ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
from the a-big-first-sale-loss dept
This is hardly a surprise at all. In fact, we expected this kind of ruling all along. ReDigi, the company that was trying to build a "market" around "used MP3s" has lost at the district court. As you may recall, ReDigi tried to set up a system that monitors your own files, so that if you "sell" a used MP3, you have to make sure it's been removed from your own system. As you might imagine, that system is not foolproof, but some effort has been made (and it's only allowed for reselling MP3s ReDigi can prove you've purchased, such as via iTunes, and not for files just ripped from CDs). While I fully expected ReDigi to lose, the ruling is still fairly distressing in just how badly it distorts other parts of the law, which may harm other, even more reasonable uses. Hopefully, ReDigi will appeal and fight back against the more extreme interpretation from the district court here.First, the court looks into the question of whether or not a transfer of a copyrighted file, where only one file remains at the end, still violates the "reproduction" right. That is, if Bob transfers a file to Alice, and Bob's copy of the file is immediately deleted, is that still a reproduction under the Copyright Act? The court says yes:
...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.Of course, that same bit of the Copyright Act also makes clear that "copying" does not apply to purely digital files, but the court tap dances around that argument. Basically, it says whether or not there are more in the world is meaningless. All that matters is if a copy was made, even if the original was destroyed.
The Copyright Act provides that a copyright owner has the exclusive right “to reproduce the copyrighted work in . . . phonorecords.” Copyrighted works are defined to include, inter alia, “sound recordings,” which are “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds.” Such works are distinguished from their material embodiments. These include phonorecords, which are the “material objects in which sounds . . . are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” Thus, the plain text of the Copyright Act makes clear that reproduction occurs when a copyrighted work is fixed in a new material object.
Simply put, it is the creation of a new material object and not an additional material object that defines the reproduction right. The dictionary defines “reproduction” to mean, inter alia, “to produce again” or “to cause to exist again or anew.” See Merriam-Webster Collegiate Edition 994 (10th ed. 1998) (emphasis added). Significantly, it is not defined as “to produce again while the original exists.” Thus, the right “to reproduce the copyrighted work in . . . phonorecords” is implicated whenever a sound recording is fixed in a new material object, regardless of whether the sound recording remains fixed in the original material object.Basically, under this interpretation, you can never "transfer" a digital file. You can only make a reproduction under copyright law. And, yes, computers transfer files by making copies of them, but it seems a bit ridiculous that the whole concept of a transfer can be wiped out because of that. In fact, by this interpretation, even streaming (which still involves all the data being temporarily copied to your local computer) would count as reproduction. ReDigi pointed this out, noting the possibility of merely cleaning up your own hard drive being considered infringing, but the court buys Capitol Records's (EMI) argument that such uses are protected under other theories.
Moving on to the question of distribution, ReDigi doesn't deny that it's distributing files, but says that it's protected by fair use and (more importantly), first sale. Again, however, the court doesn't buy it. Part of the issue may be that ReDigi "abandoned" an argument it made earlier that merely transferring a file to a cloud locker for personal use is fair use, so it's left arguing that other aspects of its service are covered by fair use, but that's much more difficult under the basic four factors test. On this part, it's not that surprising that ReDigi failed to convince the court, as I'm not sure I see the fair use argument either.
The first sale part is where it gets more troubling. Effectively, the court wipes out first sale for digital goods, arguing that because (as above) each transfer is not really a "transfer" but a "copy," first sale doesn't apply. That is, first sale only applies to the initial "copy" "made under this title." But, the court argues, because the sale involves making a new copy, it's not covered by first sale.
In addition, the first sale doctrine does not protect ReDigi’s distribution of Capitol’s copyrighted works. This is because, as an unlawful reproduction, a digital music file sold on ReDigi is not “lawfully made under this title.” ... Moreover, the statute protects only distribution by “the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord . . . of that copy or phonorecord.” Here, a ReDigi user owns the phonorecord that was created when she purchased and downloaded a song from iTunes to her hard disk. But to sell that song on ReDigi, she must produce a new phonorecord on the ReDigi server. Because it is therefore impossible for the user to sell her “particular” phonorecord on ReDigi, the first sale statute cannot provide a defense. Put another way, the first sale defense is limited to material items, like records, that the copyright owner put into the stream of commerce. Here, ReDigi is not distributing such material items; rather, it is distributing reproductions of the copyrighted code embedded in new material objects, namely, the ReDigi server in Arizona and its users’ hard drives. The first sale defense does not cover this any more than it covered the sale of cassette recordings of vinyl records in a bygone era.That seems silly. Selling a legally purchased MP3 is absolutely nothing like selling a cassette recording of a vinyl record. When ReDigi points out that, under this interpretation, digital files have no first sale rights, the court hits back that this is not true. After all, it argues, you can still sell your hard drive with the original file on it. No, seriously. That's the court's response.
Section 109(a) still protects a lawful owner’s sale of her “particular” phonorecord, be it a computer hard disk, iPod, or other memory device onto which the file was originally downloaded. While this limitation clearly presents obstacles to resale that are different from, and perhaps even more onerous than, those involved in the resale of CDs and cassettes, the limitation is hardly absurd – the first sale doctrine was enacted in a world where the ease and speed of data transfer could not have been imagined.The court argues that if such an interpretation is ridiculous (though it argues it is not) then it's up to Congress to fix it.
