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 ownerâs 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.
26 Comments
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 ^^
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.
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.