Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.

Last updated

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.
USDCSDNY.svg
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case nameCapitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.
DecidedMarch 30, 2013
Docket nos. 1:12-cv-00095
Citation(s)934 F. Supp. 2d 640; 106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1449
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Affirmed, 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018).
Holding
Partial summary judgment for plaintiff Capitol Records was granted, with the court finding that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital resale.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Richard J. Sullivan
Keywords
Copyright, Copyright infringement, Fair use, First-sale doctrine

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. [1] Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, [2] and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012. [3] [4]

Contents

The ReDigi case raised the novel issue of whether digital music purchases are eligible for resale under the first-sale doctrine. [5] On March 30, 2013, Judge Richard J. Sullivan ruled in favor of Capitol Records, explaining that the transfer of digital data from one storage medium to another constituted a violation of copyright, because the copy was ultimately an unauthorized reproduction, and therefore outside of the protection of the first-sale doctrine. [6]

ReDigi appealed to the Second Circuit. Oral argument was on August 22, 2017, and the court issued a decision on December 12, 2018. [7] Again the copyright holders won, on the theory that it is impossible to transfer any digital file from a user's storage medium without making a copy that is controlled by copyright's ongoing "reproduction right", as opposed to the "distribution right" that is extinguished by the First Sale doctrine.

Background

ReDigi is an ongoing online marketplace that has operated since October 2011, allowing users to buy or sell music files that are verified to be legally obtained. In order to participate in the ReDigi marketplace, users must subscribe on the ReDigi website, then download and install the marketplace application.

In the litigation with Capitol Records, ReDigi claimed that their Atomic Transaction feature allowed the transfer of music files between users without having to copy the file, thereby circumventing copyright issues. [8]

Capitol Records Tower, Los Angeles, California Capitol Records Building LA.jpg
Capitol Records Tower , Los Angeles, California

Capitol Records' Complaint

In its complaint, Capitol Records claimed that ReDigi was liable for direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and inducement of copyright infringement. Capitol Records argued that ReDigi constructed their business model without authorization to copy recording materials. Capitol Records also mentioned that ReDigi also provided 30-second clips on their marketplace without authorization. [9] Specifically, Capitol Records argued for copyright infringement by claiming that copies of music files were made during the initial transmission to ReDigi servers and during the transactions between users. Capitol Records ultimately claimed $150,000 of damages per infringement. [9]

ReDigi's Answer

ReDigi argued that the initial transmission of the music files to the servers was protected by the essential step defense , and that the transactions trigger modifications to the files to be reassigned to the purchasing users, such that the files on the server are modified in-place, rather than copied. [10] [11]

Amicus Curiae Briefs by Google & Public Knowledge

Judge Sullivan denied Google's and Public Knowledge's attempts to file amicus curiae briefs, reasoning that the parties were fully capable of raising the issues mentioned in the information briefs themselves as part of their arguments. [12] [13] In its brief, Google claimed to have a vital interest in the case, citing that if Capitol Records prevailed, then it would put the entire cloud computing industry, worth an estimated 41 billion dollars, at risk. [14] However, because the amicus was denied, Google's opinion proved to be immaterial. [14]

Capitol Records' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

On January 27, 2012, Capitol Records filed a motion for preliminary injunction against ReDigi, primarily claiming irreparable harm. [15] In its defense, ReDigi pointed out that its transaction records were detailed enough for damages calculations, thereby undermining Capitol Records' claimed burden and irreparable harm. [16]

On February 6, 2012, Judge Sullivan denied Capitol Records' motion for preliminary injunction, allowing ReDigi to continue its online services. [2] [17] The preliminary injunction was denied because, as Judge Sullivan reasoned, the case only involved monetary damages, and that irreparable harm was not shown to warrant an injunction because ReDigi maintained careful records of all transactions for damages to be easily calculated if Capitol Records prevailed in the case. [16] [18]