With that out of the way, the court says that ReDigi is guilty of direct infringement, contributory infringement ("the court finally concludes that ReDigi's service is not capable of substantial noninfringing uses"), and vicarious infringement. Basically, a triple play and ReDigi is completely out of the inning. While I'm still not convinced about the fair use argument, the court basically killing off first sale for digital goods is a pretty big problem, and hopefully higher courts (or, dare we dream, Congress?) will fix such an obviously nutty ruling.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, distribution, fair use, first sale, mp3s, reproduction, transfer, used mp3s
Companies: columbia records, emi, redigi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yikes!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, the idea of selling used digital data is something that the market should quickly kill off on its own. In a sane world, it would be, because there would be no demand for it. However, in our world, where copyright is a bitch, the idea of selling your files once you're done with them is nice (Steam games once you're done with them, anyone?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And unless I've gone crazy, this court ruling makes it illegal for you to backup the files you purchased (well, more than the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA already does). They say Alice is only allowed the one copy of the MP3 she downloads from the server onto Hard Drive 1. What if she copies the song for storage onto Hard Drive 2?
More proof that copyright cannot co-exist peacefully in an age of infinite, identical copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A better question is what if I copy all my music to a USB drive, and then sell the USB drive as just a USB drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hell while we are at it I wonder if defragging your hard drive would count as infringement? You are effectively "refixing" the file to a different part of the physical material by copying bits of it to a closer physical space. Does that qualify as being in the same 'material' and so that's ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> backup the files you purchased
What I understand Mike's post says is that the court ruled that that would be true, except for the fact that there is other law/precedent which explicitly allows that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Data is non-scarce, ones and zeroes can ALWAYS be copied, that what computers do... regardless of what copyright or DRM says.
In a normal, sane, economy there is no point in trying to sell a non-scarce good such as air, and a used non-scarce good? Why, you might as well try to sell your used breath.
Man, talk about wasting breath...
Of course, there is nothing normal or sane about copyright, but try as they might the MAFFIA can never change the fundamental economics of the situation. Unless they institute communism, which come to think of it, might be the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you download it to your computer hard drive and then transfer it to the USB stick it's an illegal copy and the RIAA can sue you for $22 000 / song in damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would seem to be true even if you didn't intend to sell the USB stick.
It would also seem to apply to any transfer of MP3 files from your PC to, say, an MP3 player or phone.
Bad, bad, bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then again...what if you carefully set up whatever download program you're using to treat the USB stick as the destination, sell the stick, but keep the tracks loaded in the buffer of a playback program while keeping your computer on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What if you download them to RAM and then move them to a flash drive? Would that be illegal copying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What if someone creates an app that lets you tie the free disk space you have on multiple systems together to use as a single remote volume? I can come up with all kinds of novel ways to work with files and their filesystems that would run afoul of this ruling just sitting in my basement.
Sounds like, with this ruling, now doing anything with protected media other than consuming it from the original device it was downloaded on using approved software is now illegal. Want to move your music from one folder to another? Illegal. Want to copy music from your old PC to a new system prior to throwing the old PC away? Illegal. Are someone who only had an iPod but no full PC until recently? All that stuff you downloaded on your iPod must stay there forever.
Well, if it was hyperbole before, with his ruling, if I am reading it right, all computer users in the US will violate copyright everyday, multiple times a day, just by using their computers.
Of course from a practical sense it would be hard to harass the public over this. You would first have to prove the user actually understands how the software on their system works well enough to actually willfully infringe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's been illegal since 1998 and the DMCA. What this ruling makes illegal is transferring an *un*protected file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*Note- with a RAID-5 array, the purchaser could extract the missing data on the last drive from the X-1 drives they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd be happy getting back my "you must be a thief tax" from all my blank media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: alanbleiweiss on Apr 1st, 2013 @ 12:21pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They opened a huge hole here
Don't ever download to your harddisk. Download to a CD. Then "rip" it to your harddrive and use it there. The CD is then your first copy, so when you no longer need that track, you can sell it (as long as you get rid of the copies on your harddrive and other music devices first).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They opened a huge hole here
I am not sure there are any tools out there that can take a data stream and push the output directly onto a an optical disc short of leaving the session open and treating it as an RW device. Even then I would wager the files stop off at the hard drive before being written to the open session.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They opened a huge hole here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They opened a huge hole here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They opened a huge hole here
It's stupid that the act of moving a digital file from one medium to another is considered a copy. It's the same friggin file! If courts could just reach this conclusion (that making a copy then deleting the original is the equivalent of moving a physical object) then so most all bad prior rulings would be invalidated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They opened a huge hole here
Then sell the sticks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Internet Friendly, so Obsolete
Not everyone has caught up with that one of course but over in the US then Congress and the Justice system would be doing the consumers a vast injustice by not allowing people to resell their digital purchases.
Indeed saying that they could sell their HDDs is extremely stupid when digital media operates fully independently from the physical medium that hosts it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what happens when I buy a new computer ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember when we talked about this, and I pointed out that that argument is foreclosed by Tasini? You pulled out that same, tired argument from Bridges, and I pointed out how it was wrong. He you are pulling it out again. Wishing doesn't make it so, Mike.
