Judge denies right to resell iTunes songs, digital media still protected under copyright laws
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Originally Posted by lightknight
It does make a solid argument for NOT removing physical readers of computers, since it means suddenly your music becomes non transferable.
Not really…
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
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.
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.
Government of the people, by the corporation, for the corporation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
You have first sale rights with physical media, but for whatever reason we lose that with digital downloads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
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.
Originally Posted by NasserAE
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer
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
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.
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
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
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…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.