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."
Either one or the other (Score:2)
AKA "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
MAFIAA wants both (Score:2, Insightful)
Or they wouldn't be MAFIAA, would they?
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, that's an awfully good cake you have there. It would be a shame if... something.. were to happen to it.."
Re:Either one or the other (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, the RIAA have lobbied to introduce new legislation today requiring that all cakes are sold with a second, identical cake to permit posession and consumption without additional cost to an already struggling entertainment industry.
Re: (Score:2)
In yet more news, RIAA sues itself for making an unauthorized copy of a cake. In court filings, RIAA demands that Betty Crocker turn over the list of John Does going by the acronym RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
AKA "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
I thought the original phrase was
"You can't eat your cake and have it too"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought the original phrase was "You can't eat your cake and have it too"
The original phrase was "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?" (“A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue“ , John Heywood, 1546)
Re:Either one or the other (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but they can.
Re: (Score:3)
exactly what I was thinking. They want to have your cake, they want to have my cake, and they want to eat them both. I bet their lawyers are running around in tight circles right now trying to figure out how to defend their favorable positions in both interpretations of the law in the same court case. I hope their heads EXPLODE.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, us REAL geeks already know the truth: The cake is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is calling this out under the "Cloud Computing" header, but taken straight up, this is close to the big slam that would end the copyright lawsuits.
(Checks summary again)
It's a powerful argument if it doesn't get outright squashed by people factors. Either it's not a material object and not subject to the nasty penalties, or it is an object, so that once "someone" (read a "warehouse" corporation") buys a copy, that entity can then resell it however it likes as a Used Item. So the Warehouse Corp stocks
If I may be the first to say... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get 'em NYCL!
OK. Will do.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me but I always thought this is the kind of crap judges throw out of their court rooms. With menaces.
I'd be pissed if somebody pulled a stunt like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Please spend your time working on something that matters, NYCL.What a waste of a law degree.
Are you talking about my legal work, or my Slashdot posting. If the latter... you may have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
NYCL, Many of us value and respect your comments on this. The time you do spend posting is something I apreciate a lot. Thank you for the insights you give us.
Thank you. Much appreciated. I was just kidding. It's obligatory, isn't it, for us to bash Slashdot from time to time? I love the Slashdot community, and have since the first time, in 2005, that I stumbled on this nutty place. I truly do value my experience here.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, this sounds awesome. I just wish there was more of an actual editorial written up about it, as I am not that interested in slogging through the legalese.
If you get your "legalese" translated by others, you may be getting it slanted. That's why I like to give people the actual documents, instead of telling them what the documents mean. I know it's a bit of work, but I think it's better to make up your own mind than to let others tell you what to think.
Poor Supporting Argument (Score:2, Interesting)
" Google argued that '[t]he continued vitality of the cloud computing industry—which constituted an estimated $41 billion dollar global market in 2010"
We certainly can't let the law get in way of making money.
Re:Poor Supporting Argument (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Poor Supporting Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:2)
I've got to agree. Especially when the entertainment industry is claiming "We need you to do X to save our industry from losing money/jobs." If the money/jobs they are losing is more than offset by the money/jobs that the technology industry gains by not doing X, then the economic argument for X is lessened.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, would you rather live in a prosperous country where people are well-paid and jobs are plentiful?
Not sure about the RIAA, but Google makes more money than half the MPAA put together. (I did the math a while ago).
To be quite honest I don't know why Google doesn't simply buy them out and dump the "long tail" on Youtube.
Can the courts decide A = !A (Score:3)
Is there any law or principle that the "system" has to resolve logical errors like this?
Circuit Split (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the appeal process and supreme courts are for. There's only one supreme court per state (for state issues) and one federal supreme court so that the final saying is, well, final and non-contradictory.
OG.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in general. But those cases will then typically be cited in the next lawsuit over A and often end up with some appellate or supreme court taking them on if the lower court decisions are conflicting. As far as I know it doesn't go back to resolve things either, just going forward the precedent is now set that the law says so and so. That only applies to findings of law though, when it comes to findings of facts pretty much anything can happen as they interpret the evidence differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Real lawyers can clarify, but AFAIK, two separate courts in separate decisions can decide that A is true, and that A is not true.
