Google Asks Court Not To Enjoin ReDigi 185
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Google has sought leave to submit an amicus curiae brief against Capitol Records' preliminary injunction motion in Capitol Records v. ReDigi. In their letter seeking pre-motion conference or permission to file (PDF) Google argued that '[t]he continued vitality of the cloud computing industry — which constituted an estimated 41 billion dollar global market in 2010 — depends in large part on a few key legal principles that the preliminary injunction motion implicates.' Among them, Google argued, is the fact that mp3 files either are not 'material objects' and therefore not subject to the distribution right articulated in 17 USC 106(3) for 'copies and phonorecords,' or they are material objects and therefore subject to the 'first sale' exception to the distribution right articulated in 17 USC 109, but they can't be — as Capitol Records contends — material objects under one and not the other."
Re:I thought Google was evil now? (Score:5, Insightful)
But this appears to be a good thing logically.
Help, I'm so confused, do I hate or like Google today?
Today you like them. Tomorrow is a new day.
MAFIAA wants both (Score:2, Insightful)
Or they wouldn't be MAFIAA, would they?
Re:Poor Supporting Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought Google was evil now? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't say I like or dislike them (although they seem to be trying to make themselves pretty unlikable these days). But I have always been wary of Google because they gather so much data.
So I just don't use them.
And no, it's not exactly a good thing logically. It's twisting words (i.e. lawyers doing lawyer things and picking pedantic holes in texts to get around the clear intention of the law).
What'll happen if this somehow gets through and they're not careful is the recording industry will say "fine, you be jerks, we'll be jerks back. These are now computer programs and subject to paragraph* 109 (b)(4). Have a nice day".
* Why on earth can't I use the paragraph symbol?
Re:Poor Supporting Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the money is certainly a good reason for Google to be involved, and good for the court to know it's not just considering an academic issue.
On the other hand, Google's actual argument doesn't depend on money. And they are right in a very obvious sense. When you need to upgrade your DVD to a bluray, they tell you " you only own the media, you need to buy a new one". When you complain about how you shouldn't have to pay $25 for a DVD that costs less than a dollar to manufacture, they tell you " the price of the media isn't relevant, your paying for a license." they've been playing all kinds of games like that. It's always " heads I win, tails you lose".
Re:I thought Google was evil now? (Score:4, Insightful)
But this appears to be a good thing logically.
Help, I'm so confused, do I hate or like Google today?
They have vested interests in cloud computing.
There is no "good" or "evil", just greed, biases and stubbornness.
Re:Poor Supporting Argument (Score:4, Insightful)
It's about more than just money --- it's a policy argument. the argument is that choking off such a large market would have much greater effects than just reducing the revenue streams of Google, Amazon and others. Employees would be laid off, businesses that rely on the services would suffer (including small sole proprietorships), the economy would probably be measurably affected. Courts generally have some obligation to consider these matters when they render judgments.
Re:I thought Google was evil now? (Score:5, Insightful)
And stop anthropomorphising corporations; They have no morality. A good corporation is one which makes the most money for its shareholders.
Re:I thought Google was evil now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, to look at it another way, sometimes even my enemy's interests align with my own.
And sometimes my friends do things I don't like.
Re:I thought Google was evil now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)