You: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/03150921014/why-do-we-even-have-distribution-as-right-prot ected-copyright.shtml#c225
Me: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/03150921014/why-do-we-even-have-distribution-as-right-prot ected-copyright.shtml#c311
Me: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/03150921014/why-do-we-even-have-distribution-as-right-prot ected-copyright.shtml#c562
Me: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/03150921014/why-do-we-even-have-distribution-as-right-prot ected-copyright.shtml#c587
I don't expect you to respond since you and I both know that you'll just keep on repeating the lie and you have no intention of having a substantive discussion. But everyone can see there that I rebutted your silly argument and yet here you are making it again. Just as you've done hundreds and hundreds of times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fuck you. Fuck you so much.
Signed-
The Public. Every last one of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're just like Mikey likes 'em, dumb and angry at the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My point still stands.
The world would be a better place without you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or are you just referring to drugs that they can't have 100% control over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, even if you do ask, Mike may still not respond. He's a busy man. But the possibility of it happening does go up significantly. The last time I asked, politely, he responded to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So Mike runs away every time. Huh.
So why is it, in the VERY LINKS YOU PROVIDE, I found a discussion between you two?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Really? He pretended like I was wrong and said: "I see. Can't win an argument so you pretend you know what I do and don't know. It's fun to watch you flail around."
I then proved him wrong by citing Tasini and other cases, and guess what, he ran away and did not respond to all of my arguments or the cases I cited that proved him wrong. As soon as he realized he was beat, he ran. Just like he does every time. If he manned up and admitted his error, I would have respected that. But he didn't because he can't stand to be proved wrong. That's why he runs every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is me calling you out for being a very obvious and bad liar. You stated, multiple times, flat out, that Mike NEVER discusses with you. That is an absolute statement. Then, to back up your point, you cheerfully provided links to...a discussion. Get it? For some fucking reason, you provided links to something that proved you wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would be like if I were to go prancing around saying the Holocaust never happened while dancing in front of and inviting people to walk around Auschwitz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't hard, Anonymous Coward.
Maybe, just maybe, he isn't "running away". Maybe, just maybe, he's got a life outside of you. He's a busy man, with a company to run and articles to write. For you to constantly go on about how the sole reason he doesn't reply to you is because he knows he can't win, says a lot more about your huge-ass ego than it does about Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for proving us here at Techdirt right again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The poster is correct: It's quite obvious that Masnick flees when confronted with the inconvenient facts that prove him so dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hilarious considering how often you whine about him not arguing directly with you.
Face it, we all know you have an ego that matches Masnick's on one level or another, but hell at least he's constructive with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I appreciate that, but you're confusing the cause with the symptom. I'm an arrogant and rude to Mike BECAUSE he's proved hundreds of times that he has no intention of having an honest discussion on the merits. He's a manipulative liar that can't stand to be challenged. If he wants me to act nice, all he has to do is be open, honest, and human. Just a couple weeks ago he engaged me and we had a nice, friendly chat. The ball's in his court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that it is not foreclosed by Tasini. I have just re-read it, and it is about whether inclusion in a database is the equivalent under copyright of a "revision" of the work.
Indeed, in that very thread, you quote a different case and not Tasini. It is from a Massachusetts District Court ruling (London-Sire Records v. Does), which has no force outside of Massachusetts.
Now, I happen to agree with that ruling - that (non-transitory) digital files are "material objects" in which a work is "fixed." But it is not Tasini that makes it.
Furthermore, it should also go against this ruling. If you are an owner of a "material object" in which a work is "fixed," then that object is a "copy" under the Copyright Act, and first sale should apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except that it is not foreclosed by Tasini. I have just re-read it, and it is about whether inclusion in a database is the equivalent under copyright of a "revision" of the work. Indeed, in that very thread, you quote a different case and not Tasini. It is from a Massachusetts District Court ruling (London-Sire Records v. Does), which has no force outside of Massachusetts.
One of the links supplied above is me quoting Tasini in that other thread: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/03150921014/why-do-we-even-have-distribution-as-right-prot ected-copyright.shtml#c562
Tasini does indeed foreclose the argument, as indicated.
I also quoted the London-Sire case there, which just so happens to be heavily relied upon by the district court here. It's not binding precedent, but it's so persuasive that the court here adopted its reasoning.
Furthermore, it should also go against this ruling. If you are an owner of a "material object" in which a work is "fixed," then that object is a "copy" under the Copyright Act, and first sale should apply.
As the court here explains, people are not selling that particular material object. They're causing a new copy to be made in a different material object. That's why first sale doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
More handwaving, hilarious! I think next you should try the "Here's ten pages of text now do you believe me to be correct?" tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right, and the Court talks explicitly about "LEXIS/NEXIS' central discs and UMI's CD-ROMs." It doesn't explicitly reference digital files, and it's not clear whether "distribution" would apply to only the files, as distinct from the "central discs" or "CD-ROMs."
Nor does it need to. Unlike the London-Sire case, the defendants did not even touch on the subject in their defense, nor would it have made any difference whatsoever in the outcome of the case.
Of course, that does not mean that the Court ruled that digital files are not subject to "distribution" laws. If the court had examined this particular question explicitly, then they probably would have ruled in the same way the Massachusetts court did.
