Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Google Music The Courts Technology

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Asks Court Not To Enjoin ReDigi

Comments Filter:
  • by Tsingi ( 870990 ) <graham.rick@gmail.cFREEBSDom minus bsd> on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:01AM (#38901805)

    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)

    by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:02AM (#38901809) Journal

    Or they wouldn't be MAFIAA, would they?

  • by Joehonkie ( 665142 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:09AM (#38901871) Homepage
    "We certainly can't let the law get in way of making money." That's been the RIAA's argument so far...
  • by kiwimate ( 458274 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:15AM (#38901933) Journal

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:17AM (#38901949)

    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".

  • by Tharsman ( 1364603 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:27AM (#38902059)

    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.

  • by m.ducharme ( 1082683 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:27AM (#38902061)

    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.

  • by L4t3r4lu5 ( 1216702 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:28AM (#38902067)
    Bad people can do good things. Good people can do bad things. Hitler turned Germany from post-WWI depression into economic powerhouse in 20 years.

    And stop anthropomorphising corporations; They have no morality. A good corporation is one which makes the most money for its shareholders.
  • by Tanktalus ( 794810 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:39AM (#38902191) Journal

    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.

  • by darthdavid ( 835069 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @10:49AM (#38902299) Homepage Journal
    See that's the exact attitude that's gotten us into such a mess. Corporations are made of people! Yes, they exist to make money but that's not an excuse to leave ethics at the door, you can (and should) make money without being a dickhead.
  • by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:59PM (#38903839) Journal

    They are made of people but headed by this cabal known as the board of directors, these same "people" are boards on several corps and will often be on each other's boards so you have this good old boy system where they "reward' each other with ever higher salaries and bonuses. then there are the shareholders which thanks to day traders turning Wall street into Vegas with nicer clothes frankly would cheer if you burned the buildings down for the insurance if it caused the stock to jump 40 points. Hell look at how MSFT recently had one of its best quarters EVAR and the stock barely moved because the day traders expect corps to make iMoney or GTFO. TLDR? If the company is private they may/may not have morals but once that IPO is done its all bottom line or watch your stock tank.

    as for TFA while i don't care for Google's privacy policies i hope they rip the record company a new one because somebody need to nip this Schrodinger's cat bullshit in the bud. you see they and the game companies are trying to do an end run around the law by claiming the protections of TWO states but the liabilities of NEITHER and that shit needs to DIAF. on the one hand they say 'Oh noooo, you didn't buy a disc, you bought a license to use the content! so there is no first sale rights here!" and you go "Okay, well now my disc is scratched so i'm downloading a copy since I have a license to that content" and they go "oh noooo, you don't have a license, you had a disc! That means if its scratched or broken you have to buy a new one!" BULLSHIT, fucking total stinking bullshit! NOWHERE do we allpw a corp to claim TWO states while accepting the liabilities of neither state! Either its content or its media but NOT BOTH because each of those states have clear legal liabilities associated with them. The right of first sale is one of our cornerstones of capitalism and we have ages worth of contract law dealing with licenses that clearly state what their responsibilities are in that situation, these buttmonkey's just want to eat their cake and have it too and that shit needed to end 3 seconds after they came up with it. the court needs to lay out clearly and without doubt once they claim its X they have the responsibilities of X PERIOD.

  • by guruevi ( 827432 ) <`moc.stiucricve' `ta' `ive'> on Thursday February 02, 2012 @01:45PM (#38904409) Homepage

    No. Capitol Records did not sell the copyrights to the music.

    Capitol Records claims it sold a physical copy (whether CD or MP3) to 1 person but then did not license the buyer to resell the item which is contrary to the US First Sale Doctrine.
    Google says if they claim they sold a license to the music, then they can't claim the music is protected by copyright and thus replica's can be made. Reselling may be prohibited by contract law but expressing yourself by creating a replica of an artwork licensed to you cannot be prohibited by contract law (constitutionally).
    Google also says if they claim they sold an actual copy of the music and want it protected by copyright, then the buyer has the right to resell their copy (first sale doctrine).

    Capitol Records either has to choose whether they want their music to be a license (under contract law) or an object (under copyright law). They cannot both limit your constitutional rights and curtail the first sale doctrine.

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson