Re-selling your MP3 files is a copyright violation, FedCoat judge rules.

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,609
MP3 resale violates copyright law, court rules

A judge sides with Capitol Records in the lawsuit between the record company and ReDigi -- ruling that MP3s can only be resold if granted permission by copyright owners.

April 1, 2013 5:49 PM PDT 0 comments

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57577393-93/mp3-resale-violates-copyright-law-court-rules/

A court ruling has put the kibosh on reselling digital media.

In a lawsuit between Universal Music Group's Capitol Records and MP3 reseller ReDigi, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan has sided with the record label and said that reselling songs bought on iTunes, Amazon, or other digital music venues is akin to copyright infringement.

"The court grants Capitol's motion for summary judgment on its claims for ReDigi's direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement of its distribution and reproduction rights," Judge Sullivan wrote in a summary judgment filed Saturday. "The court also denies ReDigi's motion in its entirety."

ReDigi calls itself "the world's first online marketplace for used digital music." The company argued that it was operating under the "first sale doctrine," which says that people can resell or rent goods. This legal doctrine is what Netflix uses for its business model. ReDigi also noted that it's legal for people to sell used CDs and DVDs.

However, Judge Sullivan ultimately concluded that digital media can only be resold if permission is granted by the copyright owner.

"Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce," Judge Sullivan wrote. "However, 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."

A ReDigi spokesperson told CNET that the judge's ruling mainly affects the service's 1.0 technology. Further iterations of its service, including 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, were not considered by Judge Sullivan in his summary judgment and could ultimately be deemed to comply with copyright law.

"The case has wide ranging, disturbing implications that affect how we as a society will be able to use digital goods," the ReDigi spokesperson told CNET. "The Order is surprising in light of last month's United States Supreme Court decision in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons, which reaffirmed the importance and applicability of the First Sale Doctrine in the United States of America."

Capitol Records first filed its copyright complaint against ReDigi in January 2012. At first, Judge Sullivan denied the record company's motion to shutdown ReDigi. However, after putting more thought into the matter, he seems to have changed his mind.

"ReDigi will continue to keep its ReDigi 2.0 service running and will appeal the ReDigi 1.0 decision, while supporting the fundamental rights of lawful digital consumers," the ReDigi spokesperson told CNET.

Both Capitol Records and ReDigi are to file a joint letter to the court by April 12 on what they expect the next steps in the case to be.
 
Micro vs macro.

From an engineering / technical aspect, the judge is correct. You are reproducing a new copy when you "send" it to someone else, even if you delete the current file once it's received.

However from a larger standpoint, this is absurd because 1 person has it, and then another person has it. It's not like 1 person is giving it to many, which was the point of copyright law, to prevent that sort of thing.
 
These companies will be culled by the market and they're hanging on for dear life. Its the death rattle of a dying monster.

The flood of productive people that have adopted the "let em have it for free and they'll come back to buy more cause they like it" model pioneered in the music industry by the Grateful Dead is already moving to the front.

No talent hacks trying to make money off of corporate, formula driven, marketing driven shit will be pushed out.

The internet is cutting through all the force fed bullshit and selecting the actual producers for their talents.
 
Last edited:
not going to be popular, but I think the judge made the right call. I've heard all the arguments over IP, copyright etc. It's theft. And yes I KNOW the argument that the originator still has what he had before so since you didn't take anything, how can it be theft? Well, morally it is.

I agree with Northbreather, let another marketing model kill the current one. I think pirates that make unauthorized copies of software, music, etc. and sell it are criminal.
 
Last edited:
not going to be popular, but I think the judge made the right call. I've heard all the arguments over IP, copyright etc. It's theft.
False. Not even IP law uses the word "theft". It's popular rhetoric among greedy corporate types, government goons, and other similar scum of society.
And yes I KNOW the argument that the originator still has what he had before so since you didn't take anything, how can it be theft? Well, morally it is.
Also false. You are in denial of what words really mean, economics, and ethics.
I agree with Northbreather, let another marketing model kill the current one. I think pirates that make unauthorized copies of software, music, etc. and sell it are criminal.
Also false. Copying is not a crime (except in the fantasy, made-up world of IP lawyers and cronies in the Coporatocracy). Therefore, "pirates" are not criminals.
 
Last edited:
not going to be popular, but I think the judge made the right call. I've heard all the arguments over IP, copyright etc. It's theft. And yes I KNOW the argument that the originator still has what he had before so since you didn't take anything, how can it be theft? Well, morally it is.

I agree with Northbreather, let another marketing model kill the current one. I think pirates that make unauthorized copies of software, music, etc. and sell it are criminal.

To be clear I DONT agree that its a crime to resell or share media you've payed for.
 
These companies will be culled by the market and they're hanging on for dear life. Its the death rattle of a dying monster.

