Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Doesn't Like the "Used Digital Music" Business

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the one-owner-only dept.

Music 300

An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica reports on the developing story between the RIAA and music reseller ReDigi, 'the world's first online marketplace for used digital music,' who first came online with a beta offering on October 11th, 'allowing users to sell "legally acquired digital music files" and buy them from others "at a fraction of the price currently available on iTunes.'' If the notion of selling 'used' digital content is challenged in court, we may finally receive a judicial ruling on the legality of EULAs that will overturn the previous Vernor v. Autodesk decision."

cancel ×

300 comments

Honor system (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064374)

Backup copies, you're just trading files with moneys attached. Like reselling a physical CD after ripping it or copying it to tape or whatnot, same as we've done for years really, just quicker and easier. This kind of resale relies heavily on the honor system.

Re:Honor system (3, Interesting)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064446)

Not the honor system, but it relies on the idea that a CD is a license to listen to the music. The RIAA should put their whole inventory online, assign them uuid's hashed with the users uuid, and provide a clearing house so that it's the NUMBER on the cd case that entitles you to the music, not the CD itself. it's a thought... closer to reality then stomping out the practice of selling used music is.

Not that I want to help those asshole culture pimps along or anything.

Re:Honor system (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064608)

And in order to enforce the code verifying process, you'll be required a permanent internet connection... oh wait.

Re:Honor system (4, Informative)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064672)

Ever look at the fine print on an old LP? Same thing applies. You have never "owned" the music, you just have a limited playback license tied to the physical object.

Re:Honor system (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064936)

Example? I looked at a few LPs on google images but couldn't see what you're talking about.

Re:Honor system (5, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065112)

Example? I looked at a few LPs on google images but couldn't see what you're talking about.

My God, I'm old.

Re:Honor system (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064938)

That language is illegal under The Clayton Act of 1914. The Clayton Act was an anti trust act that prevents restrictions on reselling and rentals. Trying to control market of used items with an nda is illegal price fixing.

Re:Honor system (4, Interesting)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065450)

I think the RIAA will argue that iTunes, CDs etc are the distribution mechanisms for licensed products. Just because a licensed product exists in physical form doesn't mean that you don't need a license to use it. So sure sell the CD/iTune file but the caveat is that the buyer doesn't have a right to use it since they haven't purchased a license.

Re:Honor system (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065478)

Using a non-disclosure agreement? Huh?

Re:Honor system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064946)

Except that for things that were traditionally thought of as "physical books" - like a difficult to copy book or LP - first sale doctrine has long trumped any aggressive "single party" contracts like these.

Where things get fuzzy is with the whole "intellectual property" realm and the fact that 1 CD / DVD does not necessarily translate into 1 usable copy of said piece of software / music / movie / whatever.

So, if I purchase that one copy of windows at the outrageous retail price, can I install it on any computer that I call my own, just on one computer, or just for the terms of that "single party" contract. Lately, for easily copyable things, the courts are leaning towards that whole single party contract thing.

Re:Honor system (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065162)

Except that for things that were traditionally thought of as "physical books" - like a difficult to copy book or LP - first sale doctrine has long trumped any aggressive "single party" contracts like these.

C30, C60, C90, go. I wasn't that hard to copy an LP.

But yes, a book was a pain in the ass, and not worth it unless you were using someone else's copier and paper -- and had nothing better to do and no money to not do it with.

Re:Honor system (3, Informative)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065498)

yes, it wasn't difficult to copy an LP to tape, if you had an hour to spare. It could only be done in real time - and you still only had one copy. You screw up or if the tape gets munched in your player, you do it again. If you didn't want to listen to 25 minutes of silence on your C90, someone had to be there to flip the record over. And, unless you were one of those folks who played their record once to record it and never again so didn't have to worry about scratches or warps, you had to clean the record first - yes, I still have my Discwasher...

Re:Honor system (3, Insightful)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065102)

Except the fair use doctrine allowed for copies to be made. You were allowed to make a tape copy of an LP for your own use (this was challenged by the record companies of course).

[citation needed] (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065352)

Ever look at the fine print on an old LP? Same thing applies. You have never "owned" the music, you just have a limited playback license tied to the physical object.

That doesn't mean the license is not transferable. You can put anything you want in fine print, that doesn't mean it's the law.

