Federal Judge Nixes Re-Used Digital Content Copyright Exemption

Written by Evan Schuman
April 3rd, 2013

Retailers eyeing the repurposed (aka used) content space may want to rethink whether the effort to prepare to resell those e-books, audio files, videos, apps, games or ringtones makes much sense, given a federal court ruling Monday (April 1). That ruling, in favor of Capitol Records, said that getting around copyright rules by arguing fair use won’t fly anymore. At least not with New York City-based U.S. District Court Judge Richard Sullivan.

The ruling dealt with the narrow area of recreated music, once the original producer has stopped selling the initial song. But the court’s decision is likely to be applied to many kinds of resale efforts, at least in terms of copyright restrictions. In other words, pay once and sell many may have some new retail hurdles.

Created by technology entrepreneur John Ossenmacher and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Larry Rudolph, ReDigi was launched in October 2011, and calls itself “the world’s first pre-owned digital marketplace,” according to Reuters. The platform allows listeners to swap music tracks at a fraction of the cost of buying them on iTunes. ReDigi makes money from fees on each transaction. Capitol complained that the platform allowed the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of its music, including through the streaming of 30-second clips.

“Simply put, it is the creation of a new material object and not an additional material object that defines the reproduction right,” the court ruled. “The dictionary defines ‘reproduction’ to mean ‘to produce again’ or ‘to cause to exist again or anew.’ Significantly, it is not defined as ‘to produce again while the original exists.’ Thus, the right ‘to reproduce the copyrighted work in phonorecords’ is implicated whenever a sound recording is fixed in a new material object, regardless of whether the sound recording remains fixed in the original material object. Given this finding, the Court concludes that ReDigi’s service infringes Capitol’s reproduction rights under any description of the technology.”

The judge had to figure out whether the exact digital process that was used by ReDigi could legitimately avoid copyright. He concluded that it couldn’t.

“ReDigi stresses that it ‘migrates’ a file from a user’s computer to its Cloud Locker, so that the same file is transferred to the ReDigi server and no copying occurs. However, even if that were the case, 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,” Sullivan wrote. “Similarly, when a ReDigi user downloads a new purchase from the ReDigi website to her computer, yet another reproduction is created. It is beside the point that the original phonorecord no longer exists. It matters only that a new phonorecord has been created.”

The judge also took issue with ReDigi’s suggestion that ruling against them would prevent consumers from, among other things, being able to defrag harddisks. “ReDigi also argues that the Court’s conclusion would lead to ‘irrational’ outcomes, as it would render illegal any movement of copyrighted files on a hard drive, including relocating files between directories and defragmenting,” the judge said. “However, this argument is nothing more than a red herring. As Capitol has conceded, such reproduction is almost certainly protected under other doctrines or defenses and is not relevant to the instant motion.”

Given the evolving area of law involving digital assets, this certainly won’t be the last federal ruling on this issue. But the strong tone will likely make quite a few retail corporate counsel lawyers to sit back and refuse to approve some repurpose activities, at least until a higher court — or federal legislation — changes the issues.


2 Comments | Read Federal Judge Nixes Re-Used Digital Content Copyright Exemption

  1. ed Says:

    In ReDigi case as well as other similiar cases, the reproduced files in question did not have digital rights management or DRM in place.

    If the media files had DRM in place, one can argue the digital asset was truly a unique copy and transferrable. Gift cards with unique codes and remaining balance for example are resellable.

    Pretty ironic to find out digital rights management may offer less legal protection than unprotected files for resale and tranfer.

  2. Steve Says:

    Perhaps ReDigi would have been successful had they argued this ruling would prevent users from tranferring digital files from one computer to another when they upgrade or replace a hard-drive.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.