Judgment on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

On March 30, 2013, Judge Sullivan granted partial summary judgement for Capitol's "claims for ReDigi's direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement of its reproduction rights." [6] Because ReDigi did not involve the actual physical copy being transferred but a new copy of the digital file, the court rejected the first-sale doctrine defense. The court reasoned that Capitol's reproduction right was violated when a new copy was created, thereby barring the defense of the first-sale doctrine. [19]

Infringement of Capitol's Reproduction Rights

ReDigi argued that the process of uploading a lawfully bought music file to the Internet for sale through ReDigi's service was not a reproduction under the Copyright Act, because the file never existed in two places simultaneously. [6] Under ReDigi's uploading architecture, as pieces of the music file are uploaded by the seller to ReDigi's servers, the very same pieces are erased from the seller's own hard drive, and scans are performed to ensure no other copies exist on the seller's computer. However, the court did not find ReDigi's argument persuasive. Instead, the court reasoned that the plain text of the Copyright Act made it clear that a copyright holder's right of reproduction is infringed "when a copyrighted work is fixed in a new material object." [6] The court referred to the definition of "sound recordings" under Section 106(1) of the Copyright Act, which are "works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds." [6]

The court distinguished "sound recordings" from "phonorecords," which are the "material objects in which sounds . . . are fixed by any method now known or later developed" (emphasis in original). [6] The court reasoned that the reproduction right "is the exclusive right to embody, and to prevent others from embodying, the copyrighted work (or sound recording) in a new material object[.]" [6] Because it is physically impossible to transfer the original material object over the internet, "the embodiment of a digital music file on a new hard disk is a reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act." [6] The court held that reproduction occurs regardless even if the sound recording is being simultaneously deleted from the original material object, because the dictionary definition of "reproduction" includes "to cause to exist . . . anew," not just to cause another existence. [6] The court explained that, "the fact that a file has moved from one material object [the user's computer] to another [the ReDigi server] means that a reproduction has occurred." [6]

The court distinguished this case from cases where chemicals were used to lift images off greeting cards and placed on plaques for resale, because no new material object was created in a chemical lifting. The court explained that, in those cases, the original copyright print was physically lifted off and transferred to a ceramic tile, and no new material object was therefore created. [6]

Infringement of Capitol's Distribution Rights

ReDigi did not dispute that distribution of Capitol's works occurred on its website, only that such distributions were protected by fair use and first sale (discussed below). [6]

Infringement of Capitol's Performance and Display Rights

Capitol alleged ReDigi infringed its exclusive rights because of streaming thirty-second song clips and displaying album art to potential buyers, but ReDigi countered that it acted within a licensing agreement by promptly redirecting users from the preview clips to a different source. Because there was not enough evidence on the record, the court denied Capitol's claim of performance and display rights infringement. [6]

ReDigi's Affirmative Defenses

Because the court held that ReDigi legally infringed Capitol's exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution, ReDigi's only way of avoiding liability was through an affirmative defense. The court rejected all of ReDigi's defense arguments, which involved the first sale and fair use doctrines.

First-Sale Doctrine Defense

The first-sale defense is a common law principle derived from Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908) and codified in Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act. [20] The first-sale doctrine provides that a copyright owner "exhausts his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution" once he or she has sold the copyrighted item. [6] In ReDigi, the court held that the first-sale defense did not apply to ReDigi because first-sale only affects the copyright holder's distribution right, not reproduction right. Since ReDigi was held to have violated Capitol's reproduction right, the court reasoned that the first-sale defense did not protect ReDigi from liability for unauthorized reproduction. [6]

Moreover, because ReDigi was not distributing a user's original phonorecord, but rather transmitting a new embodiment of the sound recording "reproduced" from the user's hard drive, the court found that ReDigi could not claim the first-sale defense. The court explained that, "[h]ere, a ReDigi user owns the phonorecord that was created when she purchased and downloaded a song from iTunes to her hard disk. But to sell that song on ReDigi, she must produce a new phonorecord on the ReDigi server. Because it is therefore impossible for the user to sell her “particular” phonorecord on ReDigi, the first-sale statute cannot provide a defense." [6]