Re:Honor system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065220)

The RIAA should put their whole inventory online

What do you want with their lawyers online?

Re:Honor system (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065472)

You just pretty much described the "UltraViolet" locker service; unfortunately the implementation is buggy and laden with DRM.

Re:Honor system (2)

no_opinion (148098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064620)

Even the honor system won't work. Now that the on-line retailers like Amazon and iTunes have a cloud service that stores your purchases, the concept of deleting local copies doesn't work.

Re:Honor system (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064696)

Not just the honor system. Now that apple allows users to re-download music at any time, there is no way for you to get rid of a song you purchased. You will forever own it unless you completely transfer your itunes account. That point alone may make the case fall appart in court.

Re:Honor system (5, Informative)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064742)

Like reselling a physical CD after ripping it...

Actually, ReDigi is quite proud of their "forensic" software which authenticates tracks and rejects ones that are ripped.

From the ARS article:

"ReDigi says that it does this via its "forensic Verification Engine," which the service says analyzes each upload to make sure it is a legally acquired track—songs ripped from CDs are excluded. "

In other words, ReDigi is bending over backwards to satisfy the RIAA, but of course, it's not enough.

Re:Honor system (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064800)

The pirate bay has a much better forensics engine and rips the RIAA for the dogs they are, enough said.

Re:Honor system (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064856)

But how do they determine that I have not kept a copy? That's the crux of this. Who cares if I bought it legally. I still don't have the right to sell it to someone else unless I no longer have a copy. Who can prove this to be true?

Re:Honor system (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065298)

Homeland Security will be called in to strip search you and go through your house after every sale. If you have a garage sale, you may request a Homeland Security agent to be stationed in your garage for the duration of the sale. For $40 extra, they'll use lube.

This will be interesting (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064390)

Now the RIAA has flip-flopped by acting as if these digital files are NOT equivalent to physical items...I guess their position will be where the money is, regardless of what's logical or their prior actions.

Re:This will be interesting (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064584)

I wish I could get more excited about exploring the fundamental issues you raise, but I think we all know how this will turn out. Even if the judge rules in favor of reselling, a new law would be passed within a year or two to close this "loophole."

Re:This will be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064664)

No, what happens are that all services because subscription oriented, like Zune Pass. Your license to listen to the music disappears when you cease to subscribe.

Re:This will be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064794)

Become. Not because. Shitty hands. Type what I tell you!

Re:This will be interesting (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064610)

That's my take. The positions they've taken over the years on exactly what "property" is will be hard to reconcile, assuming the courts are interested.

Not flip-flopping at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064612)

Their position has always been clear:

Digital music is treated like physical property inasmuch as the accidental loss of the file does not entitle you to receive a replacement for free. It is not treated like physical property for resale purposes, because you don't have the option to resell.

That isn't hard to understand. And of course you don't like those terms, but the music belongs to the RIAA, not you, so deal with it.

Or, you know, lobby and get the law changed.

Re:Not flip-flopping at all (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064668)

Not really. I don't think they've been too successful at stopping CD ripping software and hardware (and hell, the whole concept) from being legal.

Re:Not flip-flopping at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064768)

Or, you know, lobby and get the law changed.

Sorry, I have a real job that actually contributes to society. This means that I can't spend all my time in the lobby.

Re:This will be interesting (5, Insightful)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064842)

The hypocrisy is breathtaking, ain't it?

For purposes of RIAA propaganda, making a copy of a song you bought is "stealing", just like physical property.

But for their purpose of destroying the second-hand market, you never really owned the physical property in the first place, so you can't sell it.

No worries, guys, I put the request in. (2)

ace37 (2302468) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065274)

from: [ace37]
to: webmaster@google.com
date: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 13:38
subject: Digital media and IP Law
--
Dear Google,

Please buy the RIAA and reinvent digital media in a more sane, fair,
and rational fashion.

Thanks,

John

So this is different from prior attempts how? (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064392)

They've already been trying to do this.

In the PC games market, tying games to Steam - I bought Portal 2, and discovered it required me to install Steam to get the install and get the fucking software to run.

What does this mean? Well, I can make it run. But I can't, when done with it, give the copy (serial and all, uninstalled from my computer) to a family member or friend as a gift.

iTunes does much the same thing. You can't buy something and then send it to someone else, in a "deleted from your account, credited to theirs instead" transaction.

