The letter lays out a somewhat complicated case against ReDigi's service which involves two separate claims.Buy Wholesale Rustic porcelain For Wall From China Manufacturers, chinese antique porcelain items on eBay They make two different claims against ReDigi. First they claim the fact ReDigi's sales are for copies of the original song, which is not allowed by law.
They also argue offering 30 second previews of songs offered for sale constitutes a violation of the copyright holder's performance right. This claim is significantly weaker. In fact, it's so weak as to be laughable. While royalty collection groups have made a similar claim for years, lawsuits have never been filed because of how weak it is.
The RIAA cites caselaw they claim to be relevant, but which actually involves a case where an artist was using original artwork as a decoration for ceramic tiles. The court found the tiles to be derivative works.Paintings for sale Wholesale Bulati Polished For Floor buy paintings original painting art Without any doubt, there's nothing derivative about an exact copy. Which doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a copyright violation.
That's where this gets more interesting. The RIAA is well aware that there is caselaw which clearly identifies music downloads as licenses rather than sales. That, by itself, would likely be enough to put ReDigi out of business since there is no first sale right for licenses.
However, that also hurts the labels' position in lawsuits artists like Chuck D have filed regarding royalty payments. For artists with contracts pre-dating iTunes it's an important distinction. Under these contracts, the restrictions placed on downloads, which include a ban on re-selling, count as licenses.
Since license royalties are paid under a completely different set of rules than sales,All people Wholesale Rustic For Countertops From China Manufacturers ship artists make significantly more money from them. What the RIAA is attempting to do is follow a long held label position that even if downloads are sales, copyright law restricts them from being re-sold since that requires making a copy.
The larger problem is the notion of strict control over coyping. Current copyright law is generally incompatible with purely digital content.Shop for Wholesale Super Black Polished Tiles For Bathrooms at Bed Bath & Beyond When you buy a song from iTunes, the only legal way to sell it, barring a specific exemption granted by the copyright holder, would be to sell the media that initial download is stored on.
In other words, when you download a song to your hard drive, the only way you could sell that downloaded content would be to sell the hard drive itself. Essentially, the right of first sale vanishes in a puff of legal smoke and mirrors.
Application of this principle is even more problematic in some countries, such as the UK, where fair use exceptions to copyright are more restrictive.you can use a Wholesale Magic Tile For Bathrooms In the US, per the Supreme Court in the Betamax case, non-profit, non-commercial copying is assumed to be fair use unless the copyright holder can make a case that it costs them money.
If you copy a song to a new hard drive or to your phone or media player, that ruling means you are protected from copyright claims. It is also covered by another portion of the Betamax ruling which defends taping of broadcasts because they are used to facilitate use of the content for the purpose intended by the broadcaster.
They also argue offering 30 second previews of songs offered for sale constitutes a violation of the copyright holder's performance right. This claim is significantly weaker. In fact, it's so weak as to be laughable. While royalty collection groups have made a similar claim for years, lawsuits have never been filed because of how weak it is.
The RIAA cites caselaw they claim to be relevant, but which actually involves a case where an artist was using original artwork as a decoration for ceramic tiles. The court found the tiles to be derivative works.Paintings for sale Wholesale Bulati Polished For Floor buy paintings original painting art Without any doubt, there's nothing derivative about an exact copy. Which doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a copyright violation.
That's where this gets more interesting. The RIAA is well aware that there is caselaw which clearly identifies music downloads as licenses rather than sales. That, by itself, would likely be enough to put ReDigi out of business since there is no first sale right for licenses.
However, that also hurts the labels' position in lawsuits artists like Chuck D have filed regarding royalty payments. For artists with contracts pre-dating iTunes it's an important distinction. Under these contracts, the restrictions placed on downloads, which include a ban on re-selling, count as licenses.
Since license royalties are paid under a completely different set of rules than sales,All people Wholesale Rustic For Countertops From China Manufacturers ship artists make significantly more money from them. What the RIAA is attempting to do is follow a long held label position that even if downloads are sales, copyright law restricts them from being re-sold since that requires making a copy.
The larger problem is the notion of strict control over coyping. Current copyright law is generally incompatible with purely digital content.Shop for Wholesale Super Black Polished Tiles For Bathrooms at Bed Bath & Beyond When you buy a song from iTunes, the only legal way to sell it, barring a specific exemption granted by the copyright holder, would be to sell the media that initial download is stored on.
In other words, when you download a song to your hard drive, the only way you could sell that downloaded content would be to sell the hard drive itself. Essentially, the right of first sale vanishes in a puff of legal smoke and mirrors.
Application of this principle is even more problematic in some countries, such as the UK, where fair use exceptions to copyright are more restrictive.you can use a Wholesale Magic Tile For Bathrooms In the US, per the Supreme Court in the Betamax case, non-profit, non-commercial copying is assumed to be fair use unless the copyright holder can make a case that it costs them money.
If you copy a song to a new hard drive or to your phone or media player, that ruling means you are protected from copyright claims. It is also covered by another portion of the Betamax ruling which defends taping of broadcasts because they are used to facilitate use of the content for the purpose intended by the broadcaster.
没有评论:
发表评论