×

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!

ReDigi Defends Used Digital Music Market

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the owner-only-listened-to-it-on-sundays dept.

Music 111

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "ReDigi has fired back, opposing Capitol Records's motion for a preliminary injunction. In his opposition declaration, ReDigi's CTO Larry Rudolph explains in detail (PDF) how the technology employed by ReDigi's used digital music marketplace effects transfer of a music file without copying, but by modifying the record locator in an 'atomic transaction,' and how it verifies that only a single instance of a unique file can enter the ReDigi cloud system. ReDigi's opposition papers also point out plaintiff's own admissions that mp3 files are not 'material objects' or 'phonorecords' under the Copyright Act, and therefore not subject to the Copyright Act's distribution right, and defend ReDigi's used digital music marketplace and cloud storage system (PDF) on a number of grounds, including the First Sale exception to the distribution right applicable to a 'particular' copy, the Essential Step exception to the distribution right applicable to a copy essential to the running of a computer program, and Fair Use space shifting."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

111 comments

Slashdot won't report this story (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38842831)

Slashdot refuses to report a story.

According to Reuters, Apple surpassed Android in marketshare [reuters.com] by the end of 2011, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen [nielsen.com] and NPD [gigaom.com]. 150 Android smartphones couldn't beat the iPhone 4S, and with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Who cares? Well, when 2011 started, Slashdot triumphantly reported that Android surpassed iOS in marketshare [slashdot.org]. In fact, Android fans on Slashdot constantly cited Android's marketshare as proof that it was taking over the industry, that openness was superior to the "walled garden", and that Android was "winning". Marketshare is still fetishized around here and considered a sign of victory.

So, what happens when the opposite happens and Apple erases Android's marketshare lead by the end of the year? Despite multiple submissions from several users, and news coverage ranging from Arstechnica to CNN, Slashdot refuses to publish the story.

This is a Linux advocacy site whose early userbase was driven by hatred of Windows marketshare. Anything negative about the marketshare of Linux or platforms based on Linux, gets killed. Slashdot is intentionally not providing you full tech news coverage because it wants to cater to a specific demographic of emotionally-invested users who are more likely to generate repeat page views.

Re:Slashdot won't report this story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843109)

Why would Slashdot need to report this, bonch, when you've been constantly spamming it on every other story?

But hey, keep up your inadvertent Google shilling, I guess.

Re:Slashdot won't report this story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843367)

Big deal. Motorola sold over 200,000 xooms last quarter. You don't get those kind of numbers unless you're the 2011 CES best of show winner. Those kind of numbers are why Google is dropping 12 billion for them. How many CES awards has the iPad won? Oh that's right, 0!!!!

Redigi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38842853)

Heh, for a second there, I thought they were talking about Redigit.

You know, for this to have marginally more support (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38842861)

it might be best to couple the modifications currently being done with a recompression of the mp3 itself.

It's like real life! No one's going to want an mp3 that's changed 20 hands at that point.

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp (4, Insightful)

Rosy At Random (820255) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843281)

Every time products get deliberately borked in order to sell non-borked versions at a higher price, a part of me gets very angry. I can see the commercial sense in it, but it does not stop the anger.

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844347)

Aah, planned obsolescence; she is a bitch, no?

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp (1)

Rosy At Random (820255) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844795)

Not only that, but chips with features deliberately disabled in order to have budget and premium versions :O

I know that some of that partly comes down to the manufacturing processes naturally making sub-standard chips, but still, /angry face/

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845083)

Yea, I hate that too.

The silver lining, however, is that with enough perseverance and knowhow, one can get the "premium" features at the budget price.

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp (1)

Rosy At Random (820255) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845407)

Yes, sometimes I feel that just being smart and informed enough to cheat gives me a right to :D (Especially when it feels we've been cheated out of the stuff we're clawing back in the first place)

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp (1)

Bradmont (513167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38847331)

The real problem is that trying to work around such artificial restrictions is even considered cheating...

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844091)

Add an inaudible (to the human ear) digital watermark?

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp (2)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844819)

Such things tend to be pretty useless because they're exactly the sort of thing that lossy compression algorithms strip out to save space -- and if every anyone invented a way to insert one that existing compression algorithms didn't remove, the algorithms people would be very interested in it so that they could improve the algorithm (which would then go back to stripping it out).