The cartels salivate at killing the used market because they think it means more sales.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064448)

The cartels salivate at killing the used market because they think it means more sales.

It can mean more sales. If used book stores burned every book they bought, the sales of new copies of those books would increase at least a tiny bit...and that sliver is what they're after.

That's what I'm assuming anyways. If they think that 1 used book sale = 1 lost new book sale, as with piracy they'll be sorely disappointed.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064726)

If used book stores burned every book they bought, the sales of new copies of those books would increase at least a tiny bit...and that sliver is what they're after.

Would they? I'm not so sure it's that simple. In most used markets, many of the people who sell those used goods use the money to then purchase new items. That is, you might lose a sale because someone bought The Lord of the Rings from me, used, but you get that sale back when I use the money to purchase Lord of the Flies new.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (5, Interesting)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064740)

It can mean more sales. If used book stores burned every book they bought, the sales of new copies of those books would increase at least a tiny bit...and that sliver is what they're after.

That's what I'm assuming anyways. If they think that 1 used book sale = 1 lost new book sale, as with piracy they'll be sorely disappointed.

If they thought that, they'd just buy the used books at 30% and destroy them.

The problem with digital content, is that when properly cared for it doesn't degrade. Vinyl disks wear out with use. Cars rust. Even books get cruddy. Unless a digital recording is released in a higher fidelity, a 20 yo used copy doesn't sound any worse than a new one.

I'm waiting for a sub-culture, a digital Amish, as it were, of people who only consume media that's at least N years old. People who band together with the latest hardware, but only content that's old and used. Device drivers will have to be open source and blessed by a software shaman. Maybe I'll start it for tax purposes....

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065180)

A sub culture of works of no less than 120 years old, for instance?

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065330)

I've been thinking about this for a while. Copyrights keep on getting extended, so there isn't all that much content in the public domain, and that which is, wasn't recorded digitally, so all we have are less than stellar recordings. Give it another 100 years, we will eventually have a lot of content in pristine condition which is in the public domain, more content then one could watch in a lifetime, or we'll have copyright extended indefinitely. If you look to books, we already have enough freely available content that the "digital Amish" could exist and only read public domain books, and never run out of content.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (1)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064746)

Until used books stores realise used books aren't a very economic fuel source and stop buying them.
Then all book lovers realise they have infeasible large piles of books building up which they will never be able to get rid of, and re-reading them becomes more attractive then buying new ones.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064482)

You do realize that Valve made Portal and Valve runs Steam, yes? That's why you need to install steam the same as you need to install Origin to run an EA game. It's their distribution system just like iTunes.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064544)

Probably not. The guy apparently gifts used games to his friends.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064628)

You do realize that Valve made Portal and Valve runs Steam, yes?

So? He bought it in a box, but when he tried to install it found that the box is really just a gift certificate for a game tied to an online ID.

That's why you need to install steam the same as you need to install Origin to run an EA game. It's their distribution system just like iTunes.

No, actually it's why the last Valve game I bought was the original Half Life. They might think being their customer means that they get to control how I use the game that I purchased, but I disagree. Other people seem to be happy with it, so they stay in business, but I'm not going to help them (and no, I'm not going to pirate their stuff either - if they don't want to make it available in a form that I want to buy then I'll spend my money on something else).

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064872)

So? He bought it in a box, but when he tried to install it found that the box is really just a gift certificate for a game tied to an online ID.

Just like it says on the back of the box. Kinda hard to see in that picture, I know. It's not like he shouldn't have known exactly what he was buying, had he done due diligence.

Now, that doesn't address the key point about whether you should be able to resell the games. I can definitely understand Valve's reluctance to allow it, however. For physical objects, used reduces the quality, and can be difficult to find and sell (usually occurs at extremely high premiums - say hi, Gamestop!). Digital copies don't degrade and can be bought and sold easily (instantly, and with no third-part premiums). Basically, it isn't impossible to imagine that a developer would sell only half (actually, that may even be optimistic) as many total copies as they otherwise would. Essentially, it would turn into game renting - except that with a sufficiently established system, the "renting" would be almost free (you could resell the game for, theoretically, exactly or only cents less than what you paid for it).

It's really hard for me to get angry at Valve for not allowing that, especially with the insanely good sales they have on nearly constantly.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064890)

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064988)

Funny, I can give a game on steam to another steam user if I don't want it any more.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065246)

They've already been trying to do this.

