ReDigi Responds:

ReDigi’s core business and technology platform protect and promote the rights of copyright holders, and are designed that way through all phases of the process. ReDigi brings significant new technology to support copyright protection initiatives in the digital age.

ReDigi is a strong ally of copyright holders and copyright protection. ReDigi technology offers a progressive, technology driven solution to copyright protection and, in fact, ReDigi’s method of managing the sale of a digital music file in the secondary market is far superior, in protecting the rights of copyright holders, to anything available in any other secondary market. ReDigi’s technology provides a mechanism, once a consumer makes the choice to sell a digital track, one that the consumer rightfully owns, by which all known copies and future synced copies are removed. This type of protection is not possible in the secondary market for CDs and other physical forms of media, where physical units are resold but copies remain in use.

ReDigi is a strong ally to R.I.A.A. and copyright holder, antipiracy initiatives by providing an elective tool for people to remove previously pirated music from their devices, thereby helping significantly reduce the number of pirated tracks in the music ecosphere.

ReDigi conviniently forgot to mention WHERE THEY GOT ALL THESE THOUSANDS OF ALBUMS THAT WERE READY TO GO ON THEIR WEBSITE MINUTES AFTER IT WENT PUBLIC.

[note for any mafia defenders: Yes, I actually checked their website just 5 minutes after they went online, thanks to Pingdom. No, it's not technically possible for thousands of "customerz" to upload all these albums at once, in under 5 minutes, unless they all had physical access to an Amazon datacenter.]

 James L Walker, Jr. 

I love ReDigi... who are they, send me their twitter

The industry is trying to have it both ways. Either these are sales, in which case they're covered by first sale doctrine, or they're licenses, which means they potentially owe their artists a ton of additional revenue because licenses typically have a more artist-friendly revenue split than a "sale".

Hey Roger, do you have any explanation about the fact that ReDigi had all these albums in their database before even going public with it?

Looking forward to your thoughts on that, since you seem to understand what a "license" means.

My point is that the majors are currently arguing in court that digital sales are not licences:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/business/media/28eminem.html?pagewanted=all

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/chuck-d-sues-universal-music-over-digital-royalties

While at the same time saying that digital sales are not "sales" but rather licenses that are limited in usage and cannot be resold, despite settled case law regarding the first sale doctorine.

I'm not familiar with ReDigi's business model, so I can't tell you if it's legal or not, but I can say that the RIAA is trying to have it both ways on this issue.

So, you have no opinion on the obvious fact that Redigi is offering thousands of digital files for sale, although it is not possible for them to have been uploaded at such a short time after the site was available online?

Here's my opinion: I know enough to know I don't know enough in terms of Redigi's business model or how it acquired the content. In all likelyhood it was in a less-than-legal manner, but I don't know that for sure. I hope more facts come out, and I'm counting on DMN to stay on the story.

Setting asidde the specifics of Redigi, and speaking to the broader issue of reselling digital music: While I share your concerns about the rights of artists, I also have further concenrs about the right to sell that which I have purchased.

Yes, the terms of service of a particular retailer might prohibit resale, but it's quite possible that right cannot be so easily given away, no matter what the EULA says. (see UMG vs. Agusto)

And while there's no way to verify that someone selling a digital track didn't keep a copy for themselves, the same can be said about used record and CD stores.

As for demanding a receipt from the person selling the track, again, the real world equivilent just doesn't impose the same proof of purchase restrictions. No used CD store asks for receipts of every item you're trying to sell to them.

The used CD store doesn't ask for a receipt, because they get to look at the original and legitimate CD that you want to sell to them and it is a felony to accept an illegal copy. Rest assured no second-hand store would ever pay you money for a CD-R that you burned yourself at home.

Under a first sale doctrine, the rightsholders/copyright owners typically would be paid once for the first sale. Where are the digital files coming from? What is a used digital copy? What about files that contain existing unique watermarks? This is doesn't pass the smell test at all.

I hate it when I buy a used MP3 and it's all scratched up. 

Ha! This is ridiculous.  I actually laughed out loud. 

Could there be a better example of how outdated copyright laws are? The fundamentals are all off. These principles just don't address reality.

Content creators need to be protected. But right now we're trying to fit a round digital peg in a square 20th century hole. 