But "probably would have ruled" is very different than "did actually rule." Tasini may have heavily implied the outcome of the issue, but they did not "forclose" on any other outcome. There are cases that do, but Tasini is not one of them.
As the court here explains, people are not selling that particular material object.
Under this Court's interpretation, no digital distributor is can possibly sell any particular material object. Not iTunes, Microsoft, Steam, or anyone else. The "material object" that a customer (supposedly) owns, is not the same "material object" on the servers of Apple, Microsoft, or Valve. In fact, selling any kind of "material object" is legally impossible using digital distribution.
So, either these vendors are not distributing a "material object," in which case they're not "distributing" anything under copyright law; or they are, in which case you should be able to resell that "material object" in the same way that the vendors did. You can't have it both ways.
Of course, neither outcome seems exactly right. I expect a higher court will either clarify the issue, or (more likely) punt it to Congress, and decide the case some other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of those cases, by the way, was the one you quoted further down - Arista v. Usenet. They, too, focused on Tasini.
I don't believe the Arista court correctly interpreted Tasini, but they didn't conflict with that ruling, either. They took a (somewhat) ambiguous statement, and ignored the ambiguity when they interpreted it. It's not wrong, but it - rather than Tasini - is the case I would quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Supreme Court explicitly says that it's "clear" that distributing digital files over the internet implicates the distribution right. I'm sorry you don't see it. This court understood it: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/03150921014/why-do-we-even-have-distribution-as-right-prot ected-copyright.shtml#c587 You simply are reading the case wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that they're not talking about "distributing digital files over the internet." They are talking about distributing digital files on CD-ROM, and viewing files that reside on LEXIS/NEXIS "central discs" (their database).
That's why the Librarian of Congress argued that LEXIS/NEXIS was violating the "display" right, which is not covered under 201(c). But: "Satisfied that the Publishers exercised rights 106 initially assigns exclusively to the Author, we need resolve no more on that score." (Footnote 8.)
They did not examine which right was violated, because they didn't need to; they never even looked at the language of the statute itself, because, again, they didn't need to. The question was never raised by the defense, and wouldn't have affected the outcome of the case.
Because that was never the deciding factor. The deciding factor was whether inclusion in a database is "a revision of a collective work." That was the only defense the publishers raised, and the only thing the court needed to decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just wrong.
The Court said: "and LEXIS/NEXIS, by selling copies of the Articles through the NEXIS Database, �distribute copies� of the Articles �to the public by sale,� � 106(3)."
"Through the NEXIS Database," Karl. It couldn't be more clear.
That database is the one that's available on the internet. They weren't talking about distributing the CD's, they were talking about distributing the digital files over the internet.
This is confirmed in the other link I provided:Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 124, 146-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
"Tasini indicates that the delivery of articles and/or content TO DOWNLOAD" is distribution. DOWNLOAD. As in, OVER THE FREAKING INTERNET.
This is what's so frustrating about debating you. No matter how wrong you are, you insist that you're right. I'm sorry you don't see it, but everything I've said on this point is 100% correct. The district court in London-Sire agreed with what I'm saying, as did the district court here with Redigi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is unclear whether they were referring to downloads when they talked about "selling copies." The contents of other defendants' CD-ROM's, for example, were reproduced from the LEXIS/NEXIS database for a fee.
In fact, the ruling didn't touch on any distinction between downloading and viewing the articles. The language was all about the "display of each article;" how it "appears" to the user; how it is "presented to, and perceptible by, the user of the Databases;" and so forth. Thus, the argument of the Librarian of Congress, regarding the "display" right - which the court did not need to determine or decide.
In other words, the court is vague - obviously; the entire discussion consists of one sentence and a footnote, without any examination of the statutes, or even mentioning any alternate arguments. They don't need to be anything but vague, because nobody even raised the argument, and it would have made absolutely no difference at all to the outcome.
Let's say another court had ruled that selling a digital download was not "distributing" a "material object" under the language of the statute; instead, it was an "authorization" for users to make "material objects" on their own hard drives. (This viewpoint, incidentally, is the only thing I can think of that would be consistent with the ReDigi ruling).
Do you think that ruling would have been "foreclosed" by Tasini? I don't. Nor would it have made the defendants in Tasini any less liable (since all of them made, and/or authorized, tangible copies).
Also, I explained my position on the Arista court earlier. They read a bit too much into Tasini, IMO. But it's not inconsistent, nor is it legally wrong; and they're both courts of equal standing, so the point is really moot. Tasini may not have "foreclosed" the argument, but later courts certainly have.
Which makes the ReDigi ruling all the more confusing, because it appears to directly contradict all the other courts on this matter (as I suggested above). In order to "distribute" a digital file, you need to "transfer" it, and the ReDigi court seems to say that this is completely impossible even in theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're talking about the ONLINE DATABASE (the very one I used to find this quote).
"UMI, by selling those CD-ROMs, and LEXIS/NEXIS, by selling copies of the Articles through the NEXIS Database, �distribute copies� of the Articles �to the public by sale,� � 106(3)" Tasini at 498.
UMI was the one with the CD's. LEXIS/NEXIS had the online database.