In the PC games market, tying games to Steam - I bought Portal 2, and discovered it required me to install Steam to get the install and get the fucking software to run.

What does this mean? Well, I can make it run. But I can't, when done with it, give the copy (serial and all, uninstalled from my computer) to a family member or friend as a gift.

iTunes does much the same thing. You can't buy something and then send it to someone else, in a "deleted from your account, credited to theirs instead" transaction.

The cartels salivate at killing the used market because they think it means more sales.

Gotta be perfectly honest here: Going by volume of whining alone, I'm apparently the single, solitary person left on this planet who doesn't sell every damn thing he owns the very picosecond I get bored with it*. No, seriously. I've never looked at a game I've had and thought to myself, "Man, it's absolutely vital that I get about 10% of the money I paid for this back; I mean, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY VITAL, to the point where my inability to do so, coupled with my apparent lack of reading comprehension and research and a video gaming mindset stubbornly stuck somewhere in the 16-bit era where it was most convenient for me, renders this purchase nothing but a mistake".

For me, long before "I MUST SELL THIS BACK VERY VERY SOON TO RECOUP MONEY" comes into my mind, the thought of "I most likely don't need this luxury item in the first place" wakes up and stops me from wasting my apparently precious money on this sort of thing if I need said money that badly.

But apparently, again going solely on how loud the whining gets, that's just me. Guess I'm a "tool of the cartels", or whatever label the entitled generation wants to attach to me, because I'm actually responsible with my money BEFORE I spend it.

Hint: Failing to get 10% of the price you paid for a game back by selling it is NOT what is keeping you from being rich, nor is failing to get gifted games a few months after release what is keeping your friends or family from being rich (especially since, given time on Steam, that same game will be around 75% off anyway).

*: Solely because modern physics has yet to determine if time itself has granularity.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (1)

Binestar (28861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065400)

Your example is valid, but I do suggest the following to people who want the ability to trade these games: Make a unique steam ID For each game you install that you might want to trade/sell at some point. Then you just give the login for that game to whomever you want to give it to. Certainly not convenient, but works.

Re:So this is different from prior attempts how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065424)

Sounds like you didn't have a Steam account before you bought Portal 2 and therefore have only this one game on your newly created account. Why don't you simply pass on the account?

RIAA Kicking Itself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064420)

So if I understand this correctly, the main attack vector they are using in this case is that they aren't actually selling "the used MP3", but that they are "copying it and destroying the original on the user's computer", therefore not actually acquiring or receiving the original song but a duplicate.

But couldn't the same reasoning be used to DEFEND piracy? The original is still in the user's possession. I just also have a copy.

Either MP3's need to be like their physical counter parts or they aren't. There is no in between.

Re:RIAA Kicking Itself? (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064694)

No. The hint is in the name: copyright, i.e. the (exclusive) right to make copies of a work. The copyright owner has the right to make copies. When you buy a CD, you may get (either implicitly or explicitly, depending on your jurisdiction) the right to make a single backup copy and the right to copy portions of it into the memory of a playback device as required to listen to it, but you don't get the right to make arbitrary copies. Whether you sell the copy or give it away makes no difference. When you buy a track online, a copy is created, but by someone who is authorised by the copyright holder to make copies.

It's going to be an interesting legal case because (practically) every 'move' operation on a computer is really a copy-and-delete-the-original operation, so the idea of selling the original doesn't really make sense because the original was an ephemeral copy in your network stack - the version on your hard disk is a copy of that, the version on your media player or on a backup disk is a copy of the copy.

Re:RIAA Kicking Itself? (2)

JonahsDad (1332091) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065146)

It's going to be an interesting legal case because (practically) every 'move' operation on a computer is really a copy-and-delete-the-original operation

So you're saying when I defragment my hard drive, I'm violating copyright for any music file that's partially (or wholly) moved during the defrag? And here I thought I was doing a pretty decent job of playing by the rules.

Re:RIAA Kicking Itself? (2)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065258)

I see, so what we need is a "copyright bit" for each byte in memory. For each MOV operation, the copyright bit needs to be checked, then authorized by a copyright server. Performance might take a hit, but it's a small price to pay for making sure our computers are following the law!

