Support NeoGAF

[Gowans]

Judge rules digital music cannot be sold 'second hand'

A company which allowed customers to resell their digital music "second hand" breached copyright, a US judge has ruled.

ReDigi billed itself as the first legal way to resell music bought online - but soon provoked the ire of record labels.

It was sued by Capitol Records in January 2012, and on Monday a New York judge said ReDigi was making unauthorised copies of music.

The ruling could have broad implications for digital reselling.

Unlike physical music CDs, Judge Richard Sullivan ruled that the "first sale doctrine" did not apply.

The doctrine is a long-established rule which allows the reselling of goods to a new owner. In other words, selling a CD once you no longer want it.

But in the digital world, where duplication is much easier, the first sale doctrine was not appropriate, the judge said.

"It is simply impossible that the same 'material object' can be transferred over the internet," he wrote in his ruling.

"ReDigi facilitates and profits from the sale of copyrighted commercial recordings, transferred in their entirety, with a likely detrimental impact on the primary market for these goods."

ReDigi argues that their system means the original download is removed from the seller's computer.

The company asks users to download proprietary software, which verifies if a file was bought legally. If the song checks out, it is then erased from the seller's hard drive and uploaded to ReDigi's computer servers.

ReDigi's software is designed to prevent sellers from reinstalling a sold song to their computer, and offers users the chance to check their libraries for illegal music.

But the judge said: "It is beside the point that the original phonorecord no longer exists. It matters only that a new phonorecord has been created."

Wider impact
The notion of being able to sell on your unwanted digital goods is a concept that has caught the eyes of, among others, Amazon and Apple.

Both companies have been granted patents relating to the selling or transferring of digital goods - but while both offer cloud storage services for music, neither has yet set up a reselling function.

"Both Amazon and Apple have been working on patents, which are insurance policies for both of them in my view," said Joe Wikert from O'Reilly Media, speaking to Reuters.

"They have been sitting on the sidelines watching the ReDigi case."

Mr Wickert added that the ruling was "not a good first step" for the digital reselling industry.

Capitol Records, whose catalogue includes Frank Sinatra's Come Fly With Me and The Beatles' Yellow Submarine, sought $150,000 (£99,000) for each infringement.

The judge did not set an amount for damages, instead inviting both firms to submit statements regarding the next steps in the case.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22000668

 

[Dead Man]

When they went through the effort to make that system, I can't see how the judges argument holds any water. If it was just 'give me $3 for this mp3 LOL' I could see it, but this is a bit ridiculous. Saying a whole purchasing medium is not valid?

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Make mp3 programs deteriorate the mp3's so you can sell them as used, booyaah

 

[HolyCheck]

But how will Bruce leave his collection to his kids

 

[massoluk]

Uh.. I have no problem with this judgement. The judge was right, it's impossible to know if a new copy was made before the selling happened.

 

[Dead Man]

Uh.. I have no problem with this judgement. The judge was right, it's impossible to know if a new copy was made before the selling happened.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-sale-doesnt-apply-to-digital-transfers.shtml

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.

 

[LyleLanley]

Uh.. I have no problem with this judgement. The judge was right, it's impossible to know if a new copy was made before the selling happened.

But the system used in the article seemed to prevent songs from being copied. I don't see how it's any different from something like being able to resell VHS tapes.

 

[jorma]

Uh.. I have no problem with this judgement. The judge was right, it's impossible to know if a new copy was made before the selling happened.

Where did the judge even claim this as a reason?

It looks like the judge just said "A copy was made, the copy was unauthorised. First sale doctrine does not apply to digital goods because of a "detrimental impact on the primary market". End of story."

 

[shoplifter]

How did the software keep me from just downloading the track from iTunes or amazon again?

 

[massoluk]

Where did the judge even claim this as a reason?

It looks like the judge just said "A copy was made, the copy was unauthorised. First sale doctrine does not apply to digital goods because of a "detrimental impact on the primary market". End of story."

He said it here.
"But the judge said: "It is beside the point that the original phonorecord no longer exists. It matters only that a new phonorecord has been created."

But the system used in the article seemed to prevent songs from being copied. I don't see how it's any different from something like being able to resell VHS tapes.

That didn't prevent people from making 100% perfect copy of it before putting it up for sale. Not to mention it's a ton easier to copy digital file than copying VHS.


It was never ok to make a copy of the VHS and sell the original. Ask around here feeling about Handbrake and reselling DVD.

 

[Trojita]

The sooner this will go to the Supreme Court now.

Hehehehe

 

[jorma]

He said it here.

Yes, exactly. Just as i said? A copy was made, and it was unauthorised because first sale didn't apply.
The judge didn't care that the original owners copy was deleted. The only thing that matters is that a new copy was made.

