+ Reply
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: The Right to Resell iTunes Songs Denied in Court

is a discussion within the

Mac News

forums, a part of the

General Apple/Mac

section;
...
  1. #1
    MMi Staff Writer Akshay Masand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,537
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 113 Times in 99 Posts

    Default The Right to Resell iTunes Songs Denied in Court


    A U.S. district court judge recently issued a ruling against the resale of songs purchased through digital outlets such as 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” according to AllThingsD.

    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 but Judge Sullivan was left unimpressed. According to the court, there is a clear separation between digital content like MP3s and physical content like CDs. The company acts as an intermediary between people who want to recoup some of the costs associated with buying digital music and buyers. Transactions are made online with ReDigi taking a certain percentage of each sale for providing the forum and means to transfer.

    The Judge noted in the order that courts have “consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner’s 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 a transfer does in fact do so.

    One thing to note is that the “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 file 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. Damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees are also to be discussed.

    Source: AllThingsD via AppleInsider

    Twitter: @AkshayMasand

  2. #2
    My iPhone is a Part of Me PokemonDesigner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    586
    Thanks
    171
    Thanked 59 Times in 41 Posts

    Wow. That's really stupid. In no way shape or form should this have been denied. It's just because the judge and court don't understand how computers work like the newer generation.

  3. #3
    Livin the iPhone Life bigboyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North East Coast
    Posts
    1,533
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 163 Times in 119 Posts

    This is worse that trying to stop gun ownership. WE ALL KNOW people will still resell music purchased once or downloaded for free. Nothing is going to change...so silly.

  4. #4
    iPhoneaholic Donnutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Great Falls Montana
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 33 Times in 27 Posts

    This is like pawning or yard-sale CDs and DVDs. People will still do it.

  5. #5
    My iPhone is a Part of Me
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    652
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 32 Times in 29 Posts

    Replace all the judges with people at least in mid 20 or 30's with a Knowledge about today's tech....

  6. #6
    My iPhone is a Part of Me vinaygoel2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    747
    Thanks
    396
    Thanked 76 Times in 61 Posts

    The way I read the article is that we can sell CDs in a yard sale or however way we want but we can't sell an mp3 of a song we bought off of iTunes. Lets say I buy a song from iTunes for $0.99 and then sell the mp3 to 10 people for 10 cents each. Now I made my money back but the music company lost $10. I agree with the ruling.

  7. #7
    What's Jailbreak?
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    I think this ruling is based on the way the law/transaction is worded: the "purchase" of an mp3 is merely the permission to use the mp3 on the devices associated with said account, whether that be on a digital player, or on your computer, or on a computer-written media (ie. CD). But you don't actually "own" the mp3. (Again, this is the wording of the transaction, not my opinion.) So distribution, or re-distribution of the mp3 would be illegal according to that understanding.

    And honestly, the Netflix comparison is not a very comparable one. Yes Netflix makes a profit off of their "distribution", however Netflix also pays those companies to use their product. If ReDigi is simply making a profit off of providing the means and not cutting a share to the music industry, then understandably it is an unfair comparison.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to pasterchadster For This Useful Post:

    vinaygoel2000 (04-02-2013)

  9. #8
    What's Jailbreak?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vinaygoel2000 View Post
    The way I read the article is that we can sell CDs in a yard sale or however way we want but we can't sell an mp3 of a song we bought off of iTunes. Lets say I buy a song from iTunes for $0.99 and then sell the mp3 to 10 people for 10 cents each. Now I made my money back but the music company lost $10. I agree with the ruling.
    I might be misunderstanding this section of the article, but the article says:
    One thing to note is that the “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 file transfer.
    To me this means that the person "selling" the mp3 through the website must delete the mp3 from his/her computer after the sale.

    This would mean that you buy a song from iTunes for $0.99 and then sell it back for $0.10. You net a loss of $0.89. You cannot resell it 10 times. Granted, I have no idea how they would enforce this.

  10. #9
    iPhone? More like MyPhone HovikGas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    146
    Thanks
    133
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by necktweaker View Post
    I might be misunderstanding this section of the article, but the article says:


    To me this means that the person "selling" the mp3 through the website must delete the mp3 from his/her computer after the sale.

    This would mean that you buy a song from iTunes for $0.99 and then sell it back for $0.10. You net a loss of $0.89. You cannot resell it 10 times. Granted, I have no idea how they would enforce this.
    DRM iTunes, which would suck, so if this is how we avoid that, then so be it.

  11. #10
    What's Jailbreak?
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    @lilrican21 - Replace all the judges with people at least in mid 20 or 30's with a Knowledge about today's tech....
    People in their 20's to 30's would know and understand the below... (at least most of them would)

    vinaygoel2000 - Lets say I buy a song from iTunes for $0.99 and then sell the mp3 to 10 people for 10 cents each. Now I made my money back but the music company lost $10. I agree with the ruling.
    Bingo! If people were to realize that they could purchase a re-sold mp3 for 10 cents, versus 99 cents on iTunes, no one would ever buy iTunes past the first few purchasers. Everyone would buy "second-hand" mp3's at a 90% discount yet still receive the exact same quality as they would get from iTunes.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to pasterchadster For This Useful Post:

    vinaygoel2000 (04-02-2013)

  13. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bklyn NY !!
    Posts
    913
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 62 Times in 51 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by PokemonDesigner View Post
    Wow. That's really stupid. In no way shape or form should this have been denied. It's just because the judge and court don't understand how computers work like the newer generation.
    which is why I eschew iTunes., all my files are drag and drop. no courts, no permissions no hassles. I dont need anybody dictating how I add, remove or share content with my devices.

  14. #12
    Super Galactic Moderator Orby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Omicron Persei Eight
    Posts
    5,661
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 564 Times in 518 Posts

    Unfortunately, I'm afraid the court probably found the correct result within the precedents and statutory interpretations. It's impossible to upload a file to a website from your computer without making another copy of it in the process, and that's where the ruling finds its roots. To quote the opinion, "It is beside the point that the original phonorecord no longer exists. It matters only that a new phonorecord has been created."

    Now, certain copies of are allowed under narrow circumstances of fair use (e.g., backup, archival, or burning to disc for personal listening, and that last one is rather tenuous). I would hope that new legislation or a high court ruling would establish an exemption for making a copy to resell the digital goods (contingent on the first owner deleting all their copies, of course), but that almost assuredly won't happen, for obvious reasons (both because the content companies generally are inclined against resale for its adverse effect on profits, and because that proviso of "delete all copies" would be nigh impossible to enforce).

    Welcome to America, folks.

  15. #13
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 23 Times in 18 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    Unfortunately, I'm afraid the court probably found the correct result within the precedents and statutory interpretations. It's impossible to upload a file to a website from your computer without making another copy of it in the process, and that's where the ruling finds its roots. To quote the opinion, "It is beside the point that the original phonorecord no longer exists. It matters only that a new phonorecord has been created."

    Now, certain copies of are allowed under narrow circumstances of fair use (e.g., backup, archival, or burning to disc for personal listening, and that last one is rather tenuous). I would hope that new legislation or a high court ruling would establish an exemption for making a copy to resell the digital goods (contingent on the first owner deleting all their copies, of course), but that almost assuredly won't happen, for obvious reasons (both because the content companies generally are inclined against resale for its adverse effect on profits, and because that proviso of "delete all copies" would be nigh impossible to enforce).

    Welcome to America, folks.
    Not necessarily. Through a web browser, yes, a copy would have to be made. However, someone could make an application that could simultaneously transfer data while deleting it from your computer.

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts