google arguing that digital content is not protected by copyright

[gideongallery]

"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."

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...it-amicus.html

[JFK]

here we go

[Slappin Fish]

It's so cute to watch the armchair pirate activist of gfy desperately grasping at straws like this...

[Joshua G]

good example how the law is unable to keep up with technology. applying laws written in the vinyl age & using them for mp3s is laughable.

[Barry-xlovecam]

As the end use is the same, it makes no difference -- music is music as example; a live performance, vinyl, tape, CD or mp3 all make the sounds of music there is no difference in the basic end result.

To be more concise; all these forms are matter (or energy - electrons in motion) in transition -- a note is played live then it vanishes in the air if not recorded.

Lame argument in this case's pleadings IMHO ...

[baddog]

As long as they leave them as 1's and 0's and don't defrag they may have a point.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

It's so cute to watch the armchair pirate activist of gfy desperately grasping at straws like this...

Those that can't create steal then justify their actions as progress.

.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

It's so cute to watch the armchair pirate activist of gfy desperately grasping at straws like this...

Originally Posted by joshgirls

good example how the law is unable to keep up with technology. applying laws written in the vinyl age & using them for mp3s is laughable.

are any of you guys familiar with the case

ReDigi is a company that allows you to sell your old mp3.

They setup a system which wipes the mp3 before your allowed to sell it

creating a digital equivalent to a second hand store.

Capital record is suing arguing that the first sale doctrine doesn't apply because a digital copy is not a material good

Google is basically filing a friend of the court argument saying will if it not a material good
then it doesn't qualify for distribution exemption.

Capital is playing word games with the law to disallow the digital counter part to an establish legal process.




Google filing a brief designed to trap them with their own game.

If fucking hilarious

[TisMe]

I think the OP is actually getting stupider with each post.

Seriously, I didn't think this was possible.

[BSleazy]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

are any of you guys familiar with the case

ReDigi is a company that allows you to sell your old mp3.

They setup a system which wipes the mp3 before your allowed to sell it

creating a digital equivalent to a second hand store.

Capital record is suing arguing that the first sale doctrine doesn't apply because a digital copy is not a material good

Google is basically filing a friend of the court argument saying will if it not a material good
then it doesn't qualify for distribution exemption.

Capital is playing word games with the law to disallow the digital counter part to an establish legal process.




Google filing a brief designed to trap them with their own game.

If fucking hilarious

Hows it gonna wipe the copy I have on a flash drive or any other external device?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by BCyber

Hows it gonna wipe the copy I have on a flash drive or any other external device?

how does the cd sale wipe out any burned copies you may have created ?

oh wait it doesn't

Does that fact criminalize the used cd shops, NO

[BSleazy]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Does that fact criminalize the used cd shops, NO

Used CD shops sell physical goods...

[Emil]

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by BCyber

Used CD shops sell physical goods...

want to show me in the copyright act where it says physical goods get special rights


so are you actually trying to argue that digital good BUYER are second class citizens

are not entitled to the same rights as their physical goods BUYERs.



That the arguement that record company is making to take away the first sale doctrine away from digital consumers


the problem is the act only distinguishing charateristic is something called material goodsr

and that reference applies twice once when defineing the first sale doctrine and once when defining the context of infringing.

So if the record company is right (and your right) that digital goods are not material goods

then first sale doctrine is not valid.

however google is also right and copyright doesn't apply to digitial goods because there is never infringement.

Stop trying to play word games with the law, give BUYER the same rights with new technology as with the old technologies and you don't have a problem with piracy.

Play games with the law, and your opponents will do the same.

[The Ghost]

GTF out of here with that terrible blogspot subdomain

[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.

[porno jew]

you are insane.

[raymor]

Under Google's theory, you CAN sell a site you built. Under Capitol's theory, you can't sell a site without the new owner re-purchasing all of the content and software.

As producers of digital goods, we've always held to the view that Google is asking the court to consider - you CAN sell a site with Strongbox on it, or just a used copy of Strongbox, and the new owner doesn't have to purchase a new license from us. Of course once you sell your used license to sometime else, you no longer have the license so you can't legally keep using it yourself after you sell it.

[gideongallery]

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.

[Fletch XXX]

Good thread

[Barry-xlovecam]

If a business is sold and the licenses are in the name of the business; the licenses are never transfered -- they remain the property of the business (if it is an organized business entity).

You can only get paid once for the same transaction.

[alextokyo]

So, how many of you fucking retards are going to "boycott" Google. Let's have a headcount here...


















... thought not.

[porno jew]

you left out the important part.

It's a big move against EMI-owned Capitol, and the fellow major labels that it represents. But Google has a lot riding on cloud computing, which makes a decision over cloud-based digital resale an important matter. But hearing the case - and potentially losing it - is exactly the opposite of what the major labels want. Which is why Capitol Records quickly moved to deny Google the ability to insinuate itself into the action.
On Thursday, a judge agreed, and told Google to mind its own business. The parties can duke it out themselves, thank you very much. Request, DENIED.


http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...2/120201redigi

[porno jew]

that site is hilarious though. so you download a bunch of songs of the pirate bay and resell them?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by porno jew

you left out the important part.

It's a big move against EMI-owned Capitol, and the fellow major labels that it represents. But Google has a lot riding on cloud computing, which makes a decision over cloud-based digital resale an important matter. But hearing the case - and potentially losing it - is exactly the opposite of what the major labels want. Which is why Capitol Records quickly moved to deny Google the ability to insinuate itself into the action.
On Thursday, a judge agreed, and told Google to mind its own business. The parties can duke it out themselves, thank you very much. Request, DENIED.


http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...2/120201redigi

and you left out a huge part

On Wednesday, the search giant moved to block an attempt by Capitol to dismiss the entire case (in legalese, through an attempted amicus curiae filing), based on important principles related to cloud computing.

your not talking about the original friends of the court filing

your talking about google attempt to force capital vs redigi to be heard after capital said "oh fuck google friends filing really screws us, we just want to drop the case".

The judge rightfully so, said if redigi doesn't want to take the defacto win, and fight it for absolute clarification they are the ones who get to decide not google.

[Dirty Dane]

[gideongallery]

and there is an easy solution for google to get around that ruling

by a small percentage of redigi.

[porno jew]

you don't know how to read. you just see things you want to believe.

[AdultKing]

Hopefully one day Gideon will "..insert horrible end of choice here..(bus, train, bungy jumping accident etc)" and this mindless drivel will stop.

Absolutely no understanding of law, treaties, copyright or anything much for that matter.