In addition, ReDigi argued that "technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of [its] basic purpose," which is designed to "promot[e] broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." [6] The court found this argument unpersuasive, reasoning that "while technological change may have rendered Section 109(a) unsatisfactory to many contemporary observers and consumers, it has not rendered it ambiguous." [6] As part of its reasoning, the court looked to a report by the U.S. Copyright Office, which declined to extend first-sale protection to the distribution of digital works, because digital works compete perfectly with original copies, whereas physical copies "degrade with time and use, making used copies less desirable than new ones." [6] The court ultimately deferred to Congress, stating that "[i]t is left to Congress, and not this Court, to deem [first-sale's applicability to digital works] outmoded." [6]

Fair Use Doctrine Defense

The court held that ReDigi's use of Capitol's works was "well outside the fair use defense." [6] The four fair use factors come from 17 U.S.C. § 107 [21] and are:

  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [6]

Balancing each of these factors, the court held that each weighed against ReDigi (See fair use). Particular judgments on each of the four factors are outlined below:

1. Purpose and Character of Use

As for the first factor, the court held that "[p]lainly, the upload, sale, and download of digital music files . . . does nothing to 'add something new, with a further purpose or different character' to the copyrighted works." [6]

2. Nature of the Copyrighted Work

As for the second factor, the court held that creative works such as sound recordings are "close to the core of the intended copyright protection." [6]

3. Portion of the Work Copied

In terms of the third factor, the court explained that ReDigi's business depended on transmitting works in their entirety, "negating any claim of fair use." [6] (But see Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley , holding that the reproduction of an entire Grateful Dead poster in a book was fair use despite the appropriation of the entire work).

4. Effect Upon the Potential Market

As for the fourth fair use factor, the court held that ReDigi's sales were likely to undercut the market or value of Capitol's works, because the products sold on ReDigi's market were indistinguishable from "legitimate primary market save for its lower price." [6]

Liability Analysis

After determining that infringement had occurred, the court addressed liability separately.

Direct Infringement

The court held ReDigi directly liable for infringement. [6] Direct liability requires that a defendant must have "engaged in some volitional conduct" showing active violation of the plaintiff's copyright. [6] The court reasoned that since ReDigi created a system where the only music files eligible for sale were copyrighted and purchased from iTunes, and that ReDigi programmed its software to do so, there was enough of a volitional act for ReDigi to be held for direct infringement. [6]

Contributory Infringement

In contrast to direct infringement, "[c]ontributory infringement occurs where 'one . . . with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.'" [6] The court had "little difficulty" in holding that ReDigi knew or should have known its business would encourage infringement. [6] Moreover, because it found ReDigi contributorily liable, the court did not reach Capitol's inducement claim. [6]

The court cited evidence from ReDigi's website, including advertisements that its service was legal, despite other published materials which warned otherwise. [6] ReDigi also claimed to have researched the law on this issue, arguing that such research helped it understand whether its service would result in infringement. [6]

Reasoning that ReDigi provided the "site and facilities" for direct infringement, the court also held ReDigi materially contributed to its users' infringement. [6]

Sony Betamax Defense

The court also held that ReDigi's service did not qualify for the Sony safe harbor, because according to the Sony case, a service or product must be "capable of substantial noninfringing uses," and ReDigi's service may only be used to infringe copyrighted works. [6]

Vicarious Infringement

Vicarious liability for copyright infringement exists where the defendant "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities." [22] In ReDigi, the court held ReDigi vicariously liable because it "exercised complete control over its website's content, user access, and sales," and financially benefited from every sale due to its 60% transaction fee. [6]

Subsequent developments

ReDigi appealed the decision. [23] [24]

The court of appeals generally upheld the district court's findings, ruling against ReDigi in December 2018. [7]

Within a week after the preliminary injunction was denied, Rdio, provider of album art and sound snippets for ReDigi and licensee of Capitol Records, stopped providing ReDigi with such content, a move seen by ReDigi as Capitol Records' attempt to cripple ReDigi's services. As a result, ReDigi turned to YouTube for sound snippets. [25]