Man that sounds like a lot of effort (3, Interesting)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38842881)

For some bullshit I doubt anyone wants, seriously you can buy the best the world has to offer for 99 cents a track, what kind of horseshit DRM system to I have to infect windows with and dance around just to save what? 25 fucking cents in the end?

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843053)

Just a couple of years ago lots of people were happy to infect their windows with all kinds of horseshit DRM systems in order to buy music for 99 cents.

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843085)

You don't get it do you? What they are doing is arguing that they have a system in place for the exchange of second use sound files. The source of the files is not in question, just that they can sell, at a lower price, an exact and perfect dupe of the original.
This changes the entire game, why would you buy a $.99 copy (which is what you are buying) when you could buy a $.74 copy. Why would you buy a $.74 copy when I could sell you one for $.001? It would cost me next to nothing to serve it out to you and if they win this suit then there is no real need to provide bulletproof DRM.
BTW: My DRM system, (I call it Dummy Rights Management) works just as well for my customers. I sell you an unencrypted mp3 and you have the right to play it all you want on any device at any time and place, even in a friend's computer or player. That way I have protected my rights, i'm the dummy. For the price that I sell stuff, everyone wants to buy from me of course, and all that matters is that I have a fast lookup and download service.
I can sell 1,000,000 copies a week, a month or a day and still make buckets of money.

Oh yes, IF they win then the dam breaks, finally.

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843383)

The issue is the first sale right, the idea that something downloaded is still your property and you can do with it as you wish. It is very important that these guys win.

Besides, clearly there is a market for used MP3s and for that matter used CDs, even if they only fetch pennies. Particularly for teenagers without real jobs or people who are simply poor that kind of money actually matters to them.

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (3)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844227)

The issue is the first sale right, the idea that something downloaded is still your property and you can do with it as you wish. It is very important that these guys win.

Yes it is.

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (3, Insightful)

MrKevvy (85565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843623)

You answered your own question: 99 cents a track. For what they're paying the artists, plus distribution costs, 10 cents a track would be fair. But they're still charging the same for a bunch of bits from a server that costs a fraction of a cent to deliver as they did when that music was pressed onto a big vinyl disc by a multi-ton press, packaged with a printed cardboard sleeve and trucked to the store.

And the artist still gets 5% of it if they're lucky.

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843873)

For some bullshit I doubt anyone wants, seriously you can buy the best the world has to offer for 99 cents a track, what kind of horseshit DRM system to I have to infect windows with and dance around just to save what? 25 fucking cents in the end?

Or go to a used CD store and buy the CD. You might pay 25 cents a song.

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843909)

99 cents is way too much. I have thousands of music tracks. They sure as hell aren't worth thousands of dollars.

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (2)

Szechuan Vanilla (1363495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844101)

>They sure as hell aren't worth thousands of dollars.

Spoken like someone who has not crawled on their hands and knees for years to master a musical instrument (or voice) and create a unique sound...

Don't punish the artists because the music industry is stupid, hidebound, and greedy: give the artists their due, for Gods' sake!

Don't punish the Artist (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844887)

As an experiment, ReDigi could put a "Send $.05 to the artists" button on each track. The money would be collected and divided among the singers, writers, performers and producers of each track.

The trick is to identify who they all are. Would an artist get 3 shares if they were the singer/songwriter + 1/5th of the band?

Re:Don't punish the Artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845249)

There is already an industry standards for calculating total shares for involved parties.

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort (3, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844945)

With all due respect, you're kind of thinking about this backwards.

Suppose a group of 100,000,000 people each have on average $500/year to spend on music. If tracks each cost $1, they each get 500 tracks and a collection of, say, 500,000 artists each gets on average $100,000.

Now suppose each track costs $0.10. Each buyer still has the same amount of money to spend, so now they can each buy on average 5000 tracks from the same 500,000 artists and each artist still makes on average the same $100,000.

Changing the price doesn't change the amount of disposable income people have, but it sure as heck changes the number of songs they can buy. And more volume means better network effects and more efficient markets (i.e. each artist gets heard by more customers, and so the ones with the best sound are the ones whose concerts get sold out, rather than the ones with the best marketing).