Used mp3s? The progress is too painfully slow. 

For all the indie artists and labels out there, who might find their work on this mafia website:

Don't bother sending a DMCA notice to ReDigi, they will probably just try to mock you, Pirate Bay style. Instead, send your DMCA notice to ReDigi's hosting company, which happens to be Amazon.

The Amazon DMCA designated agent (full legal team) responds to: copyright [-ΑΤ-] amazon [-DOT-] [-COM-]

My label talked to them last week and they forced ReDigi to remove 17 full albums from their website. It took less than 48 hours for the Amazon staff to kick ReDigi's ass. They don't like scammers on their cloud...

Oh, and thanks to RIAA as well, for stepping in with their laywers. Money well spend for the whole industry.

Fuck the pirates and their PR blogs.

I would like to add my personal "thank you" to the RIAA legal team. Keep up the good work!

«The sticking point is whether ReDigi should be permitted to created secondary digital copies»

No.You got it wrong.

The sticking point is where did ReDigi got all these albums in the first place.

Why don't you e-mail them and ask them to make a public statement about it? Surely they wouldn't mind talking to a reporter...?

Seems to me we are making a big deal about a terrible idea that has no actual promise of success to begin with.  Let's move back to demonizing Spotify (something that is actively hurting sales...)

There is no legal definition of "used" that mandates wear on an item. If you purchase a CD and never take it out of the plastic wrap, you still retain first doctrine right of sale. 

So, you are saying that Redigi is able to provide RIAA with a full list of its users, along with their receipts of digital music files' purchases?

I hope you understand that RIAA will then take these receipts and compare them with the logs from Amazon e.t.c.

And then, the gentlemen with the blue jackets with the word "FBI" printed on the back will be paying a visit to Redigi, I hope I don't have to explain to you why that would happen...

...do I?

Semi-serious, semi-snarky question:

Can a collection of (authorized) digital music files be inherited after the death of the original purchaser?   Or is the estate under an obligation to see that the collection is destroyed?  

Do the files become unlawful: is anyone possessing them after the original purchaser's death an infringer?

If the terms of use that the person agreed to allow for such a transfer AND the specific country's legislation allows it, then yes, the family would be able to inherit what the TOS allow to be inherited.

It is not possible to be more specific than that, since each digital music store has its own TOS and each country its own rules about what families can inherit after the death of a person.

Same goes for online accounts (Facebook e.t.c.). Generally speaking, the family inherits the control of the account (login, administration), but it is not permitted to keep using the account without stating that the family is now in control (to avoid impersonation situations).

Can authorized digital music files be lawfully transferred from parent (the holder of the credit card) to a minor child (who is below the age of being able to enact a contract)?

If the answer is "Yes," then what is the difference between this transfer scenario and the transfer of a "used" music file?

If the answer is "No," then it seems it is effectively impossible for a minor to legally own digital music.   Imagine, all iPod owners under 18 (or perhaps their parents) are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages!  :-)

1. The above are related to a very specific situation, where a family member dies and his or her relatives take control of what can be taken under control. Taking control of a dead person's business or personal accounts has nothing to do with being able to sell copies of music files.

2. You can't "transfer" digital music files. Read the terms of use of the various digital music stores. They are also known as EULA or TOS. You can locate them either on the store's website or inside the store's software manual. If in doubt, you can always just use a search engine and you will find what you are looking for in a few seconds.

3. Some digital music stores permit the authorization of a number of computers. If I remember corrently, Apple/iTunes allows for 5 computers to be authorized. This is quite useful for a big family that wants to keep a single Apple account, for example for parental control. It is the parents who authorize the devices, not the children. And it is the parents' obligation to maintain this authorization in compliance.

4. You don't seem to understand how a family actually works. When a parent buys an iPhone, netbook, iPod e.t.c. to their children, they are not transferring any kind of property to them, they are not signing a contract with their own children. The goods still belong to the parents, that's why they can use the receipts for their annual tax reports (expenses). Children can use their parents' property, with permission.

Heh.  One of the purposes of law is to clearly lay out what happens in common life situations, such as death.

Tens of millions of Apple and Amazon digital music customers are going to die over the next five decades.  (Including me!  :-)  )  Hundreds of millions of legitimately-purchased song files, maybe even billions of song files, will be among their personal effects when they go.

