Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor
A more accurate subject line for the post woulda be "Google argued that either a) copyright law applies to digital content, or b) it doesn't".
Capitol is securing that mp3s ARE material goods and that they are NOT material goods. Google is pointing out the obvious fact that either they are or they are not, leaning toward "are". If they are, you can legally sell your used mp3 collection just line you can sell your used.CD collection, provided you don't keep a copy for yourself.
If not, it would be illegal to give away a used ipod without wiping it first, even if you didn't keep copies for yourself.
|
re-read the filings Google and redigi combined are making that argument
but the individual filing make the argument from to different directions.
Google argued that if capital records argument is correct then copyright punishment also disappears with the first sale doctrine
redigi is the one arguing that the first sale doctrine still applies.
The best solution is that capital loses their argument (and therefore has to pay court cost too).
That why google filed the brief the way they did, to make sure copyright industry as a whole will support redigi argument
It a brilliant legal move.