If the file has a real value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38842891)

Then what gives them the right to tell us we can't resell it?

And if it doesn't have a real value, why should we pay for it?

Re:If the file has a real value (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38842919)

"Then what gives them the right to tell us we can't resell it?"

The government does.

Re:If the file has a real value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843289)

Not if they want to keep their jobs...
I can't think of too many things that I'm legally allowed to buy, but not sell. Prescription drugs is one category, but those are potentially lethal. Even gun sales are only restricted, but not illegal outright.

How can the courts can say someone has to pay thousands for an illegal song download, but if they buy the EXACT same item legally, they can't decide later they no longer want it and resell it.

When does what I own become mine?

Re:If the file has a real value (1)

garyoa1 (2067072) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845429)

Become the buyers? Never, thanx to the record/film industry lawyers and lobbyists who've stuffed congressmens pockets with big bucks for years.

Re:If the file has a real value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843667)

We, the people...

Right... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843005)

Or people will just download their music, legally or illegally, from the most convenient source available to them.

Re:Right... (0)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843415)

Really, I was under the impression that legal music sales on the Internet accounted for maybe 3% of total music downloads. Now I don't know where that figure comes from and I would think it would be a very slippery number to come by - after all, there is no real tracking and nobody is volunteering that they downloaded 1000 songs last month. However, it does sort of put iTunes propaganda in perspective. iTunes is irrelevent for music sales, is pretty much what it means even if the numbers are pretty far off.

Amazon is a joke and the rest of music sales isn't even worth a snicker.

However, once you get someone who believes they can build a business on top of something where we have proven over and over through the years that downloadable music has ZERO value, you better believe they are going to defend their right to make ZERO dollars over their new-found business model.

OK, for the rest of us living in the real world, this is irrelevant.

As usual, key points are missing from the story (-1, Offtopic)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843099)

This guy was NOT just convicted for downloading bomb making instructions BUT for the COMBINATION of downloading bomb making instructions, compiling a price list for components, weapons and ammo AND a letter offering himself as a recruit for Jihad.

Granted, I can't see any proof in the full story he wrote the letter or made the list BUT it is the combination of these things that led to the prosecution and conviction. That he pleaded guilty also hints there is more going on.

To get the car anology out of the way, if you are arrested for being drunk behind the wheel of your parked car you CANNOT run a story claiming that you were arrested for buying beer. Nor were you arrested for being drunk, you were being arrested for being drunk in car behind the wheel (it being parked doesn't matter, you are not allowed in the driving seat drunk).

Nit picking? Yes because if you want to rage about civil rights you need to come up with a coherent story, not a story that will be picked apart in 2 seconds by your opponents.

Imagine for instance the case of Rosa Parks, you would make the racists case if you went to defend her and hinged your entire case that she was forced to go to the back of bus for being a woman...

IF you think this case is wrong, you need to fight the case, not some made up case by a slashdot editor with a grudge on his shoulder. It is the combination of documents that lead to the case NOT a single document on its own.

Re:As usual, key points are missing from the story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843195)

This comment was NOT posted in the right discussion.

Issues such as fair use & first sale (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843187)

Since 2005 people have been asking me all kinds of questions about what you can do with your digital music after purchasing it. Now along comes a case where I'm actually litigating, and the court will be deciding, those types of issues, and the comments seem to be all off topic. Oh well.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843347)

This defense doesn't have a chance. The courts view protecting IP rights in the long term interests of the US economy and aren't going to allow any exception. They will probably roll back existing case law as well.

Re:a case where NYCL is actually litigating! (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843389)

Welcome back! (Sorta).

I for one had wondered what you had been up to on these matters. With the explosion of wins for the Copyright enforcement brigade, I had entertained the thought that you were threatened into submission!

Onward.

How are you handling the "Almost-Unique" file situation? Besides simple physical file mods, I'll include stuff like "chopping off the dumb trailing gratuitous horn finale" etc. I suppose it would be a Derivative work, except my question centers around it being a trivial change for the sake of changing the file, rather than claiming real creativity.

Otherwise, is the concept that if the first person buys the music, then it can float around for free forever on first sale logic ever after? (Like stuff that can go to endless flea markets.)