Go back to the district court: "MEAD owns and operates NEXIS, an on-line, electronic, computer assisted text retrieval system in which articles from a number of leading newspapers, newsletters, magazines, and wire services�including The New York Times, Newsday, and Sports Illustrated�are displayed or printed in response to search requests from subscribers. . . . UMI produces and distributes two CD�ROM products identified by plaintiffs in their Amended Complaint." 972 F.Supp. at 806.
NEXIS is ONLINE. UMI is the CD's.
"NEXIS instead uses the electronic files to input the contents of each article on-line along with such information as the author's name, and the publication and page in which each article appeared." 972 F.Supp. at 808.
They put the electronic files ONLINE.
"Customers enter NEXIS by using a telecommunications package that enables them to access NEXIS' mainframe computers. Once on-line, customers enter �libraries� consisting of the articles from particular publications, or groups of publications." Id.
It's FREAKING ONLINE. This is why I often leave discussions with you. It's not that I'm running away, it's that you're a brick wall. It's really frustrating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And when you read that quote, did you download a copy, or just view it online?
The "distribution" right would only be implicated in the former, and not the latter (which would be the "display" right).
The court never made this distinction, because it never had to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I misspoke slightly. The "distribution" right would only be implicated in the former, if downloading a digital file constituted a "transfer" of a "material object."
Which is exactly what the ReDigi court said is impossible. Hence the confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He only viewed it online. LOL
Lots of chuckles here today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Isn't that exactly what Mike said to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Call it the blink of an eye test, if there's one copy on a hard drive before you blink, now there's one copy on a CD, and examining them shows that the copy on the CD is identical to what was on the hard drive, then no infringement occurred.
For the court to try to concern itself with what happened during that split second is a pointless technical examination which will forever be re-interpreted as the level of technical detail that new courts could choose to consider is unbounded. The next case could be talking about how the movment of atoms within the CDs structure means that it isn't a fixed medium and that no mediums are really fixed, therefore nothing can be copyrighted. It's just as ridiculous as saying that there's no way to transfer a digital file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In short, I don't really know why you still bother. You're either extremely hardheaded or you genuinely believe that you're fighting the battle of the downtrodden copyright holders like those poor, poor souls at the RIAA who would break down into tears at any moment if it weren't for the emotional support of some anonymous guy on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In this article, Mike claims: "Of course, that same bit of the Copyright Act also makes clear that "copying" does not apply to purely digital files, but the court tap dances around that argument." He again cites Bridges for the argument.
Mike is confused here because Bridges was talking about the distribution right (as Mike correctly noted in my first link) and not the reproduction right (as Mike erroneously says here), but it's clear that Mike thinks that the Copyright Act doesn't apply to digital files.
My point, which remains unrebutted (because I'm right), is that the Supreme Court foreclosed this argument when in Tasini it HELD (not dicta, but holding) that sending a digital file over the internet implicates the distribution right found in Section 106.
I explained this to Mike, and, of course, he ran away and never addressed the case law that I cited that proved him wrong. And then here again today he's pulling the same debunked argument back out and pretending like distribution of digital files isn't even infringement. He just keeps repeating the lies, either out of stupidity or malice (I suspect healthy doses of both).
So explain to me how exactly I'm "attempting to trick people." The only one tricking people is Pirate Mike. Rather than admit that he was proved wrong, he intentionally repeats the lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not the source. Mike linked to this article:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080508/1119441065.shtml
Mike thinks that the Copyright Act doesn't apply to digital files.
Mike said no such thing, so you're making a straw man argument. Or, in layman's terms, lying.
Pirate Mike
And this is why Mike doesn't debate you. You lie and insult him.
To be fair, you do this to everyone who disagrees with you. In the very comments you linked to, you referred to the EFF as "your piratical allies." Anyone who actually believes that about the EFF is an idiot who isn't worth debating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, I've just checked my comment record. Of the last five posts where you and I have interacted, I've made the last comment in all five of those posts.
Guess what, you ran away and did not respond to all of my arguments or the cases I cited that proved you wrong. As soon as you realized you were beat, you ran. Just like you do every time.
Obviously, you are too cowardly to debate me on the merits. As soon as you know you're losing or being made to look dumb, you run. This isn't hard. There is no doubt whatsoever. Obviously, you're just a big baby who can't defend what you write and who can't discuss your personal beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For as much as he bitches about how "terrible" Masnick is, at least Mike isn't petty enough to goad people into arguments via insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LMAO! Karl, I've spent hundreds of hours over the past few years going at it with you. I respond in depth and at length, always telling you exactly what I believe. I back up what I say, and I always shoot straight without mincing words. To say that I run from you is disingenuous. Nobody engages anybody more than I've engaged you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bingo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Karl,
If you can't even be honest about the fact that I have engaged you many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times at length and on the merits--more so than any other two people on TD have engaged each other--then I guess I don't see the point in ever engaging you again. I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours debating you, going off on all sorts of tangents as you tend to do.
Can you not admit this? If not, it's been fun chatting with you. I wish you good luck in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you can't be bothered to know the difference between dishonesty and sarcasm, then it's been fun chatting with you, and good luck in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for admitting that it's not true. If only Mike were 1/10th as willing as you to discuss the issues on the merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, again, whoosh!
I thought it was obvious, but I guess I have to spell it out. The entire comment was a satire of your comments here - in fact, most of it was direct quotes of things you've said about Mike in this thread.