In Europe, a similar case, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp. , [26] was decided by the European Court of Justice in July 2012 to affirm the resale of used software licenses. [27]

Commentary

Copyright scholars closely followed ReDigi because it directly addressed the question of the applicability of the first-sale doctrine to the digital realm. [28] Some of the broader implications of ReDigi and its surrounding issues were whether copyright law and the first-sale doctrine were to be read in such narrow legal technicalities, eviscerating the doctrine from the digital realm altogether. [28] Other scholars have raised the issue of whether a lack of a first-sale doctrine destroys a potential right of inheritance. [29] Moreover, other commentators have suggested a re-balancing of copyright interests to amend the Copyright Act in order to incorporate a resale royalty system. [30] At least one writer has compared ReDigi to the Star Trek transporter, and argued against a formalistic reading of first-sale in the digital realm. [31] Additionally, some scholars and trade associations submitted amicus briefs to the court, including the Copyright Alliance, AAP (AAP), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and RIAA (RIAA). [32] [33] [34] [35]

See also

Related Research Articles

The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Software copyright is the application of copyright in law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software. This article primarily focuses on topics particular to software.

SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. was a lawsuit heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2001 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

Block Entertainment or Block Ent. Worldwide is a record label created by Russell "Block" Spencer and Andrew "Gotti" Couser. The label is known for creating southern group Boyz N Da Hood and releasing artist Yung Joc. In 2005 Block signed an exclusive joint venture deal with Warner Music Group's label Bad Boy Records. In November 2009, Block Entertainment signed a joint venture deal with Capitol Records. In 2011 the label released Gorilla Zoe's album King Kong, which features the first single "What's Going On".

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but can instead be defended as fair use. The court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs, cannot be liable for contributory infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market, as it created a legal safe harbor for the technology.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.</i> 2007 American legal decision

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc. The court held that framing and hyperlinking of original images for use in an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, and thus not an infringement of the magazine's copyright ownership of the original images.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> 2011 US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

ReDigi was an online marketplace for used digital music, eBooks, games, apps, and software. It claims to be the only cloud storage service that verifies whether each digital file uploaded for storage was legally acquired from an eligible source. ReDigi's Cloud and Marketplace only accept lawfully purchased digital media. The service allowed users to buy and sell pre-owned digital content directly from one user to another. As of December 2020, the website is offline.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the exhaustion doctrine in patent law in which the Court held that after the sale of a patented item, the patent holder cannot sue for patent infringement relating to further use of that item, even when in violation of a contract with a customer or imported from outside the United States. The case concerned a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Lexmark against Impression Products, Inc., which bought used ink cartridges, refilled them, replaced a microchip on the cartridge to circumvent a digital rights management scheme, and then resold them. Lexmark argued that as they own several patents related to the ink cartridges, Impression Products was violating their patent rights. The U.S. Supreme Court, reversing a 2016 decision of the Federal Circuit, held that the exhaustion doctrine prevented Lexmark's patent infringement lawsuit, although Lexmark could enforce restrictions on use or resale of its contracts with direct purchasers under regular contract law. Besides printer and ink manufacturers, the decision of the case could affect the markets of high tech consumer goods and prescription drugs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Controlled digital lending</span> Digital library lending model

Controlled digital lending (CDL) is a model by which libraries digitize materials in their collection and make them available for lending. It is based on interpretations of the United States copyright principles of fair use and copyright exhaustion.

<i>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.</i>

RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311, was a copyright law case of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, over the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and whether those provisions are violated by a service that enables Internet users to circumvent the copyright protection controls used by a streaming platform.