So suppose a service buys X copies of each song, as a "repository", then sells them used? Then once they're second hand, they stay that way right?

YAAL. Hooray!

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (2)

JustNilt (984644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843565)

Thanks for posting regarding this story, Mr. Beckerman. I've followed such stories with great interest since a friend of mine had a ridiculous situation where he licensed a movie for showing in his venue then received a C&D the date of the showing. Please be aware that some of us truly appreciate the work you do and your communication with us here.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844281)

Thanks for posting regarding this story, Mr. Beckerman. I've followed such stories with great interest since a friend of mine had a ridiculous situation where he licensed a movie for showing in his venue then received a C&D the date of the showing. Please be aware that some of us truly appreciate the work you do and your communication with us here.

Thank you. The support of the Slashdot community means a great deal to me. We are living in an interesting time, where 10 large, politically connected corporations -- 4 record companies and 6 motion picture companies -- are on a rampage to save their dying business models and to deflect blame from their management for allowing their businesses to die. Instead of investing in the future, and building better technology, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on nonsensical litigation. Very sad. I look forward to the day when they have been beaten back.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (2)

vakuona (788200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38846027)

They are only on a "rampage to save their business models" because people think it is kosher to download music without paying for it. Why do you want to distribute _their_ music or _their_ movies? Why not make your own and defeat their business model that way?

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (3, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843597)

I would offer that the answer in well over 90% of the cases is that your digital music is worth exactly what you paid for it. Nothing.

Now, in the small fraction of cases where someone has spent $10,000 filling up their iPod and is wondering how to (a) insure this against loss and (b) if this can be considered a valuable asset which is appreciating in value I think the answers to most of the world are pretty clear: no and heck no.

Apple built a very successful business out of selling digital music players that could potentially cost tens of thousands of dollars to use if people were paying for digital music downloads. The number of people that could afford to do this is very small - but instead of being a rich person's toy the iPod has become a major facet of popular culture.

If people were really spending $1 per song (and they aren't), these would be important questions. However, what we have created is an environment where a huge percentage of the population is (a) using digital music and (b) downloading it for free in spite of laws and successful lawsuits. It isn't right, it isn't good but it is currently a fact of life. The legal sales of digital music occupies such a small piece of the pie of digital music downloads that it is nearly irrelevant. And so we have someone that believes they can build a business on the back of this. Unlikely. And sounds like it is going to require considerable litigation to even see light of day.

I think the question of reselling digital music is absurd in the face of reality. It would take someone deeply convinced that people are buying digital music and spending tens of thousands of dollars on it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Quite an ability to delude themselves it what it would take. It probably says something about a lawyer willing to take on such a client as well.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (5, Insightful)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843805)

think the question of reselling digital music is absurd in the face of reality. It would take someone deeply convinced that people are buying digital music and spending tens of thousands of dollars on it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Quite an ability to delude themselves it what it would take. It probably says something about a lawyer willing to take on such a client as well.

It's not the government's job to prop up a dying business model. Aluminum used to be very expensive, even more so than silver. The top of the Washington monument is aluminum, at the time a precious metal. Should government have stepped in to guard the value of someone's aluminum store, when the Hall–Héroult process made it almost worthless?

The cost and value of creative works is being adjusted due to the Internet and cheap storage. Some businesses will thrive, and others die off.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844297)

It's not the government's job to prop up a dying business model. Aluminum used to be very expensive, even more so than silver. The top of the Washington monument is aluminum, at the time a precious metal. Should government have stepped in to guard the value of someone's aluminum store, when the Hallâ"Héroult process made it almost worthless? The cost and value of creative works is being adjusted due to the Internet and cheap storage. Some businesses will thrive, and others die off.

And I can think of a record company that is dying off, but not before it wastes even more of its money on frivolous litigation.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38846045)

Apple built a very successful business out of selling digital music players that could potentially cost tens of thousands of dollars to use if people were paying for digital music downloads.

So did Sony, Panasonic, and every other successful audio electronics manufacturer since the mid-1980s.

The number of people that could afford to do this is very small - but instead of being a rich person's toy the iPod has become a major facet of popular culture.