Yes, you've engaged me many times in the comments - just like Mike has engaged you. The fact that you keep posting things after he replied to you - and after you've lied about what he said, and his motives, and consistently attack and berate him - does not mean he hasn't engaged you. And it doesn't mean he's "running away" or a "coward."
Just as the fact that I've posted the "last word" in our discussions doesn't mean you're "running away" or a "coward."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Snap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the other article he said: "Technically, the distribution right under copyright law does not apply to digital files." He cites attorney Andrew Bridges for the claim. Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/03150921014/why-do-we-even-have-distribution-as-right-prot ected-copyright.shtml
So there he thinks it doesn't apply to the distribution right.
And in this article he says: "Of course, that same bit of the Copyright Act also makes clear that "copying" does not apply to purely digital files, but the court tap dances around that argument."
So here he's trying to extend it to the reproduction right.
If ever there were a person who wished that copyright law didn't apply on the internet, it's Mike.
And this is why Mike doesn't debate you. You lie and insult him.
I proved Mike wrong about Tasini and he ran away rather than man up and admit I was right. And now here he's pulling out the same argument that I completely debunked. The benefit of not addressing my criticism and admitting that I'm right is that he can keep repeating the lies.
To be fair, you do this to everyone who disagrees with you. In the very comments you linked to, you referred to the EFF as "your piratical allies." Anyone who actually believes that about the EFF is an idiot who isn't worth debating.
The EFF are pro-tech and anti-copyright just like Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The EFF are pro-tech and anti-copyright just like Mike.
The EFF are not "pro-tech." They are pro-free speech, pro-privacy rights, and pro-individual rights, especially regarding electronic communications of all forms. If that makes them "anti-copyright," then that reflects badly on copyright, not the EFF.
Fortunately for copyright, the EFF is not "anti-copyright." They are against instances where copyright law intrudes upon free speech, privacy, and individual rights - things that anyone who is "pro-copyright" should also be against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Similarly, how can it be both malice and stupidity? Besides being a stupid ad hom that doesn't make sense. It can't be malice if he's too stupid to know better and it can't be too stupid to know better if he's doing it out of malice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way - you did read that actual article that Mike linked to, right?
In case you didn't, I'll refresh your memory:
So, why even quote Tasini? Mike (and von Lohmann) have already acknowledged that courts have "disagreed or ignored it." It doesn't prove Mike wrong, because Mike never said that the interpretation was favored by the courts - only by a "very literal reading of the law."
And, since the court here is taking an equally literal reading, it's apropos to point out their inconsistency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because in the article I linked to, Mike claims: "Technically, the distribution right under copyright law does not apply to digital files." (emphasis his). Source: www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/03150921014/why-do-we-even-have-distribution-as-right-protected-c opyright.shtml
Mike doesn't link to that other article you're quoting, and he doesn't admit that no court ever has agreed with that silly reading of the statute. He's intentionally leaving out the inconvenient truths that he doesn't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Go to the above story, and click on the words "does not apply" that are in blue. This is called a "hyperlink," or generally a "link."
If you do you will be taken to a Techdirt story, whose title is: "IP Lawyer Explains Why Uploading Files May Not Be Distribution For Copyright."
In fact, Mike does not link to the story that you are linking to.
and he doesn't admit that no court ever has agreed with that silly reading of the statute. He's intentionally leaving out the inconvenient truths that he doesn't like.
He certainly did in the article which he linked to, above.
But he also did in the story that you linked to:
Mike left nothing out. You did, intentionally, so that you could accuse him of not saying the thing that you left out. Or, in layman's terms, so you could lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also this bit from Tasini:
Sounds like it contradicts the ruling above to me. Tasini seems to hold that it's distribution regardless of if a material object changes hands but that would make this transfer ok since first sale covers the right to distribute. The opinion in this case appears to be that there's no such thing as digital distribution. That digital distribution is always reproduction and therefor isn't covered by first sale. So which is it? Does the fact that a material object does or does not "change hands" matter, as it does in this case, or not matter as it did in Tasini? If a file transfer is distribution then it should be covered by first sale, if it's not then it shouldn't be a violation of the distribution right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Excellent! I've been pondering the same thing. I think I have an answer, but I'm out the door for the day. I'll try and respond this evening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not just Mike, but also Andrew Bridges, Fred von Lohmann, and (according to von Lohmann) "just about every copyright scholar."
Also, "against" may be a strong word - "not supported by a technical reading of the statute" might be better.
And not the Tasini case:
Also this bit from Tasini:
I think you meant to say "this bit from London-Sire v. Does," since that's the case the quote is from, and not Tasini.
What is interesting is that they rely on the First Sale doctrine to make this ruling - something that this court explicitly rejects.
Off-topic, but also interesting, is the fact that this case shows - yet again - why Arcara does not apply to copyright infringement:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.
We need a way to punish bad judgements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: .
Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: .
SIGH SIGH SIGH SIGH
LOOK HOW SUPERIOR I AM, I CAN SIGH
ON THE INTERNET
ps, I have patented sighing on the internet to express a pathetic aura of self-superiority, you now owe me 2,000 dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have even fewer rights to what I paid for, so it should cost less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
applicable laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm told to 'buy this MP3 at ITunes' or wherever, the word 'Buy' comes into play as if I buy anything, shouldn't I OWN it? If I'm buying a license should it not be purchase 'your licensed MP3 at ITunes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All of you contribute to this awful market where you do not own what you bought.