Re:RIAA Kicking Itself? (1)

CimmerianX (2478270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064748)

But, bit for bit, isn't it the exact same item? Could 1 mp3 exist in more than 1 spot yet be exactly identical to the original? Who's to say which is the original and which is the copy? There's a sci fi Movie plot in there somewhere...

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064432)

I figured the RIAA would love this idea!

Meaningless (2)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064458)

I don't see how "used digital music" actually means anything. There's no way to stop a user from retaining a copy of the file without yet *another* level of some nasty DRM. Anyhow, the idea of "used data" is pretty ridiculous. I predict that the RIAA takes this company to court for enabling and encouraging "unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted IP" or some such. The pusher doesn't like it when you find another source...

Re:Meaningless (3, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064716)

You're exchanging a use license. If the original user continues to use the data then they--so the theory goes--would be the violator and subject to litigation. I suspect this company is largely an attempt to test the laws regarding digital property rights. Along the way they probably hope to make some money to pay for the lawyers and with any luck continue the business model having won the recognition that digital and physical property rights may be considered one in the same.

Re:Meaningless (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064722)

There's no way to stop a user from retaining a copy of the file without yet *another* level of some nasty DRM

How is this any different from used CDs? There's nothing stopping you from copying the CD and then selling it. In fact, there's nothing stopping you from just downloading the music and skipping the buying step altogether except the idea that you need to own a license to the music, and that license is what they are selling, the file itself is largely irrelevant.

This is a very important fight for many reasons. (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064466)

Lots of considerations should go into this. What happens when someone passes away, does their mutli-thousand dollar music collection somehow become magically worthless? What about someone going through a divorce or a bankruptcy? Can these be considered assets and taken from one person and granted to another?

The first sale doctrine needs to apply in common sense situations like this. If you buy something, including a license, it is only common sense that you would be able to resell it. That being said if a license is sold the original terms should also be accepted. I'm not advocating simply sharing it, I'm talking about removing it from one place putting it in another.

People would never tolerate the loss of first sale doctrine in any other aspect of their life as it would be absurd. Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064776)

The problem being that you *can't* really even pretend to 'give away' digital content without DRM. In the event of death, I think you can easily say the previous owner will not likely use their copies again, so inheriting makes sense (though should not count in any way in terms of 'estate tax'). In a divorce, I think practically both get the 'property' (maybe a *smidge* unfair to the music industry, but I doubt this constitutes much 'loss'). For purposes of bankruptcy, I'd say it's fair to call the music library valueless (I've never gone through bankruptcy, but I was under the impression that things on the order of CDs didn't really count anyway except in extraordinary circumstances.

Now, reselling a license without any even vague enforcement, I could see the RIAA getting rightfully worried that they have no hope at all of reselling really being a transfer rather than copy. I can't really imagine a good way of resolving this without DRM. I'd rather have no 'secondary' market than one made possible through DRM,.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (2, Insightful)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064930)

That is not my problem. If the business model they have set up is not technically and realistically workable then come up with another model. Part of that new model will ahve to accept that the value of a digitial music license for which I have no transfer rights is then much less than the value of a physical music license which i can transfer via selling the phsyical storage medium.

That is the real crux of this whole issue and one of the many reasons the ??AA like to play both sides of the fence. It prevents them having to address head on the loss of value inherent in a non-transferable license. The same goes for e-books BTW.

I have no trouble with non-transferable licenses, but don't try to charge me the same price for it.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065086)

Well, if the seller does not remove his copy and the buyer get's the copy, then the seller is actually pirating music and profiting from it. Secondary market can exist and it is way better then what we have now — a lot of filesharing networks. Allowing people to resell what they rightfully bought will be a step towards the end-users and might actually decrease the numbers of those people who don't buy digital music because there is no way of recouping the cost of buying it in the first place.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064788)

I can't imagine toyota demanding a feel, but I bet toyota sure can.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064884)

I want to know what happens if your collection is stolen? If it's a license, the RIAA should let you get it back. (for a nominal processing fee)

What happens when you tell your wife to give that box of CDs to charity, and she grabs the wrong box? Do you still have rights to that music that was given away by mistake?

Fire? Scratched DVD?

I can borrow a DVD from my public library for free, for 2 weeks. Much better than the Redbox. Should they be able to make a copy of a rare DVD, lend the copy, and if the copy is not returned, lend out another copy?

Copyright law needs a complete overhaul. We the People should find a few persons to go to Washington to present our needs to the Government, especially where they conflict with the needs of the corporations. We could call these persons, "Representatives".

