Last summer the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its
controversial decision in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft (IPKat report here; The1709 Blog analysis here and here), ruling that:
·
The
right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the
copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of
that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return
for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration
corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the
proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period;
·
In
the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a
computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence
having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an
unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the
rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of
that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any
subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the
distribution right under Article 4(2) of the Software Directive, and hence be regarded as lawful
acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of
that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that
provision.
Almost in parallel with EU developments on issues
facing sales of second-hand digital products, in the US Capital Records (a
subset of EMI) initiated proceedings before the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York against "The World's First Pre-Owned Digital
Marketplace" ReDigi, claiming that
a service that let users buy and sell previously purchased tracks in iTunes was
akin to a clearing-house for copyright infringement.
The business model of ReDigi, which was launched in
2011, is based on the possibility for users to sell their own music library
and/or buy pre-owned music. ReDigi takes a small cut from every transaction made
on its site. Songs sell for an average of about 60 cents, compared with a
typical 99 cents on iTunes. First-time
users are requested to download proprietary software, which verifies if
a file was bought legally. If the song checks out, it is then erased from the
seller's hard drive and uploaded to ReDigi's computer servers. This systems is
said to prevent sellers from reinstalling a sold song to their computer,
and offers users the chance to check their libraries for illegal music.
As summarised by The Hollywood Reporter, the case (which is thoroughly explained here) touches upon various issues, including the meaning of a "copy" for copyright
purposes, whether the first sale doctrine (from which the EU principle of exhaustion descends)
applies in the digital context, whether there's "public" performance
in transmission of copies, and the ongoing liability for service providers who
allow users to do things like move files around in digital clouds and re-sell
them to others.
In particular, Capitol Records argues
that digital music is not the same as music on physical supports, with the
result that the first sale doctrine does not apply.
|
Benedict is really exhausted after just 10 minutes spent trying to understand what the principle of exhaustion is all about |
Back in February 2012, Justice Sullivan rejected the plaintiff's request for summary judgment. As a result, the case proceeded to a full court hearing, which began in October last, as reported and commented by Iona on The 1709 Blog.
As reported by the BBC, while US digital music sales were
set to surpass CD and vinyl sales for the first time ever in 2012, preventing
users from selling their own digital copies is tantamount to say, together with
ReDigi CEO, that "most lawful users of music and books
have hundreds of dollars of lawfully obtained things on their computers and
right now the value of that is zero dollars."
In the meanwhile, not only is ReDigi planning to
expand into the ebook and videogame makets, but has also announced its
intention to launch its services in Europe this quarter.
As reported by the Financial Times, ReDigi’s push into Europe is likely
to prompt debate over copyright laws and the right of consumers to buy and sell
second-hand digital goods in the same way that they trade physical goods, such
as printed books, CDs or handbags.
|
How dare you tell him that what's in his iPod is not his property? |
According to ReDigi CEO, ReDigi
operates within the law: “Property laws
the world over have always been that if you buy something, you have the right
to resell it ... Companies like EMI are
trying to change the status quo by trying to take away people’s property rights
and their rights to resell their goods just because they happen to be digital.”
Following the ruling in UsedSoft, it seems that ReDigi's
business model would be perfectly lawful under EU law.
This can have the potential to diminish
the chances of success of Capitol Records in the litigation currently pending
before the New York court. In any case, the US ruling is keenly awaited, as it
will hopefully clarify also what type of property (if any) rests on digital
files.
IPKat readers may in fact remember that a few
months ago The
Wall Street Journal attempted to provide an answer to the question
as to who inherits your iTunes library when you die. At
the time the answer seemed to be "no one", as Apple's Terms & Conditions state that the use of digital files is limited to Apple devices
used by the account holder. This
means that the licence acquired is non-transferable. In a similar way, Amazon’s terms of use make it clear that “You
do not acquire any ownership rights in the software or music content.”
Apparently also Bruce Willis wanted to know more about this story, but
sadly the news proved untrue in the end ...
At the most recent meeting (14 Jan 2013) of the Grand Committee of the House of Lords which is examining the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, Lord Lucas introduced an amendment (28A) which would have introduced into UK law that "Any natural person who acquires, for value and for his personal use only, the right to use a copyright may, for value or otherwise, transfer that right to any other person."
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly this was a probing amendment, but the new IP minister, Lord Younger of Leckie, booted it into the long grass by saying this was an area where the law was changing and it needed careful consideration before such an amendment could be accepted. The irony that Parliament is supposed to be able to change the law of its own volition rather than waiting for the courts to make up their minds seems to have been lost.
An extract from Hansard on the exchange can be found at the foot of this page: Hansard 14-01-2013
One can see why Spotify is so awesome, not merely from a "oh wow, I love that song!" perspective but also from a clarity of rights perspective (you don't own squat).
ReplyDelete