I am a Proud Dinosaur sitting on a vast collection of physical vintage and rare books.They will all get to be in my Will.Right now my books alone are conservatively appraised at $16500.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computers really do copy things all the time, whether it's clear that that's what they're doing or not. It's just a part of how they work. And combined with the specific language of the Copyright Act, this leads to problems.
Clearly the solution is for ReDigi 2 to set up a bunch of server space and to distribute a client to their users so that when the user legally downloads a song, it is directed through the computer onto the mounted server, which provides a separate partition (a small one) for each track. Then users need only sell access to specific partitions and copies (tangible objects, remember) can change owners without leaving the embailment of ReDigi 2.
Or to just, you know, reform the law to accommodate things that the public wants to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I created a way to kill you and get away with it, it wouldn't make it any more legal or moral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the public generally wanted to kill people you might have a point at least worth discussing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The public doesn't generally want to rip off creators.
It's just you slimeballs that do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. And nobody here does, either.
Nor, for that matter, do people who pirate. That's obvious, because pirates buy more than non-pirates.
If anything, people pirate because a) they're not given any way to buy legally, and/or b) because they know that paying for copies won't actually put money in the pockets of creators - and choose, instead, to spend their money on things that will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. And nobody here does, either.
"Rip off" is very vague and subjective. I'd want to know specifically what it consists of first. For example, wasn't it Garth Brooks who complained in the 90s that musicians were being ripped off by used CD sales at local record stores?
I'm sure that the public doesn't see their own behavior as wrong or objectionable for the most part, but that doesn't mean that authors would agree, or that it doesn't have negative effects on authors. Of course, just because authors disapprove or are negatively affected is no reason not to do something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I believe that if someone does something that causes my bank account balance to go down, and theirs to go up, without my informed consent, they are ripping me off.
File sharing doesn't do this, obviously, because no matter how many times my works are shared, my bank account never goes down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People get killed legally all the time. You may have to work at it a bit, but I'm sure that under the right circumstances you could do it if you really tried.
As for morality, that's a bit of a non sequitur. Copyright is amoral. It is neither morally right or morally wrong to set up copyright laws or to violate them. Although I suppose that if I were really pressed, I'd admit that pirates who don't act for financial gain (aside from the gain of not having to pay), are acting morally, because they are working against those who would lock away knowledge out of mere greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Some deranged AC once
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What About This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very bad ruling
I agree with Mike that this is a pretty horrible ruling, with immense and far-reaching implications.
I'll give you two examples.
First: I buy games on Steam (pretty much exclusively). Steam allows me to sell copies of the games I downloaded, including non-Valve games, to other Steam users. If I do, then Steam deletes the game from my system, and I no longer have the files.
Under this ruling, this is unlawful. Steam is guilty of direct infringement of both the copying and distribution rights.
Another example. Because I had to for coursework, I bought a copy of Microsoft Office 2010. I had do pay quite a lot of money for it. Now, like most people are doing nowadays (and like Microsoft themselves encourage), I bought the software not as a set of disks, but as a digital download.
Suppose, in the future, I decide to upgrade to Office 360. (I know, it's a stretch, but bear with me.) Can I resell my older version of Office to someone, after upgrading?
According to this ruling, no, I can't.
Note that these are both unlawful, regardless of whether I am considered an owner or a licensee. In essence, it makes the distinction completely irrelevant.
This makes the entire line of reasoning in Vernor v. Autodesk moot, which is one reason I think the ruling probably won't last as it stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Very bad ruling
As I read this article, I found myself wanting to yell at my monitor, "Shut up you stupid old dinosaurs, you don't even know what you're saying!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Very bad ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Very bad ruling
While I do think this ruling is atrocious, the example doesn't really fit because Redigi is a third party to the transaction and attempts to be a broker between two end users for a fee. They never had any distribution rights, so technically copies they make would be infringing. The law currently does not keep up with the reality of the current technological climate, but a conservative reading of it would come to this result.
I think this brings up a bigger issue though that will eventually bite the labels in the ass. If first sale doctrine does not apply here, the traditional reasoning behind this is because you are purchasing a license and the license is nontransferable. As seen by the recent Eminem ruling, a license commands a substantially higher royalty rate than a sale, typically on the order of 50% vs 8% respectively. While they claimed this was a special deal they reached with Eminem it seems like Chuck D and some others have begun a class action proceed (which I think techdirt has covered in the past) to try and test this theory. It seems that in the labels shortsightedness they continue to help set precedent that will go against them in that case. I can think of no way to drive them out of business faster than having to pay out 50% of all the revenue they've generated from digital sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Very bad ruling
I'm Australian and not quite sure how American law works, but my mind starts to boggle when you combine a ruling like this in conjunction with the talk (and hopefully it never amounts to more than talk) of criminalizing things such as copyright infringement. Depending on how it was implemented, obviously, something like steam could suddenly become criminal. In Australia you can not contract away something that is criminal, you just can't, I would assume the USA in similar. It could even more or less, in effect, make computers criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, probably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo effing hoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boo effing hoo
Instead of just one 99 cent song (because hey clever guy, who only has just 1 song?), Alice has 2000 99 cent songs. However, she finds that she doesn't listen to 100 or so anymore, and she would like to sell her legally purchased property. Why shouldn't she be allowed to do so?