So in other words, it's just like the CD player that came 15-20 years before it.

we have someone that believes they can build a business on the back of this. Unlikely. And sounds like it is going to require considerable litigation to even see light of day.

I don't know if it'll work either (I'm no entrepreneur) but it's not crazy on the face of it. Maybe they saw that the same business model was used successfully, for about 20 years, where the only difference was selling CDs rather than files. And it's a difference that works in the new medium's favor, since storing, sorting and transporting files is a lot cheaper. That earlier business model also faced litigation.

reselling digital music is absurd in the face of reality. It would take someone deeply convinced that people are buying digital music and spending tens of thousands of dollars on it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Again, I've no idea if this would be a successful business, but the "overwhelming evidence" favors that a lot of people really are spending money on music, but the sales volume to date is somewhere in the Billions of dollars [wikipedia.org] range, with most of it recently (it's been going up rather than down), for downloads from Apple alone (what fraction of music sales Apple has, I don't know, but since this particular business limits itself to only reselling music that was originally sold by Apple, we can blow off the fraction question, assuming they consider getting a small piece of a merely ten billion dollar pie to be enough).

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (5, Insightful)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843605)

Here's some questions the court or legislators should decide:

My parent/sibling/spouse has died and left me $20,000 worth of music I don't listen to. Can I sell it? (or should digital music evaporate when the "owner" dies)

I had a large collection of physical CDs stolen. Can I listen to my backups? Can I sell the backups when I'm done with the music? (or will the record companies help me get my collection back?)

I want to buy an digital copy of a song from a new website. How do I know it's legit?

I'm not really interested in what the answers might be today, as much as I'd like to know what the answers should be. Is it even possible to have strong protections for artists without the occasional incidence of stormtroopers kicking down grandma's door?

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

rpresser (610529) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844307)

I had a large collection of physical CDs stolen. Can I listen to my backups? Can I sell the backups when I'm done with the music? (or will the record companies help me get my collection back?)

More interesting than the possibility of theft, is the fact that physical CDs have a finite lifespan. But backups are immortal, as long you copy them to fresh digital storage periodically.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844413)

You could still sell someone the now-dead CD and liner notes, along with a backup. Should that be legal? If so, what guarantees that the seller didn't retain a copy?
I buy used CDs at yardsales, what guarantees that the seller didn't retain a copy? Do I care? Should I?

If I shouldn't care, why should ReDigi be on the hook for determining if a seller kept a copy?

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38846009)

But that is how Redigi will be defeated, because like it or not, retailers are responsible for what they sell. So the courts and the rightsholders could ask Redigi to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the resold tracks are now unavailable to the original buyer.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38847377)

if that is the case, then the secondary market should have to do that with everything else that can be copied.
also, the ease of replication should always be irrelevant.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

Bradmont (513167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38847381)

But in this case, is it not the original buyer who is responsible, not redigi? After all, they are the one that sold their right to a recording and held on to a copy. So they should be taken to task, not the company. By following this standard of proof, all used music stores will be forced out of business. For that matter, used book stores will be too -- how can they prove the original owner didn't photocopy or scan the book before selling it?

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845179)

Is it even possible to have strong protections for artists without the occasional incidence of stormtroopers kicking down grandma's door?

No, this is impossible. You can have copyright or you can have general purpose computers, but you can't have both.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845515)

I had a large collection of physical CDs stolen. Can I listen to my backups? Can I sell the backups when I'm done with the music? (or will the record companies help me get my collection back?)

Theft ends possession, but not ownership. As such, you have all the same rights as if you owned it and put it in off-site storage.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38843785)

This case poses a very interesting legal question for copyright holders -- what is fair use of digital media?

From a pragmatic view, it's all just binary and purchasing the rights to one DRM system should include the rights to others. It's beyond unfair that if i have 4 different devices they all have to use the same DRM system, or i can't play my purchased media on all of them.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38847395)

should there be any difference in fair use rights regardless of medium? would 'digital media' include cds, dvds, etc?

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844343)

Welcome to Slashdot :) The story doesn't matter, it's just an excuse to spout your opinion. Everyone here is an expert on everything.

Fortunately, the people who aren't posting inane gibberish are reading and learning. The silent majority appreciates the effort, be assured of that.