The flood of productive people that have adopted the "let em have it for free and they'll come back to buy more cause they like it" model pioneered in the music industry by the Grateful Dead is already moving to the front.

No talent hacks trying to make money off of corporate, formula driven, marketing driven shit will be pushed out.

The internet is cutting trough all the force fed bullshit and selecting the actual producers for their talents.

But there is still radio. Radio music hasn't gotten better in the last 10-15 years. The major labels will still sell records using the radio, and the other mass promotional tools. Both things are happening. No talent hacks will be still be famous if they're on the radio all the time. But the internet definitely makes it easier for the better acts to get heard.
 
So, let me get this straight...if you buy an mp3 you are stuck with it forever and will eternally own rights to a copy and cannot gift (or pass down to family) or sell that to someone else? You can either keep it or delete it (and if so you can at some point re-download it if you want legally) but that is all? I'll keep buying CDs then since they offer more freedom.
 
This is bullshit.

They're trying to completely kill the used category of digital recorded music. For vinyl, tape recorders, cds, it was normal for you to be able to sell your used product... so now you can't sell a used song recording?

This is unproductive and stupid.
 
This is bullshit.

They're trying to completely kill the used category of digital recorded music. For vinyl, tape recorders, cds, it was normal for you to be able to sell your used product... so now you can't sell a used song recording?

This is unproductive and stupid.

The video game companies are trying to kill the used category of video games also. This is no surprise. Apparently you don't own your copy of the game anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_pass
 
You know....stone me but for once I actually agree with the government. I mean, if you're going to go after people for giving away MP3s that belong to others, how are you going to let them sell those same MP3s? It's one thing if I sell a used book. Once I transfer ownership I no longer have it. If I sell a CD, even if I've made a copy, I still don't have the original. The song list is written on it by Sharpie or some CD labeling program. If I "sell" you my MP3, I can still keep the exact same thing I sold. Well, if I can do that, why can't I just run a bittorent and give the stuff away?

My first encounter with this issue happened in high school back in the 80s. (Yes I'm that old). We had these TRS-80 (trash-80) computers. The graphics on those things sucked bananas. Hence the games sucked. One student ordered a "SuperDOS" disk and some halfway decent games. We'll call him nerd-A. He "sold" a copy of "SuperDOS" and two of the games to nerd-B. Nerd-B "stole" the rest of the games when nerd-A left his disk lying around. (About 10 games in total I think). Nerds C and D saw nerd-B's disk of the games he bought + the games he "stole", copied them and then distributed them to the rest of the nerds. (I didn't get a copy because I didn't want one. I wrote my own games. Call me "super nerd".) Anyway, nerd-B found out about the "theft" of the games that he had stolen and complained to the administration. I found out about this from nerds C and D. The administration had made nerds C and D and everyone else destroy their copies of the "stolen" games. I explained to the administration that nerd B had really started the stealing, and that nerd A probably didn't have the right to "sell" what he did to nerd B anyway. (Nerd A didn't care that nerds C and D had "stolen" what nerd B had bought and then stolen from him.) I'm not sure what the administration ultimately did, beyond making sure that the bought/stolen games were no longer floating around. To be honest, they were probably confused as hell about all of it.

Anyhow, the point of this (beyond me reminicing about my nerddom), is that once you concede that intellectual "property" is something that you can "sell", when you've pretty much conceded the entire IP scheme. Why should I be able to sell the IP I have "legitimately bought" and someone who checks out a CD from the library and rips the MP3s can't? Or can they? The business model for ReDigi only exists because the government already cracked down on sites like the original Napster, and while such things still exist, people are always afraid they "might get caught."

If there is going to be a legitimate marketplace for reselling digital IP, it will have to incorporate some sort of DRM (digital rights management). I could see something like Bitcoin. The music file transfers ownership from one user to another the same way a Bitcoin does. Sure it wouldn't play on current MP3 players, but it would play on computers and apps could be written for smartphones and......okay I need to shut up and go develop this before somebody else does.
 
Last edited:
This is bullshit.

They're trying to completely kill the used category of digital recorded music. For vinyl, tape recorders, cds, it was normal for you to be able to sell your used product... so now you can't sell a used song recording?

This is unproductive and stupid.

It wasn't legal for you to make a copy of a tape and then sell the copy. That's essentially what's going on with used digital music. There's no way to make sure that the person "selling" it isn't really just selling a copy. That's the nature of the beast. If the ReDigi model is allowed, then the original Napster model should be allowed. If the original Napster model is allowed, then the market itself would kill ReDigi. Who would buy someone's "used" digital music if they could legally download it for free?
 
Seems as though I remember similar squabbling during the advent of cassettes, then beta-max/VHS, and yet again with CD's and DVD's...

Only thing different I notice is that government is able to track folks easier with the internet...
 
Back
Top