Context matters.
A can be true in one set of circumstances and A can be false in another.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because our legal system allows multiple inheritance...
Re: (Score:3)
Ever hear of the guy that successfully defended a small claims case by arguing all three of the following simultaneously?
1) I never borrowed my neighbor's lawnmower.
2) My neighbor's lawnmower isn't broken.
3) My neighbor's lawnmower was already broken when I borrowed it.
Only one of the three arguments needed to be true for the neighbor to lose the case. How the guy didn't get charged with perjury is beyond me.
Phonorecords duality ! (Score:4, Funny)
but they can't be material objects under one and not the other
Or could they ?
We already have demonstrated wave-particle duality at macroscopic scale. We could also understand that phonorecords are indeed dual objects, both material and non-material, depending on the way we consider them.
I foresee a new law of physics where those objects tend to please their copyright owners and thus switch from one concept to another accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Phonorecords duality ! (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, I understand now. So each individual copy of the mp3 is dually material and non-material, until observed, at which time it becomes $80,000 per copy.
Reconciling quantum physics with general relativity is much easier than making sense of the RIAA.
Re:Phonorecords duality ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
At least that part falls apart. But, the main part of the case claims an infringement of the right to make copies, not an infringement of the distribution right. The argument is, approximately, "You claim to be re-selling electronic goods. But, to do that, this is what you do: (1) copy the mp3 file from the seller's computer to yours, (2) delete the file from the seller's computer, (3) copy the mp3 file to the buyer's computer, (4) delete the copy on your computer. The verb 'copy' appears in there twice.
Re: (Score:3)
This argument, while factually true, is pedantic and broken. It also implies that the riaa is willfully selling unusable goods.
Take an mp3 player. A cheap one, or an ipod. One that doesn't have removable flash storage. To get the mp3 onto the drvice, the "buyer" must copy it with itunes or with a file manager. A copy is made.
Additionally, an mp3 on external storage cannot be directly manipulated/processed. It has to be copied into ram memory. This is true on all noteworthy computing architectures. This is a
Sure they can be both (Score:3)
And the media industry has millions in campaign donations to MAKE them both.
Finally (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
chaotic neutral is the way to be
unfortunately it tends to degrade into lawful evil
But the statute doesn't say that :/ (Score:5, Interesting)
The final principle concerns the interplay between two provisions of the Copyright Act which, by their plain language, are limited to material objects: the distribution right, Section 106(3), and the first sale doctrine, Section 109. Both provisions deal with copies and phonorecords, which are material objects in which copyrighted works are fixed.
But 17 USC 106(3) just says:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
...(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Now, Google could say that "copies" implies a material object, but it's certainly not there in the plain language. In fact, 17 USC 106(6) goes on to discuss digital audio transmissions, and doesn't distinguish them as being non-material.
Google is correct that the Capitol Records brief is inconsistent:
The present motion argues that the first sale doctrine—which permits the owner of a lawfully-made copy or phonorecord to sell it without needing the copyright owner’s permission—cannot apply to this case because no material objects change hands. But it also argues that ReDigi infringes Capitol’s exclusive right to “distribute copies or phonorecords,” despite its admission that no material objects are distributed. Either both provisions apply, and ReDigi’s service may be protected by the first sale doctrine, or neither applies, and ReDigi’s service does not infringe the distribution right.
But they should be focusing on that inconsistency, rather than claiming the statute says something it doesn't. It almost seems like Google is trying to argue that First Sale doesn't apply, because "copies are not material objects".
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. My thought [slashdot.org] is they'll update the law to include MP3s under the cover of computer programs.
Re:But the statute doesn't say that :/ (Score:5, Informative)
But 17 USC 106(3) just says:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ...(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Now, Google could say that "copies" implies a material object, but it's certainly not there in the plain language. In fact, 17 USC 106(6) goes on to discuss digital audio transmissions, and doesn't distinguish them as being non-material.