 

[massoluk]

Yes, exactly. Just as i said? A copy was made, and it was unauthorised because first sale didn't apply.
The judge didn't care that the original owners copy was deleted. The only thing that matters is that a new copy was made.

Pretty sure you're reading it WRONG. Like 180 degree wrong.

 

[Dead Man]

Pretty sure you're reading it WRONG. Like 180 degree wrong.

The judge said the only thing that mattered was that a copy was made. How can that be read wrong?

 

[massoluk]

Facepalming. The context in the article implied judge was saying copy could be made before putting it for sale hence the proprietary software was pointless.

 

[Dead Man]

Facepalming. The context in the article implied judge was saying copy could be made before putting it for sale hence the proprietary software was pointless.

I really think you should read both sentences in the quote you are talking about. That is not what those two sentences are saying.

"It is beside the point that the original phonorecord no longer exists. It matters only that a new phonorecord has been created."

He is clearly saying it does not matter if the original is destroyed, the only thing that is pertinent is that someone is selling a copy.

 

[jorma]

Oh LOL. I first read this as $150/£99 and i thought THAT was over the top.

Capitol Records, whose catalogue includes Frank Sinatra's Come Fly With Me and The Beatles' Yellow Submarine, sought $150,000 (£99,000) for each infringement.

Maybe it's just time to update the global copyright legislation and tell these dinosaurs of an era long gone to fuck right off.

 

[Raonak]

Sounds fair.
second hand copies of digital media is an absurd concept.

 

[pottuvoi]

I'm pretty sure that CDs contain digital media as well..
Why should lack of physical object limit ability to sell or inherit playback rights to certain piece?

 

[Askani]

So, this means I can keep not buying music right? Like that I can continue to say "Fuck Off" to record labels because they still have their shit completely backwards?

Okay, cool. Just making sure. Thanks music industry!

 

[surly]

I'm pretty sure that CDs contain digital media as well..
Why should lack of physical object limit ability to sell or inherit playback rights to certain piece?

Because you can only sell a CD once. If you could sell MP3s, what's to stop you from selling them over and over again?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Because you can only sell a CD once. If you could sell MP3s, what's to stop you from selling them over and over again?

That's what distribution services do. Making a million copies doesn't cost them anything extra.

He is clearly saying it does not matter if the original is destroyed, the only thing that is pertinent is that someone is selling a copy.

The original is just a copy too. The word original has no meaning here.

 

[Dead Man]

That's what distribution services do. Making a million copies doesn't cost them anything extra.



The original is just a copy too. The word original has no meaning here.

Well yes, I am just pointing out he was not talking about people keeping a copy for themselves.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Well yes, I am just pointing out he was not talking about people keeping a copy for themselves.

Oh I know, I am arguing against the judge, not you.

 

[Somnid]

I'm pretty sure that CDs contain digital media as well..
Why should lack of physical object limit ability to sell or inherit playback rights to certain piece?

Because society is still very stupid about digital media. Ownership over a pattern of bits is an absolutely ridiculous idea and yet people on both the left and right use this as the basis of argument. It's all based previous more comfortable ideas of physical ownership which we've had for a millenia and deeply ingrained into our culture, to say "I own it" feels goods to people. It doesn't matter where that arrangement came from whether the internet or from a CD but in that case the CD fits better with our model because we understand it to track ownership but that's flawed for exactly the reason you mention.

I suppose this is one reason why streaming media is popular. It's just easier to understand what you have and don't have. But if we want to continue selling raw data and not services we need a new more sensible base from which to determine what our expectations should be.

 

[surly]

That's what distribution services do. Making a million copies doesn't cost them anything extra.

Well, yeah, obviously. But it wouldn't make sense to allow consumers to do that.

 

[BrokenEchelon]

Oh so first sale doctrine doesn't apply to digital content and all media is heading towards the digital only route?

How interesting. Say goodbye to another freedom.

 

[ComputerMKII]

The doctrine is a long-established rule which allows the reselling of goods to a new owner. In other words, selling a CD once you no longer want it.

But in the digital world, where duplication is much easier, the first sale doctrine was not appropriate, the judge said.

"It is simply impossible that the same 'material object' can be transferred over the internet," he wrote in his ruling.

So... this?

 

[Dead Man]

Oh I know, I am arguing against the judge, not you.

All good.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

So... this?

It just shows the true value of digital media, $0.

 

[Stinkles]

I just bought my first CD in a couple of years, thanks to the fact that amazon kind of gives them away as free coasters when you buy the digital version, depending on how you look at it. But here's a funny thing. I can't open the fucker. That plastic wrap won't come off with human fingers. I have long, hard, sharp fingernails today too. But nothing. There's a tiny tab that says 'pull' but it's a layer one atom thick and cannot in fact be pulled. You win this round, Maximo Park.

 

[davepoobond]

they should just reduce the price if they want to influence sales