And yes, I know you've been here before, but if you hadn't gotten a sense of the place before, sounds like you have now.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (2)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844477)

Welcome to Slashdot :) The story doesn't matter, it's just an excuse to spout your opinion. Everyone here is an expert on everything. Fortunately, the people who aren't posting inane gibberish are reading and learning. The silent majority appreciates the effort, be assured of that. And yes, I know you've been here before, but if you hadn't gotten a sense of the place before, sounds like you have now.

I've been here a lot, since 2005, so I know how it goes. I just wanted to call folks' attention to the fact that some of the questions Slashdotters have been asking me since 2005 -- which I was either unable to answer or not at liberty to answer -- are now being played out in court, finally :)

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845147)

Does ReDigi bear any responsibility to ensure that the copies they sell are legally made? It would be trivial for me to make as many copies as I want and sell them on ReDigi. Even if the ReDigi transaction is atomic, that doesn't stop me from reproducing my own MP3s. Does ReDigi attempt to prevent this, or are they claiming they're not responsible if I violate copyright?

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38846065)

Lest move the questions to the physical realm. Do HMV or Amazon have a responsibility to ensure that the physical CDs they sell are legal. Of course they do! A retailer cannot avoid liability for products they sell.

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38847313)

i am keenly interested in this. a year or so ago, amazon offered like 10 albums from a certain artist for free. if they are no longer free from amazon, i SHOULD be able to undercut them (i would obviously delete the originals), much like you could if they had given out free cds. i was gonna put them on a flash drive and ebay it, but with all these bullshit laws, many of them untested, i'd rather not risk it.

"First sale" doesn't really apply. (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843269)

When an mp3 is sold, it is not being transferred from the provider's server to the buyer's computer...it is being copied.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843395)

So? If I started a bookstore with a single copy of each book and printed a new copy for each customer on demand I'd still be bound by first sale wouldn't I? Who cares when the copy is made.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (4, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843469)

Doesn't matter--they have the rights to copy and they're selling that copy. Therefore, under first sale doctrine, you should have the right to resell that copy. The fact that your copy was made on-demand should be completely irrelevant. If it were an on-demand printing press or CD burner, you'd have the right to resell the book or (physical) CD, even though it was generated on-the-spot. Why would it be different for a file?

In fact, a DVD or BluRay is simply a set of files that have been copied to an intermediate storage medium. What possible reason can you offer for suggesting that the rules are different simply because the storage mechanism is different?

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (4, Insightful)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843677)

What possible reason can you offer for suggesting that the rules are different simply because the storage mechanism is different?

It's the same reason that pro-piracy advocates use: IP goods are not the same as physical goods. If IP can't be stolen (it's merely being copied), then there's no way to enforce sale of a "used" IP either. There's absolutely no way to enforce that when you sell your copy of the IP, that you are selling the your original copy and not merely a copy of your copy.

All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.

Pick one: artifical, government-enforced/DRM-managed scarcity + first-sale doctrine, or IP-should-be-free + no used sales. Those are your logically consistent options.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843965)

There's no way to enforce it for a physical good, either, which is why there are so many pirated DVDs out there for sale on used DVD sites.

Further, even if you have someone examining the DVD looking for special seals of authenticity and other such silliness, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from making a copy, then selling the original.

In other words, digital sales are digital sales, and in terms of the potential for abuse, there is no significant difference between reselling a purchased MP3 or AAC file and reselling a purchased DVD or CD other than possibly the need for additional centralized policing to ensure that you can't sell the same track more than once unless you can prove that you paid for it more than once.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (1)

rpresser (610529) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844359)

There absolutely is a way to enforce it for a physical good. However, a DVD is not a physical good. Its value is not the few ounces of plastic, but the bytes stored on them. And since bytes stored and readable can be re-stored, etc., etc. and now it's your argument, and I agree with you.

My point was just that your initial statement is false. Your conclusion is true nonetheless.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844973)

Other than patent lawsuits, there's no way to prevent duplication and counterfeiting of physical goods, either. Don't believe me? Check out the Chinese microphone manufacturers that slavishly copied the patented Royer offset ribbon design just a few years back. Check out all the fake iPod look-alikes. All the fake Prada bags. And so on.

