Can wrongs be copyrighted?

[1]

One major aspect in the ever-changing world of content was the amendment in the Indian Copyright Act last year that made significant changes, among other things, on how music will be licenced. However, while it saw to protect rights of authors, lyricists, composers, and singers, among other things, what it could not discuss for obvious reasons was a development that occurred in the US earlier this year.

In February, Amazon won a patent for the “electronic marketplace”, which it had applied for in 2009, where users can re-sell digital content. What this entails is that “digital objects” such as e-books, audio content, audio-visual (video) content, computer software applications and similar content, originally purchased by a buyer, but no longer required by the user, can result in the “buyer” re-selling the “used” content to another user. This, of course, would be subject to the original purchaser of the content having permission from the rights holder to do so and, simultaneously, erasing such content from the original user’s data storage including, but not restricted to, backups, copies in cloud storage, and so on. This implies that either the “original” consumer is trusted to delete all copies and/or there needs to be a robust system that legally ensures that the deletion is done so automatically. Nevertheless, how either or both the options will be monitored/implemented remains moot. But, just when rights in the digital space could not get any further complicated, last Thursday, Apple filed a patent application to also create a similar “marketplace” for used content, but with a singularly important difference: Apple envisages that “a portion of the [sale] proceeds of the resale may be paid to the creator or publisher of the digital content item and/or the entity that originally sold the digital content to the original owner.”
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published Apple’s application for its own patent by outlining a system for permitting users to sell or give e-books, music, movies, and software to each other by transferring files rather than reproducing them. Such a system would permit only one user to have a copy at any one time. Undoubtedly, this is a contentious issue not only in the US, but obviously is — or will be — in other markets too, such as India where, at the moment and, to the best of my knowledge, there is yet no precedent for such an initiative. My research shows that the progenitor of this thought process initially came from a little known company called Bopaboo, a model that is being pursued by ReDigi (short for “Recycling Digital Music”), both US-based companies. Record label EMI — now merged with the Universal Music Group — sued ReDigi back in January 2012 claiming that the digital files cannot be re-sold like the physical format because there is no manner of ensuring that the “original” digital file was deleted and, hence, ReDigi remains liable for copyright infringement. No doubt, once a verdict is announced it will have implications on Amazon’s patent and, of course, to the entire global recording industry which is watching the matter with bated breath. What is likely to muddy waters further is Amazon actually preventing ReDigi and similar companies that exist — or that may arise — from offering the re-sale model only because the patent now rests with Amazon…or does it? What about Apple’s patent application of last week?
However, a victory for ReDigi would be scary for copyright holders as that would mean that consumers would neither need Apple’s nor Amazon’s exchange facility to resell their digital items.
Stakeholders nearer home are closely awaiting the rules (for the implementation of) the amended Copyright Act, which will certainly provide at least some answers to the innumerable pending questions of the past. At the same time, industry watchers around the world will be equally enthusiastic, if not more, to find out how the US Court will rule if digital content can indeed be re-sold and, if so, how it is going to be implemented. Till such time that happens, in the short term, it may appear as great news for consumers but, over the long term, however, it will seriously impact creators’ incentive to create. One remains hopeful that weighing the pros and cons of the digital future, better [dollars and] cents prevail!