Court rules that it’s not obviously illegal to sell used MP3s

[wodin]

If it's good for MP3s, could it passibly work for ebooks?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technolo...224527829.html

[GA Russell]

Very interesting! I have to think that Capitol will appeal.

[susan_cassidy]

This was a special case, where the reseller could guarantee that the seller no longer had access to the file (not sure how they could be absolutely sure, though). Presumably somehow interacting via iTunes. DRMed ebooks would not have that ability unless Adobe and/or Amazon got involved, and I still don't see how they could prevent you from having a bunch of other copies of the file stashed somewhere.

[wallcraft]

The court did not rule that this is legal, but rather that it might be legal (so there was no preliminary injunction against the sales). For a more balanced account, see ars technica Judge denies record label's request to shutter "used" MP3 store.

[Giggleton]

I read a few sentences of the article. It's mostly garbage. Might be legal? lol what does that even mean??

Anyway, sure Apple can make it so you no longer can access your cloud data, but that does not mean that they can negate your ability to access cloud data that you have previously downloaded.

If the cloud is the only option, then we might be in business...

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I read a few sentences of the article. It's mostly garbage. Might be legal? lol what does that even mean??

Anyway, sure Apple can make it so you no longer can access your cloud data, but that does not mean that they can negate your ability to access cloud data that you have previously downloaded.

If the cloud is the only option, then we might be in business...

Or they might decide that cloud data can't be downloaded, and can only be accessed from the cloud. All it takes is a TOS change.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I read a few sentences of the article. It's mostly garbage. Might be legal? lol what does that even mean??

It means that it is not so obviously illegal that it can be decided without a trial.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It means that it is not so obviously illegal that it can be decided without a trial.

Indeed, here's a link to the PDF of the ruling:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...igiruling1.pdf. It basically states preliminary junction is denied. That doesn't imply a whole lot -- though the burden of proof will be stronger on the site of Capitol.

If the judge indeed invokes First Sale doctrine, I think the defendant stands strong, and it might have positive implications for the sale of eBooks.

[Soldim]

For those interested, here's the PDF of the plaintif's statement:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...icomplaint.pdf

and the defendant's memorandum:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...onseredigi.pdf

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by teh603

Or they might decide that cloud data can't be downloaded, and can only be accessed from the cloud. All it takes is a TOS change.

That is certainly possible, but enterprising individuals could simply intercept the information between the cloud and the display, or speakers as it were and shunt it into a storage device.

[RainingLemur]

The court docs were interesting reads. As I read ReDigi's response, I could only hear it in a kind-of snooty voice. "Plaintiff speculates such-and-such..."

But, it looks like they (ReDigi's lawyer) really did their homework.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

This was a special case, where the reseller could guarantee that the seller no longer had access to the file (not sure how they could be absolutely sure, though). Presumably somehow interacting via iTunes. DRMed ebooks would not have that ability unless Adobe and/or Amazon got involved, and I still don't see how they could prevent you from having a bunch of other copies of the file stashed somewhere.

You can't be absolutely sure, as there are still ways around it. That said, it takes "significant action" by the user to make sure they retain the song. So in effect it transfer the burden of not violating copy right from Ridigi to the person reselling the song.

IE if the person reselling the song is good and honest, then no-copyright infringement. If the person isn't honest, well then the person is the one resposible for the infringement.

In a lot of ways it isn't too different from me buying a paper book, scanning it or photo copying the whole thing and then selling it to a used book store. The book store is simply reselling the book on the good faith that I did not retain a copy of it. Redigi is going to the effort to attempt to ascertain good faith that you are not violating copyright by retaining a copy, but of course there is no way they can be 100% sure you didn't.

Frankly I am very, very glad that the case turned out the way it did!

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That is certainly possible, but enterprising individuals could simply intercept the information between the cloud and the display, or speakers as it were and shunt it into a storage device.

Easy enough, copy the song to another drive, or another computer or removable media. The Redigi app I think only removes it from your itunes account and your music folder from your computer. It may search your drives for the song as well and remove any copies. There are ways around it, but frankly redigi goes through a fair number of hoops to ensure you are being a good boy.

As I mentioned, you can still go through the effort to attempt to violate copyright, but IMHO, that is on your shoulders, not on Redigis.

I am all for being able to resell (or sell back?) digital content if you are "done with it" are are attesting/ensuring/etc good faith that you are in fact deleting it so as to not violate copyright.

[Andrew H.]

As others have pointed out, the court didn't decide that reselling used digital music files was legal. It did say that it wasn't obviously illegal, and so it wouldn't enjoin the practice before a trial could decide its legality.

I am curious about their mechanism - apparently ReDigi only works with iTunes songs because it has some way of making sure that the file you sell is removed from your HD.

(I do wonder about their business model, though - I don't see a lot of people paying 87c for a "used" file instead of 99c for a "new" one. Those aren't really compelling savings.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

(I do wonder about their business model, though - I don't see a lot of people paying 87c for a "used" file instead of 99c for a "new" one. Those aren't really compelling savings.

I'm not really a fan of precedent, but what it would apply to is 10-25 dollar ebooks, expensive software, etc... Which is one reason the cloud is being pushed so hard I thought.

So redigi buys the text from you for what, 30% of retail then sells it used at 85% of retail??

Why not just create a network that tracks all transfer of digital content and shunts monies accordingly?