Actually it is there, but you have to go up to 17 USC 101, Definitions [cornell.edu] to see that they are defined as material objects. But more importantly, the same "copies and phonorecords" wording is used in both 17 USC 106 and 17 USC 109, so regardless of how they are defined, the same objects subject to copyright restrictions, once legally obtained, are also resellable.
17 USC 106(6) is interesting. It specifically restricts public performance by digital transmission, which might be seen as drawing a distinction between digitally transmitting them to specific people you know and digitally transmitting them to the general public, as might happen on YouTube or p2p networks.
Re:But the statute doesn't say that :/ (Score:5, Informative)
US Code, Title 17,101 Definitions [cornell.edu]
“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
“Phonorecords” are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “phonorecords” includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.
They are very much defined as physical objects
mp3 stored records is material (Score:2)
At the time the mp3 is saved on a disk or flash memory, it is materialized. Even if it shares the device with other files, it really has a some sectors or cells for itself. Just as some works were carved on wax or are pressed as vinyl and CD.
However, the work is communicated via non-material means.
We can say that the mp3 is sold as a non material stream, then materialized by the buyer. (I don't refer here to music streaming, but to the point that any download is a byte stream)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, First Sale does not apply, as what is transferred is not the material itself. You can sell the drive which has the recording, but to move it to another material is copying, regardless of whether the copy from which it is copied from is destroyed or not.
What if you move the file via quantum teleportation? Is that a move, or a copy/delete?
An easy way around your argument is just to have ReDigi download your song for you the first time around. Then, when you want to hear it, you just stream it. At that point, the network, computers, speakers, etc. are all part of the "aid of a machine" specifically permitted by law. This is exactly the business model several cloud music services are considering. Of course, the RIAA is probably going to try to argue that it's
Re: (Score:2)
>digitally transmitting them to the general public, as might happen on YouTube or p2p networks.
What if Youtube changes systems and becomes like Fakebook with only people on your fakes list can view it.
Re:But the statute doesn't say that :/ (Score:4, Informative)
I don't agree with you, but even if I did, don't bother looking for these kind of legal/logical gotcha's; that's not how the legal system works.
It is not at all uncommon to see a defense team put forth an argument like: I didn't kill her. And even if I did, it was self defense. And even if it wasn't, there were extenuating circumstances. And even if there weren't, it was a crime of passion. And if not, I'm a great guy and deserve to be convicted under a lesser crime! (They don't quite phrase it that way of course, but that is the essence of the argument.)
Logically, people look at that and go -- "what the fuck? What are you arguing here?" But legally it is not only sound strategy, but fully expected and required of a competent defense. It's similar in civil law. Remember, much as it might seem otherwise sometimes it's not a defendent/respondent's job to prove innocence -- it's to poke enough holes that the other side can't prove guilt/liability.
As I said, though, I don't agree with your conclusion. Google is simply saying "you guys can't have it both ways." They're not taking a position on the issues they're raising, at least not in the quotes you have; they're simply pointing out what they consider to be the plaintiff trying to have it both ways and saying "sorry, no. Pick one: It's a material object subject to one law or a non-material object not subject to either."
Re:But the statute doesn't say that :/ (Score:4, Informative)
First Sale does not apply :) (Score:2)
Disclosure? (Score:2)
I'm a big fan of you, NewYorkCountryLawyer, but you really should have disclosed in the summary that you are currently counsel for the defendant, ReDigi, in this court case.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear that you seem to have found a heavy-weight ally in this case.
Re:Disclosure? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a big fan of you, NewYorkCountryLawyer, but you really should have disclosed in the summary that you are currently counsel for the defendant, ReDigi, in this court case.
If I'd done that, it would have seemed like self promotion. But really, it didn't take you long to find out, did you? Plus, it's not like I said anything controversial either in the Slashdot post or in my blog post; I just report the news on these cases, and leave it to others to discuss the issues.