Sure, most of the fakes aren't remotely exact, but that's not because they can't be made exact. Many cases of counterfeit products actually involve manufacturing plants making extra units past the end of the manufacturing run, and selling them as legitimate products. In those cases, they are in every way actual instances of that physical product, but not legally produced instances of that physical product. There is no feasible way for such fakes to be detected once they get out on the market. Or individuals buy up refurbished repair parts and assemble a counterfeit unit from parts that is indistinguishable or nearly indistinguishable from the real thing.

So again, I reiterate, it is not possible to absolutely verify that a physical good is a legally manufactured copy, either.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (2)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844657)

All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.

Yes, but it's the proper fallback position when your primary argument against artificial scarcity falls on deaf ears. You made the case yourself. IF artificial, government-enforced, DRM-managed scarcity exists (and it does), THEN I assert my right of first sale. Whether or not I agree that the initial condition *should* be true doesn't negate the consequence of it being true.

And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of IP as actual property, though for disambiguation it would be useful if we had a better term for IP that didn't actually include the word property.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (2)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845499)

Yes, but it's the proper fallback position when your primary argument against artificial scarcity falls on deaf ears. You made the case yourself. IF artificial, government-enforced, DRM-managed scarcity exists (and it does), THEN I assert my right of first sale. Whether or not I agree that the initial condition *should* be true doesn't negate the consequence of it being true.

Alright, I agree. Try getting a pro-piracy advocate to admit to this though, and I'll give you a cookie. They want to be able to freely copy IP to their local drive, and then sell the original used and keep their copy. That's obviously the best of both worlds for them (IP-is-free for copying, IP-is-property for selling), but it's terribly inconsistent in terms of philosophy.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38848163)

Alright, I agree. Try getting a pro-piracy advocate to admit to this though, and I'll give you a cookie. They want to be able to freely copy IP to their local drive, and then sell the original used and keep their copy. That's obviously the best of both worlds for them (IP-is-free for copying, IP-is-property for selling), but it's terribly inconsistent in terms of philosophy.

Such scenario is a non-issue. Before the internet it was practical to copy an album to a tape and then resell the original, but now it's just wasted work. If I can infringe copyright now easily and for free by visiting The PirateBay, why would I go through the trouble of buying something, then copying and then reselling for part of my money back? It's much more work for the exact same result: copyright infringement. If you are concerned that someone would buy the original digital file and then sell a plethora of digital copies, it's a self-defeating distortion of the market. Again, why would I buy an illegal product when I can get it just as illegally for free?

Now, while I've seen a lot of pirated DVDs being sold on the streets, what's actually being bought is the service of finding, downloading and burning the file (and subtitles, if applicable) on a media for use in DVD players. It would be a lot better for the pirate if he could charge you for loading an usb key of yours with a movie, but this would never fly. People are not buying the exact same product they can get for free, they're buying convenience. Which is something you could very well do if you could resell IP. I buy a bunch, make my own collection, burn it, create a cool cover and resell it. For a physical analogy, it'd be no different than buying leather and selling pants. Yes, I'm reselling the leather, but with added value.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845405)

It's the industry that's trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it's "we didn't sell you a physical good, we licensed you to listen to its contents", but then the moment you try to move it to a different device, it's "hey, you can't do that, because we sold you a particular manifestation of the content on a particular device".

So really, this is about the industry being forced to decide once and for all what it is that they're really selling us, and accepting the consequences of that decisions, including its implications on first sale doctrine.

Personally, I think of music sales as more like a service. It's basically, "here, let me arrange some bits on your drive so you can listen to the music". This means first sale doctrine does not apply, but at the same time, if I want to make a backup copy, put the songs on every device I own, and/or download MP3s to save myself the trouble of ripping them myself or to replace a lost copy, then I can.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38847273)

Wow! What a false dichotomy!!! I pick *either*!

How stupid do you have to be to not notice that you are currently being screwed?

Why are you making it hard on the only people who have your back?

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (2)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 2 years ago | (#38847653)

Pick one: artifical, government-enforced/DRM-managed scarcity + first-sale doctrine, or IP-should-be-free + no used sales. Those are your logically consistent options.

Ignoring the fact that copyright is a wholly artificial construct anyway, and be written to behave however the hell people like, regardless of logical consistency, if we abandoned copyright, why would anyone care about selling used copies of creative works with regard to the works contained within?

