Japan Used Smartphones Industry Overview and Future Prospects
The Japan used smartphone market was valued at USD 940 million in 2023 and is forecasted to reach USD 1,366 million by 2030, registering a CAGR of 2.5%. The market volume reached 3.76 million units in 2023 and is expected to increase to 5.69 million units by 2030 at a CAGR of 6.4%. The growth of the Japan used smartphones industry is attributed to affordability, eco-conscious consumer behavior, and the rising popularity of certified pre-owned devices.
The Japan used smartphones market report suggests that online marketplaces, trade-in programs, and repair/refurbishment services are key growth drivers. The Japan used smartphones market trends indicate a shift from traditional retail to digital platforms, where buyers can easily compare quality and price. Market research also highlights that younger demographics and students are the primary consumers fueling demand.
As the Japan used smartphones market forecast shows, demand for premium refurbished devices is increasing. Companies providing warranties, quality assurance, and transparent product grading are expected to capture substantial Japan used smartphones market share. Furthermore, government initiatives promoting electronic recycling and reducing e-waste will continue to support market growth.
For a broader perspective on global electronics trends and cross-regional strategies, check the European electronics market leader insights, which reflect consumer behavior and market evolution in mature markets.
Amazon seeks Canadian patent on reselling ‘used’ digital content Amazon has shown an interest in allowing customers to resell digital content before. In 2013 it…
The ReDigi ruling and what it means for copying and digital resale
The ReDigi ruling came out this weekend, which means it's not an April Fool's Day prank, though in my opinion it is extremely foolish.
I talked a little before about the concept of digital resale and how courts have yet to determine how it fits in with traditional rights of resale. As a result, few companies have been willing to enter the arena. ReDigi, a startup that provides a marketplace where users can sell their old mp3s, is one of the first legitimate businesses trusting in the applicability of the old law to new products.
ReDigi works like this: a user wants to sell an mp3 on ReDigi. ReDigi uploads the song to its cloud server and tells the user to delete the song from his or her computer. It also periodically rescans the user's computer to ensure that no copy of the songs exists, one of a few safeguards in place to prevent users from cheating the system. ReDigi only allows sellback of songs bought from iTunes or another user of ReDigi, and it pays for the songs only in credits which users can trade in for more songs -- no cash payments. While it is possible for users to keep a copy of an mp3 on an external drive even after the original is sold, remember that this is also possible when selling an old CD, which can be easily ripped to a user's computer.
Record labels have an enormous interest in making this type of digital resale illegal. From a business point of view, the biggest problem with this type of transaction is that unlike with physical copies, digital copies don't noticeably degrade. If you buy a used CD, you're getting something that might be scratched, scuffed, or missing cover art. If you buy a used mp3, you are almost certainly getting a file that is exactly like the file you would get if you bought it directly from the point of origin. This creates incredible incentive to buy used and incredible incentive for record labels and other copyright owners to sue out of existence any digital resellers willing to take a chance and set up shop.
In this case, Capitol Records has two major claims of copyright infringement against ReDigi: copying and distribution. However, the case really hinged on the copying claim. While ReDigi should be able to employ the first sale doctrine as an affirmative defense for the distribution claim, there is no defense for the copying claim except that they never copied.
Of course, there's a huge problem when digital resellers try to prove no copying. Here is how computers and the internet don't work: You want to transfer a file to someone, so you open up your laptop, attack your hard drive with a tiny pickaxe, mine out the single file you wanted, and drop it in an envelope to mail out on your way to work in the morning. Here is how computers and the internet do work: some computer, somewhere, makes a copy of the information. If you focus on the process, you will almost always find that copying occurred, and indeed that's exactly what the court found:
...[C]ourts have not previously addressed whether the unauthorized transfer of a digital music file over the Internet – where only one file exists before and after the transfer – constitutes reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The Court holds that it does.
This understanding is, of course, confirmed by the laws of physics. It is simply impossible that the same “material object” can be transferred over the Internet...Because the reproduction right is necessarily implicated when a copyrighted work is embodied in a new material object, and because digital music files must be embodied in a new material object following their transfer over the Internet, the Court determines that the embodiment of a digital music file on a new hard disk is a reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act.
There are other aspects to copying that ReDigi encouraged the court to consider. For instance, we inherently understand that the reason copying is an issue is not because copyright holders dread the idea that someone is laboring at home with a pencil, rewriting Catcher in the Rye into a spiral notebook, but because of the result, that where you once had a single copy of the book, you now have two -- with one entirely outside of the stream of commerce.
ReDigi's policy relied on the destruction of the original file so that only one existed, and that one transferred to the new owner. The court was completely uninterested in the question of how many copies existed, however.
This finding holds regardless of whether one or multiple copies of the file exist. London-Sire, like all of the P2P cases, obviously concerned multiple copies of one digital music file. But that distinction is immaterial under the plain language of the Copyright Act…It is beside the point that the original phonorecord no longer exists. It matters only that a new phonorecord has been created.
(Side note: in its original brief, ReDigi relied on the legality of a practice called space-shifting, which is what makes it legal for you to record a TV show on your DVR or transfer music from your computer to your iPod. However, at some point in the course of the proceedings, ReDigi abandoned its space-shifting argument. Its only remnant is the court's assertion that while copying for personal use is allowed, copying "incident to sale" is not.)
Anyway, because of the lack of tiny pickaxes, this definition of copying would have huge implications in the digital world, which ReDigi attempted to point out.
ReDigi also argues that the Court’s conclusion would lead to “irrational” outcomes, as it would render illegal any movement of copyrighted files on a hard drive, including relocating files between directories and defragmenting. (ReDigi Opp’n, dated Aug. 14, 2012, Doc. No. 79 (“ReDigi Opp’n”), at 8.) However, this argument is nothing more than a red herring. As Capitol has conceded, such reproduction is almost certainly protected under other doctrines or defenses, and is not relevant to the instant motion. (Cap. Reply, dated Aug. 24, 2012, Doc. No. 87 (“Cap. Reply”), at 5 n.1.)
As a last resort, ReDigi asked the court ("feebly" arguing, according to the decision) to take the current technological reality into consideration and interpret the statute in a way that makes sense in a digital age. The court punted the whole thing over to Congress.
ReDigi effectively requests that the Court amend the statute to achieve ReDigi’s broader policy goals – goals that happen to advance ReDigi’s economic interests. However, ReDigi’s argument fails for two reasons. First, while technological change may have rendered Section 109(a) unsatisfactory to many contemporary observers and consumers, it has not rendered it ambiguous. The statute plainly applies to the lawful owner’s “particular” phonorecord, a phonorecord that by definition cannot be uploaded and sold on ReDigi’s website. Second, amendment of the Copyright Act in line with ReDigi’s proposal is a legislative prerogative that courts are unauthorized and ill suited to attempt.
The copyright clause in the Constitution predates the Bill of Rights. Copyright is an old concept. However, the production and distribution of copyrighted materials has advanced leaps and bounds in the last few years alone; the idea that things mean now what they meant even ten years ago is not a viable one. By divorcing the concept of copying from the question of whether a (second) copy is produced, the court is ensuring that exchange of digital goods is virtually stunted and that goes not just for mp3s but for ebooks, movies, and other digital products now existing and yet to be invented.