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (1)

rodarson2k (1122767) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065126)

I've been waiting for a good name to describe the 3rd party that i've been kicking around, and i kind of like the connotations that the "Representative" party gives.

First, it doesn't suggest anything that differentiates the members from a 'normal' person, or that drives any kind of idealogical wedge between them...you can be a party member without having to toe any party line, because the only line to toe is that you actually, you know, represent.

Second, it strongly implies that the current "representatives" are not.

A+ idea. Someone will be in touch with you shortly to negotiate intellectual property transfer.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065510)

I hearby transfer all rights physical, digital, and ethereal for the term "The Representative Party", to a group that can get elected as "The Representative Party"

Here's how it would work. A figurehead would be nominated and if elected, would contractually agree to vote the way the People want. Electronic voting would be used to transmit the will of the people to the figurehead. Voting may or may not be secret ballot. (TBD)

Question. Would the "People" be defined as any voter, or just the registered members of the Representative Party? Would regular voting rules apply, or could someone underage register to be a member and be counted, agreeing to vote for the party when of age?

I like it.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (1)

dramaley (20773) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064898)

Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?

I'd be quite surprised if Toyota were to do that, since i own a Nissan.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065232)

Just don't leave your MP3 player in the car

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065262)

Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?

I'd be quite surprised if Toyota were to do that, since i own a Nissan.

However, for the RIAA, that's just business as usual. They're quite happy to charge money for something they don't own.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (1)

unkiereamus (1061340) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065456)

Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?

I'd be quite surprised if Toyota were to do that, since i own a Nissan.

To complete the analogy, Toyota in this case would be the RIAA, or UMG/whatever....can you honestly tell me that you would be surprised about the RIAA demanding a transfer fee on something they had no part of?

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (4, Insightful)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064920)

What happens when someone passes away, does their mutli-thousand dollar music collection somehow become magically worthless?

I always thought that it would be instructive for someone to stand in front of congress, hold up an MP3 player or phone and say, "There are 30,000 songs on this device. The Recording Industry insists that every one of those songs is worth at least a dollar. I have a great deal here for some lucky congressperson today - who wants to buy $30,000 worth of music for just five hunnert dollah?

"Do I have any takers?"

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064964)

People would never tolerate the loss of first sale doctrine in any other aspect of their life as it would be absurd. Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?

And yet, people do accept that they have to pay a transfer fee when they sell their home: This happens all the time with home owner associations. Of course, the terms are clear up front when one buys their home, and the amount is generally small (on the order of $100 to $500) compared to the price of the home, but there is clearly precedent.

Any time a relationship is maintained between "creator" (or other interested party) and "possessor" that is to outlive the "possession" (that is, transfer with the title), there is usually a fee involved. In fact, land and real property transfers often involve a fee to register the title deed.

I fact, in some cases (used cars), sales taxes are collected again on subsequent sales (generally until the item can be considered significantly depreciated).

I'm not saying I agree with this in all cases, and certainly not for items of little individual value to begin with (just how much is a three year old game worth, exactly?), but it is not entirely unreasonable in all cases.

Re:This is a very important fight for many reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065092)

Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?

When a car company lets you drive a car while they still retain ownership its usually called a lease. At the end of the lease they do require a fee for you to keep the car or transfer it to someone else.

This doesn't bother most people because they have the option to buy or lease so most people don't complain. With software you are only given one option, and that is to accept the license or not use the software. One instance I can think of where owners were only give the option to lease is with GM and the EV1, and many people eventually did complain when GM reclaimed all the vehicles at the end of the lease.

Pffft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064476)

Buying "used" digital music.

It's about as laughable as paying money for "brand-new, unused" digital music.

(I laugh at anyone who pays money for digital music.)

If only.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064508)

I wish there were such a thing as used digital goods. If only someone would have thought of a way to make that work...I don't know maybe a major game retailer with their own digital distribution site/application. I don't get what the big deal is. DRM has made enough people sick of buying music, and when they do buy their "license" to the music, they can't do anything with it. People that pirate can do anything they want with their music. Wonder who's winning this fight. My solution to the problem is stop buying music. Listen to the radio, Pandora, iHeartRadio, Tunein, or whatever free service you can find. Don't buy their product and let them wallow in their own misery and try to win us back by providing a product that people actually want in a form they can use it in.