I'll tell you why. Because you goons want your cake and to eat it too. "No no, you can't make copies, because they are digital property." and "No no, you can't sell them, because it's just a license, you don't own that."
Screw you, stupid lying shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
Why don't you actually try answering the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boo effing hoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
You see, that nice RIAA is only trying to help us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boo effing hoo
Do you have kids? Ever buy them a digital copy of something were you first download it to your machine and then install on their device? I certainly do, but legally this activity could be considered infringement.
Is it fair use, yes, but I think we all know just how well that usually works. If a company decided it wasn't then you would have to go to court and fight it, but how many will really do that? This opens everyone, and I really mean everyone, to being extorted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
If the copyright owners decide that they no longer want to be part of iTunes, what happens when they terminate the contract. Now Apple and the users are potentially infringing, since I would be surprised if the contract specifically states that once the contract no longer exists that the rights continue as if the contract was still in effect. The reason that no one would specifically state that condition is that once an item is sold at that moment, we all have expectations about certain rights that we currently have. This ruling, says that you don't that those rights.
The fact is that everyone has to operate as if something that could happen will happen (legally speaking). Even if everyone agrees that it would never occur, if it can, it will eventually. And claiming that no reasonable person would enforce it like is not a valid defense.
So the best solution is that this ruling is overturned. Otherwise, we had all expect to get even more complicated legalese in our digital lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boo effing hoo
Only because the iTunes model uses licensing to accomplish that. The right to make private copies was recognized as a right under copyright law, such as for the owner a CD, not a licensee. Now because of rulings like this one, such rights are under attack.
Amazon will at some point work out a deal with copyright holders that allows for certain digital media to be resold.
Great, but that cannot happen so long as this ruling stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boo effing hoo
You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How does a used bookstore keep you from reselling a book that, unbeknownst to them, you've xeroxed? How does a used record store keep you from reselling a CD that, without them having any way to know it, you've ripped to your computer?
They don't, and there's no reason why they should. The onus of not making new, infringing copies is on the person who had possession. If the copyright holder suspects that they did, they're free to sue him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you're a middleman, you might care a little -- a customer who sold you used works and secretly kept his own is unlikely to ever change his mind and buy back copies of what he sold from you. Other than that, though, how does it harm you?
I can certainly see why the copyright holder cares, but that's not what you asked. And anyway, they don't like anyone dealing in used copies, not that I'm particularly interested in what they do like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see a problem with this. I'm going to move my media to a nice RAID 1 and then sell one of the HDDs on ebay.
I'll then rebuild the array, and repeat. All legal, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Material Object it's copied to?
Let's assume the many routers the data passes through on the way from source to destination don't count because there is very little chance the whole file will be stored in any one router at any time. But the file data will be stored on these intermediary devices on the way in little bits for a few moments. We will also discount other parts of your computer where data could not be complete or is very unlikely to be complete (e.g. network card cache or CPU cache)
What about the system RAM the file is inevitably copied into before being written to your HDD? What about the the HDD cache RAM that the data may be copied to before being written to your HDD platter? What about the temporary storage location the system may use in the process of downloading and writing a file? For anyone less familiar with the internal workings of personal computer systems than myself, a typical download of a file by your web browser would cause a copy of the file to be created in RAM (may or may not be a complete copy) a temporary progressive copy in whatever temporary location the web browser uses until the file is completely downloaded, this temporary file is then copied to wherever you asked the file to be saved. A typical cheap domestic PC HDD these days will have an internal RAM cache of 4-8mb where data written to it may be stored temporarily (depending on how busy it is at any given moment) before it stores the data in a more permanent way. As many posters before me have pointed out, a RAID array complicates matters even more as the data is stored across multiple physical disks.
Does the above mean we should consider one whole computer a material object?
What about if I use my PC to download a file and store it on a network location, such as my NAS device sitting over to my left? What if it was copied to some sort of SAN? Do we then consider a LAN a single material device?
What if I use my PC to download a file to my cloud storage (dropbox or similar) location? Do we then consider the entire internet to be a single material object? oh, hello, now this would mean ReDigi is not making copies on different material objects, just shifting the location, so I guess not.
How do you possibly define this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Material Object it's copied to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Material Object it's copied to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Material Object it's copied to?
Let's assume the many routers the data passes through on the way from source to destination don't count because there is very little chance the whole file will be stored in any one router at any time.
doesn't work because 1) the whole file will eventually be stored in the router, even if not all at once and 2) it's infringing to store even a small part of the file and there's no set legal limit on how small the part may be and still be considered infringing.
So the situation is even more out of hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If transferring to a locker is fine....
The service could have streaming as well via web or app.
I'm sure that opens up an entirely new can of worms though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People actually BUY mp3s?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only difference between digital and tangible is the medium. The copyright aspects are the same. So are you saying that if I sell you a used CD, you don't have the right to listen to it, only to have the physical object? If not, and the license rights go with it when I sell it to you, why is it different from a digital file (other than the practical difficulty of ensuring I no longer possess a copy after I sell it to you)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Resell MP3's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]