References

  1. ↑ Peckham, Matt (June 26, 2012). "ReDigi Lets You Resell Used Digital Music, but Is It Legal?". Time. Retrieved October 14, 2012.
  2. 1 2 Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., No.1:12-cv-00095 , 25(S.D.N.Y.Feb. 6, 2012).
  3. ↑ Gittleson, Kim (October 5, 2012). "US court to rule on ReDigi's MP3 digital music resales". BBC. Retrieved October 18, 2012.
  4. ↑ "Plan and Scheduling Order" (PDF). April 30, 2012.
  5. ↑ Sisario, Ben (April 2, 2013). "A Setback for Resellers of Digital Products". The New York Times. Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934F. Supp. 2d640 (S.D.N.Y.2013).
  7. 1 2 Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910F.3d649 (2d Cir.2018).
  8. ↑ Sisario, Ben (November 12, 2011). "Site to Resell Music Files Has Critics". The New York Times. Retrieved October 17, 2012.
  9. 1 2 "Complaint" (PDF). January 6, 2012.
  10. ↑ "Answer" (PDF). January 19, 2012.
  11. ↑ Lasar, Matthew (January 22, 2012). "Selling used iTunes tracks? ReDigi insists it's legal". Ars Technica. Retrieved October 15, 2012.
  12. ↑ "Order Denying Google" (PDF). February 1, 2012.
  13. ↑ "Order Denying Public Knowledge" (PDF). July 30, 2012.
  14. 1 2 Beckerman, Ray (February 1, 2012). "Google seeks leave to submit amicus curiae brief in Capitol v ReDigi" . Retrieved October 18, 2012.
  15. ↑ "Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction" (PDF). January 27, 2012.
  16. 1 2 "Opposition to Motion for a Preliminary Injunction" (PDF). January 27, 2012.
  17. ↑ Kravets, David (February 7, 2012). "Judge Refuses to Shut Down Online Market for Used MP3s". Wired. Retrieved October 15, 2012.
  18. ↑ "Transcript" (PDF). February 6, 2012.
  19. ↑ "Capitol wins digital records lawsuit vs ReDigi start-up". April 1, 2013. Archived from the original on April 3, 2013.
  20. ↑ "17 U.S.C. § 109" . Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  21. ↑ "17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use" . Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  22. ↑ A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster , 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) Archived 2008-04-09 at the Wayback Machine
  23. ↑ Mary Minow, "Selling Used Digital Files: A Setback, But Not the End of the Story", Library Journal , April 5, 2013.
  24. ↑ "The Double Standard in the Room: ReDigi and the Now Illegal Resale of MP3s", TechLand, April 2, 2013.
  25. ↑ Kravets, David (February 15, 2012). "MP3 Reseller Accuses Capitol Records of Sabotage". Wired. Retrieved October 14, 2012.
  26. ↑ "UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp." (PDF). July 3, 2012.
  27. ↑ Baker, Jennifer (July 10, 2012). "EU Court Ruling on Software Resale Could Shake up Apps Stores" . Retrieved November 8, 2012.
  28. 1 2 Asay, Clark D. (May 7, 2013). "Kirtsaeng and the First-Sale Doctrine's Digital Problem". Stanford Law Review Online. Stanford Law Review. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  29. ↑ Wong, Claudine (May 23, 2013). "Can Bruce Willis Leave His iTunes Collection to His Children?: Inheritability of Digital Media in the Face of EULAs". Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal. 29 (4): 703. Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  30. ↑ Serra, Theodore. "Rebalancing at Resale: Redigi, Royalties, and the Digital Secondary Market" (PDF). Boston University Law Review. Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  31. ↑ Grimmelmann, James. "Grimmelmann: ReDigi, Digital First Sale...and Star Trek". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  32. ↑ Schultz, Jason (February 15, 2017). "Brief of Copyright Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal in Capitol Records et al. v. ReDigi et al., 16-2321 (2nd Cir. 2017)". SSRN   2921890.
  33. ↑ "Brief of Amicus Curiae Association of American Publishers, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees" (PDF). Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  34. ↑ "BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (MPAA) AND RECORD INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (RIAA) IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE" (PDF). Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  35. ↑ "Brief for the Amicus Curiae the Copyright Alliance in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees" (PDF). Retrieved October 6, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.