This is not SELL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064552)

There is no cash income, so it is not SELLing. It is trading

I don't understand (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064562)

So publishers are allowed to sell copies of CDs, but the people who bought them are not? Besides, I don't think there is much money lost here, people won't sell music they actually like.

Oh goody (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064564)

Maybe we'll actually get it decided once and for all whether digital goods may be considered equivalent to physical goods. Then again, that'd actually straighten out all manner ambiguity related to digital property rights from ebooks, movies, musics, etc.. Since business must always prevail regardless of merit for that to happen we'd be stuck with a pro-business interpretation. So I suppose that means the judge will either punt or screw us over. God bless our plutocracy!

Don't worry, our President will save us!! (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064570)

I'm sure he'll be standing up to the RIAA any minute now....

gonna be soon.....

he's probably on his way....

just be patient.

Re:Don't worry, our President will save us!! (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064770)

That's cute and all but this is a matter of law, not executive authority. This is a matter settled in courts, legislated if desired, from the legislative branch and hopefully not the judicial.

Re:Don't worry, our President will save us!! (2)

phayes (202222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065040)

Sure, the reason why Obama will never take a stand on this issue is because it's not his job to take principaled stands on issues & thereby encourage the legislative branch to move in the desired direction...

Except that that's exactly what he does on other issues & should be doing here but won't because then the Dems would lose the record labels patronage.

Re:Don't worry, our President will save us!! (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065294)

Sure, the reason why Obama will never take a stand on this issue is because it's not his job to take principaled stands on issues & thereby encourage the legislative branch to move in the desired direction...

Except that that's exactly what he does on other issues & should be doing here but won't because then the Dems would lose the record labels patronage.

He has taken a strong stand on this issue by appointing several RIAA lawyers to high positions in the DOJ and then having that department, which is directed by the executive branch, mind you, submit friend of the court arguments that call for harsh penalties in virtual property cases.

RIAA wants to have cake, sell it, eat it. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064572)

Either intellectual property is a physical good that can be legally acquired, owned, and resold as a used item, or it is not, in which case stop fucking calling it theft.

Re:RIAA wants to have cake, sell it, eat it. (1)

jon42689 (1098973) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064704)

Either intellectual property is a physical good that can be legally acquired, owned, and resold as a used item, or it is not, in which case stop fucking calling it theft.

I couldn't agree more. RIAA- Shit or get off the pot.

Re:RIAA wants to have cake, sell it, eat it. (5, Funny)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065142)

It's like the wave particle duality. The intellectual property exists in two mutually exclusive states.
1. it is physical good that can be legally acquired, owned, resold, discarded and stolen
2. it is also intangible, can't be owned, can't be sold, can't be discarded nor stolen.

Just like the quantum world, the wave function collapses only when you try to make a measurement. Until you try to measure you can't be sure if it's physical or intangible. Until it is measured, it exists in both mutually exclusive states concurrently to maximize profit for the copyright mafia.

MIND = BLOWN

Re:RIAA wants to have cake, sell it, eat it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065444)

>Either intellectual property is a physical good that can be legally acquired, owned, and resold as a used item,

And taxed! If they want "intellectual property" to be treated the same as physical property, they should allow it to be taxed.

If... (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064634)

..Bitcoin can digitally sign money and facilitate transfer of ownership, I really see no reason that other forms of digital property couldn't do likewise. It might require some kind of vendor neutral DRM and key escrow to enable transfer of ownership and stop people being able to play their old copies, but I think it would be quite feasible to do.

The main issue is that people don't actually own the music they purchase, they own a licence to the music and the licence is flagged non transferrable. That is why I believe the first step is for a country to precisely describe in law what digital property is and also through some means encourage its adoption in a fair and universal fashion.

Re:If... (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065342)

Your idea is flawed for one simple reason: as soon as the content can be played — it can be copied. Hardware locks and TPM hardware can make it really difficult, but still, there is no way to stop people from copying and sharing. Humans are social animals and and such they have an intrinsic need to find and share information. What RIAA and the likes of them try to do — trying to change the human nature so that a very small percentage of population can profit (the RIAA, MPAA and their publishing conglomerate masters).
With new technologies the flow of the information has become easier then ever and a weak flow has turned into a real torrent (no pun intended). Now organizations like RIAA and MPAA are trying to stand in the way and stop it. And most likely they will be washed away.

