Monitored Alarm Systems

This is not a surprise at all. In fact, we expect this type of government all the time. ReDigi, the company that tried to build a "market" around "MP3s for sale" was lost in the district court. As you know, ReDigi tried to establish a system that monitors its own files, so if you "sell" a used MP3, you must ensure that it has been removed from your system. As you can imagine, this system is not foolproof, but an effort was made (and only allowed resale MP3 ReDigi can demonstrate that it has acquired, through iTunes, not only for files copied from CD). While I expected to lose ReDigi, the fault is still very worrying how badly distorts other parts of the law, which can interfere with other uses even more reasonable. ReDigi please hope and combat the most extreme interpretation of the district court here.

First, the court examines the question of whether or not a transfer of a protected file, only one file which is ultimately violates even "Playback" right. In other words, if a file transfer Bob to Alice, Bob and copy the file is deleted immediately, is it still a reproduction under the Law on? The court said yes

... courts have not yet considered whether the unauthorized transfer of a file of digital music on the Internet - in a file exists before and after the transfer - constitutes a reproduction within the meaning of the Act Copyright. The Court finds that this is the case.

The Act provides that the owner of the copyright has the exclusive right "to reproduce the copyrighted work in the format ... phonograms." Protected works defined as including, inter alia, "sound recordings" that are "works that result from the fixation of a series of musical sounds, spoken or otherwise." These works are distinguished by their physical achievements. This is especially phonograms, which are physical objects "where it seems ... 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. "Therefore, the text of the Law on Copyright clearly states that reproduction occurs when a copyrighted work is fixed in a material new topic. course, the same piece of the Law on Copyright

also clearly states that "copy" does not apply to purely digital files, but the cup of tap dancing around this argument. Basically, it says that if there are no more in the world has no meaning. All that matters is whether a copy is made, even if the original was destroyed. In short, it is the creation of a

new not a material object

more material object that defines the right of reproduction. The dictionary defines the term "reproduction" means, among other things, "to produce new" or "to exist again and again." See Merriam-Webster Collegiate Edition 994 (10th ed. 1998) (emphasis added). In Significantly, it is defined as "happen again, while the original is." Therefore, the "right to reproduce the copyrighted work as phonograms ..." is involved whenever a sound recording is fixed on an object of the new equipment, regardless of whether the sound recording is fixed object the original material.

Basically, according to this interpretation, can never "transfer" of a digital file. You can

only make a reproduction under copyright. And, yes, computers to transfer files to make copies, but it seems a bit ridiculous that the whole concept of the transfer can be eliminated because of this. In fact, in this interpretation, even

transmission

(which still involves all the copied data temporarily on the local computer) are considered read. ReDigi explained, emphasizing the ability to just clean your own hard disk is considered to infringer, but the court order (EMI) Capitol Records arguing that these uses are protected by other theories.

Turning to the issue of

distribution

, ReDigi is no denying that the distribution of files, but says he is protected by the fair use and (especially) the first sale. Again, however, the court does not believe. Part of the problem may be that ReDigi "abandoned" an argument just before transfer a file to a locker in the cloud for personal use is fair use, is the argument that other aspects of the service are covered by fair use, but it is much more difficult in the basic test of four factors. In this section, it is not surprising that ReDigi failed to convince the court, as I'm not sure I see the argument is fair use.
The first part of the sale is where it gets more disturbing. Indeed, the court shall terminate upon the first sale of digital products, arguing that because (as before) each transfer is not really a "transfer", but a "copy" of the first sale do not not apply. In other words, the first sale only applies to the first "copy" "under this title." However, the court held, because the sale is to a not
Find best price for : --Copyright----ReDigi--