. And digital downloads or ripped/copied content are JUST CONTENT there is no physical media.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Judge denies right to resell iTunes songs, digital media still protected under copyright laws