This is plain stupid (1)

jprupp (697660) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064720)

Why doesn't anyone challenge all copyrights and patents in court. Heck, why we don't all do this?

We don't need these monopolies.

Digital files aren't rival. If you copy a music file and give it to my, we both have it.

Disobey, download, share, pirate everything. It's getting ridiculous. Why are so many people just brainwashed fucking zombies applauding copyrights and patents, for what? for stomping on everyone's freedoms? for making us believe that sharing is bad?

Fuck them all!

Re:This is plain stupid (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064968)

The RIAA doesn't exist simply because of wishing.. Artists themselves pay and support them to help keep channels of content monetized - it's their livelihood. I understand that artists may have newer ideas about distribution, but so far new channels are considered off-limits until thoroughly examined. This new method is simply too new for them to accept, IMO.

Your sweeping suggestion implies that content should be free. That may or may not be true, but building a career in making the content could be vastly more difficult.

That is simply not true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065188)

Artists do not support them, the industry does. The RIAA does not represent artists. It never has. There are other organizations for that. the RIAA acts solely in the interests of the labels, often in direct opposition to the interests of the artists. Learn the players in this game.

Re:This is plain stupid (1)

babywhiz (781786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065172)

mhm. Just stop spending money on big content/big media/big Hollywood. I did, and my life is a heck of a lot less stressful. I have more money to do what I want with it, and am not contributing to the blood sucking leaches that have no bones about stealing other people's content and copyrights, but then cry about theirs. I don't want their stuff legally or illegally anymore. Only artists that are 'with the times' get my cash.

What a Mess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064844)

There are too many situations where this law is not clear. The line is somewhere in here:

  - I burn my music to CDs, ostensibly deleting all other copies. I sell the CDs.
  - I sell my laptop, including all software/media on it.
  - Combinations of the above: I buy a used laptop and burn media from it and sell it.
  - I include all my CD copies in a garage sale of my old washer, free.
  - I install bought software on client's computer and haven't install elsewhere. I charge for the service.
  - I sell the license to unlock a piece of commercial software, not having used it, on e-bay.
  - I take tracks from various CDs that I never use, place them in a new compilation, and sell it online or as a new CD.
  - I sell just a playlist without music in it.
  - I sell a movie re-dubbed in my local language, destroying my own copy.
  - I re-cut scenes, tracks, and box art from bought media and sell it, destroying my original copy.

Re:What a Mess (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065080)

Don't forget just using digital music to reproduce non-digitally

- performing commercial music with a backing track from the original and charging for it
- charging to go on a camping trip, and during that time singing along wearing earbuds some commercial music.
- host a party, acting out in front of a movie screen showing a commercial movie, having charged for tickets to the party.
- paying to place my car in a parking lot, but playing a CD to others. someone records a video of it and sells it, with the audio included

That's a fnord right there (1)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064892)

"used digital music"

This is beyond newspeak. This is just fucking awesome on so many levels.

This is what we gave up with physical media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064922)

We're now talking about rights to intangible stuff and it's all silly. If I tell someone they can sing my song in public and they decide they don't want to sing it any more can they let someone else sing it without my permission because they "owned" a right to it? If you don't buy the physical media, then you aren't serious about "owning" your music. That's the price of convenience. It will all go away one day and there will be no evidence it ever existed. Meanwhile, I enjoy 2nd hand media that someone owned before me, and someone will probably own after me.

No Musician Wants to Feel Used (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064962)

Spent? Certainly! But used? Never!

No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38064966)

No! I will not support the RIAA.

I don't like it either (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065032)

I haven't pondered this long enough to form a complete opinion, so I'll hold off on that a little. But what is clear and has been repeated numerous times is that the music and movie industries are late and reluctant to enter the digital age. Their knee-jerk reactions have been to block, restrict and limit all new media. By doing so, they are hurting themselves badly. Worse, they are hurting their customers and any other business that wants to participate in new and emerging markets.

They REALLY need to get their heads out of their asses, learn about and understand what the hell they are selling because at the moment, is seems pretty clear and obvious that they don't even know what they are selling since they can't decide for themselves what "the thing" actually is.

Used eBooks Next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065084)

Please, please, please, please, please..... !!!

I also don't like something (1)

holdme (2454486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065160)

I don't like RIAA business.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...