Perhaps we should ask ... (Score:2)
Precedent? (Score:4, Interesting)
How may times have you heard commercials saying "Own it on DVD today!" or "Own it on Blu-ray Today!" ? Since they mention 'it', referring to the advertised movie, and the medium, the DVD or the blu-ray disk, they're saying that the ownership is for the movie, not the medium. Note also that they say 'OWN' it, not 'license' it.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your argument. But it would not be precedent. Further, only those people who bought the specific disc advertised with this wording, and who want to re-sell it but cannot, would have standing to use this. If I bought it on disc and went to a used movie place and sold it, they would legally be able to buy and resell it, and I would not be hampered in any way.
If you purchase a digital copy (or license), this wording is irrelevant. You could make the argument, but it would as I understand it not hold
Why not BUY them outright? (Score:3)
Google could pony up and buy Capitol Records completely, release all copyrights held, then break up and sell what worthless assets it has left in a fire sale. While they probably have the capability to purchase the entire industry, they only need to stop there with Capitol Records aquisition.
The rest of the industry will STFU and play nice.
Re: (Score:3)
Google could pony up and buy Capitol Records completely, release all copyrights held, then break up and sell what worthless assets it has left in a fire sale. While they probably have the capability to purchase the entire industry, they only need to stop there with Capitol Records aquisition.
Maybe they feel the present management of Capitol Records is doing a good job of bringing the price down still further.
This IS significant, and affects mechanical licens (Score:2)
In mechanical licensing - which is the fee due to the composer and lyricist, a "Permanent Digital Download" is treated nearly identically to a track on a CD or a song recorded to a record or tape. The fee is set by statute (http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.pdf), though if you are going to produce a lot of copies, you can negotiate directly with the owners or through HFA (Harry Fox Agency) for those it represents.
This strikes directly to the heart of the matter: if the copyright holders are getting paid
Re: (Score:2)
So you're a music pirate eh lad?
Its now been denied... (Score:4, Informative)
From NYCL's site: http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/capitol_redigi_120201OrderDenyGoogleMotionLeaveFileAmicus.pdf [beckermanlegal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
At least the judge is giving broad hints that NYCL ought to be using the Google brief as notes for his own arguments. It sounds like the judge is open to the ideas Google laid out, but would rather hear them from Mr. Beckerman instead.
confused? (Score:4, Informative)
I see you're all dazzled by the big words.
Google is saying, since cloud computing works on the premise that one file is stored and access is given based on license, then Capitol cannot argue that they are material goods. If they were material goods, they would be subject to first sale doctrine and the lawsuit falls apart.
If they are not material goods, the plaintiffs must argue that the license is non-transferable and not subject to sale.
This is what I've been saying for years regarding the whole piracy debate for music. Is it a product or a license. The RIAA seems to want both, but only when it suits them. There are not a lot of legal precedents regarding this matter.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, to look at it another way, sometimes even my enemy's interests align with my own.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, to look at it another way, sometimes even my enemy's interests align with my own.
Sometimes. Hard to imagine that ever happening with Capitol Records tho'.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to like the music they produce.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to like the music they produce.
That may well be true. I don't know what music they produce though, so I'm not sure why it seems that way.
Re: (Score:3)
What music does the record company produce?
Before you start listing anything, remember that the artist makes the music, and the artist pays for the music to be recorded out of his/her own profits, and that the only material support the record company provides is a loan-sharking service that ensures that the artist is an indentured servant for most of his/her career.
The record company's contribution equals jack shit at the end of the day. They don't write the music. They don't perform it. They neither rec
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)
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:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're in trouble now, for sure. Some lawyer is going to sue you for substituting "corporation" for "lawyer". Your statement surely infringes trademark, thief.
cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. That would imply that "The Only Good Lawyer is a Dead Lawyer." But everyone knows that when you kill one of those fuckers, they seep toxic... stuff, like the Mummies in Diablo II.
"Dead" Lawyers are almost (but not quite) as bad as live ones.
I think you meant "The only good lawyer is a lawyer encased in opaque diamond and fired into the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are people my friend... you incite to murder!
Re:I thought Google was evil now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought Google was evil now? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Yes, and while technically the bad things that corporations do are done by people, those people are not held accountable. If they were, half of the banking industry would be in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and while technically the bad things that corporations do are done by people, those people are not held accountable. If they were, half of the banking industry would be in jail.