It seems to me, as a matter of basic legal logic, that EITHER the rights to possess and use these files TRANSFER as part of the estate, or ELSE someone has a legal obligation to see that these billions of files cease to exist.  

Or is there some sort of legal limbo I'm not thinking of, where the files continue to exist, but it is not legal to possess or use them.

(You think this is an imaginary case?  My wife and I treasure the chunk of her late dad's jazz collection, and I expect to keep some portion of my dad's CD collection after his death.)

Billions of song files.  :-)   Over to you...

You confuse a physical audio CD with a digital music file. They are not the same. The first you can inherit, because it is a material that cannot be legally duplicated. You can duplicate its content, but not the CD itself.

The digital music file can be duplicated very easily and despite what the Redigi scammers say, there is no tech available in the market that can scan all the computers and electronic devices on planet earth. Unless Redigi is receiving funding from InQTel or NSA. So, there are certain limitations related to what you can and what you cannot do with a digital music file.

If your family inherits 1,000 audio CDs, they can keep them and listen to them, or resell them as used, if they don't like your music taste.

If they inherit 1,000 digital music files, they can keep your hard drive and listen to them, provided that the EULA/TOS of the music store(s) allow this transfer of personal license. If they don't like your music taste, they can erase these digital music files, format the hard drive and recycle it or repurpose it.

As a customer of a digital music store, you are not provided with a commercial license. You are also not provided with a streamign license, which is what Redigi is doing right now on its scam website.

You're ducking the question, but that's OK.   :-)

The odds of heirs knowing what TOS the deceased purchaser of the music files agreed to, decades ago, would be very low.

(Someone ought to know the answer:  what are the terms of the large online music stores, today, relating to the death of the consumer?)

Billions of music files, in an uncertain state of licensing/rights, a few decades from now.  Cool.  :-)

The heirs don't need to know what the TOS/EULA says. They will hire a lawyer to take care of every account their beloved had. Amazon, Google, Facebook, digitalmusicnews.com, whatever. Been there, done that. Normal legal paperwork, nothing extraordinary.

«Imagine, all iPod owners under 18 (or perhaps their parents) are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages»

What the fuck are you talking about. Parents pay for their kids' phone bills all the time, that doesn't mean they are signing a service contract with them, waiving the parents' legal obligations. Want to find out who pays for the bills if the kids don't do it? Yes, Sherlock. The parents pay. Good luck telling a judge that you don't want to pay your son's phone bill...

I am sure the IRS would be interested to have a look at Redigi's books, after the RIAA teams are done with their audits.

Let me spell that out for the tech bloggerz:

M-O-N-E-Y  L-A-U-N-D-E-R-I-N-G

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Laundering_Control_Act

Why even argue about this ?  

Who wants to buy a secondary market mp3 to begin with ?  

Either the individual wants to support the artist in which case they buy it from Amazon or iTunes,

OR the individual doesn't want to pay money in which case they stream it and or steal it.  

Furthermore Redigi's model of "removing all known syncs" is absurd - it doesn't take a genius to copy their files onto a thumbdrive or external.  Even if they had a way to track this specific example, there are so many ways to skin a cat in this scenario that Redigi can't begin to substantiate their system as effective.  

Their model is crap.  

Fucking mafia gang.

Just kicked their ass with the help of a very helpful and kind Amazon admin. We sent in a DMCA notice with detailed URLs for all the albums, one by one. The Amazon crew likes to see URLs so that they can check things in more detail. Don't just tell them "my label's catalog is on Redigi and I want it removed". They can't acommodate all these searches manually, it would take ages to respond to a week's DMCA notices. So, help them to help you. They are on our side on this, at least that's the feeling I got from talking with them over the phone.

All you can find online about Redigi is paid placements (PR articles). No users. No customers talking about how they are making money from this scam site. At all. It's a ghost website. Looks like a money laundering setup.

Oh, come on. Who is *that* stupid to share his personal information with such an obvious scam?

If someone actually signed up with Redigi to get "second hand mp3s" (LOL!:!:!), VISA should cancel his card automatically. And then give a call to his bank, to educate them not to issue cards to morons.