And, rightfully, they should. Acting unethically, even in the best interests of your company.shareholders, at the expense of everyone else, should be illegal. All this indoctrination of "it's just business" or "it's just politics" is ridiculous. Sure that's the way it is now, but the way it is now is not ideal and should be improved upon.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and while technically the bad things that corporations do are done by people, those people are not held accountable. If they were, half of the banking industry would be in jail.
And, rightfully, they should. Acting unethically, even in the best interests of your company.shareholders, at the expense of everyone else, should be illegal. All this indoctrination of "it's just business" or "it's just politics" is ridiculous. Sure that's the way it is now, but the way it is now is not ideal and should be improved upon.
Actually it is illegal, and yes, they 'should' be in jail. Except no one is doing anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, while that is a nice thought, it doesn't bear out in practice. The removal of any personal responsibility by the staff for any action taken part by the corporation as a whole means that every action is a simple business decision. If the cost of breaking a law is less than the reward, then the simple decision is to flout the law. Strictly speaking, the corporation is actually irresponsible if it doesn't break the law in those situations.
We lost the ethics battle as soon as a corporate chart
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been a time when a corporate charter is or was an impenetrable shield against holding individuals accountable for their actions. If individuals break the law, whether they're doing it on behalf of a corporation or not is no shield.
Re: (Score:2)
We lost the ethics battle as soon as a corporate charter became an impenetrable shield against holding individuals accountable for their actions.
This whole "corporations are evil" mantra is such a canard. You think a corporate charter gives you an impenetrable shield. Put a company that dumps toxic waste into a river behind a corporation, and write to us from prison on how that worked out for you.
Corporate status doesn't provide the shield. Money does. The same way it always has. Today, it is often called crony capitalism, but is it just the buying and selling of influence. The only thing the corporate shield does is provided cover for the buyin
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What you consider to be immoral is not necessarily illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
What you consider to be immoral is not necessarily illegal.
And that's a really really good thing.
We don't all have the same set of morals, but we do all have to have the same set of laws.
Forcing other people to live by your morals is as bad as other people forcing you to live by theirs.
I like my laws as minimal and amoral as possible. As few laws as possible, as cleanly and clearly enunciated as possible, and parliaments focused on making better law not more law.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that a) the Depression was over in 1931, and Germany was well back into recovery in 1933, when Hitler became chancellor, and b) the economic powerhouse was paid for in debt for the first six years till 1939, and then from the loots and booties he took from the conquered countries.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of "corporation" itself is inherently an anthropomorphization!
Re: (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, y
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: (Score:2)
Re:Eh (Score:5, Informative)
google asks the court to decide wether:
- files (eg mp3) are material objects which can be resold etc or:
- files are not material and therefore the laws regarding those are invalid.
Re:Eh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
hell if corporations can be people, files can be material object!
Re: (Score:2)
Where is Heisenberg when we need him!
Wait... I think I see Schrödinger's cat... oh, never mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Eh (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but in a recent story, we heard that Capital Records was suing ReDigi, a service that allows people to re-sell used MP3s, claiming that they such resale is not permitted by law. Google wants to put forth an argument that it is.
The exclusive rights a copyright holder has (which are enumerated in 17 USC 106) include the exclusive right to make and distribute "copies" and "phonorecords". There are some other exclusive rights such as making derivative works and public performance, but they are not relevant here. But under 17 USC 109, the owner of a lawfully made "copy" or "phonorecord" is permitted to sell that copy or phonorecord, without any authority from the copyright owner. Google argues that either owners of MP3s have this resale right, or else MP3s are considered neither of these things and their creation and distribution is not restricted by law at all, because the same terms are used in both sections of the law.
In 17 USC 101 [cornell.edu] both of these words are defined as "material objects" of some sort. Capitol apparently argued that MP3s are not material objects and thus not subject to the right of resale, but Google pointed out that this same argument would make the actions of copying and distributing MP3s not fall under the restrictions of copyright at all.
Copy vs Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Copy vs Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
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.