For example, suppose that it was legal to make copies of the Mona Lisa. (Which it is, but we'll set that aside for now) Why would anyone pay for a copy?

Well, they might pay for the convenience of getting an already-made copy, rather than having to make their own. But that's no different than the usual price difference between ready-made things and doing it yourself. The work isn't the source of value here.

They might pay for a particular copy due to some special thing about the tangible object, but that's unrelated to the work itself, which could be reproduced flawlessly in numerous copies. The original painted by DaVinci is likely worth something due to its provenance. Even if you had an atom-by-atom identical copy, the original would be more valuable for historical reasons. Likewise a copy that had been given to you by a friend or relative might mean more to you than a generic identical copy. Again, the work isn't where the value is coming from.

So the used market would probably dry up if we abolished copyright, but it would be of little importance, for an inherent property of information (such as creative works) is that it is sharable. As Jefferson noted (in reference to inventions, but it applies here), sharing knowledge is like using one person's fire to light another's -- in the end, both people have fire, and no one's fire is lessened by doing it. Copyright operates, among other ways, by trying to reign this in for a limited time. But if we abolished this check on the natural tendency of information to become widespread, you'd see sharing all over the place that was functionally identical to or superior to the used market, except that there wouldn't be so much money involved.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 2 years ago | (#38847557)

Doesn't matter--they have the rights to copy and they're selling that copy. Therefore, under first sale doctrine, you should have the right to resell that copy. The fact that your copy was made on-demand should be completely irrelevant. If it were an on-demand printing press or CD burner, you'd have the right to resell the book or (physical) CD, even though it was generated on-the-spot. Why would it be different for a file?

Well, be careful with your definitions. In the Copyright Act, a copy (or in this case, a phonorecord) is basically defined as a material object in which a work is fixed long and well enough to be perceptible by some means. So a mere file can't be a copy, and copies can't be uploaded or downloaded via the Internet. A copy of an mp3 is really an entire hard drive, optical disc, flash drive, etc. containing the file. (And probably other files too) To engage in first sale, you'd have to sell the material object. So I guess it's no different than reselling a book, so long as you mean the paper object, and not merely the words by themselves.

ReDigi is apparently arguing that the distribution right of copyright isn't implicated since it governs the distribution of copies (i.e. material objects) and not the copying of files. They're right, actually, though courts have in practice seemed to ignore this distinction (not that I've heard of anyone making the argument before).

Of course, it isn't of much help. To 'move' a file from one material object to another, such as a user's hard drive to a server's hard drive (via plenty of RAM, cache memory, NICs, and who knows what else) involves a hell of a lot of copying, and the reproduction right of copyright governs this.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (1)

Decameron81 (628548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843527)

When an mp3 is sold, it is not being transferred from the provider's server to the buyer's computer...it is being copied.

It goes both way... it isn't stealing either then, as the media corps would like to make us believe.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845641)

Did you compensate the people who worked on the file in any way? If not, that is stealing then

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845715)

No, it isn't stealing. It may be wrong, but it isn't and cannot be stealing.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (1)

ka-klick (160833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844703)

Actually have mod points for once, but I'd rather expand on this point than mod it up (though I think it deserves a bump).

I'm kind of surprised that Ray's representing them. This really seems like it has lots of problems from the get go. The precedents don't look good to me. It seems like another "brilliant" idea in the vein of Psystar (and we all saw where that lead).

Here's a similar process, see if passes the smell test:

1. Buy used book
2. Scan used Book
3. Destroy book, sell DRM loaded PDF

After reading through the statement describing the process it appears that it has to start out as a digital file, but it still breaks down to:

Upload the (digitally purchased) item to a "locker"
Destroy all the copies that are currently on attached media (at least that they can find)
Sell the key to that part of the locker to someone else.

I still see some big holes here:

It appears this relies on the file being iTunes PLUS (not DRMed, but stamped). This is likely to bring back DRM. Not your client's problem (until it happens) but brings back the bad old days. It's also unlikely to work on anything that already had DRM not replaced by "upgrading" since that has ties into iTunes for authorization. Also they seem to rely on the hashed version Apple is now using to stamp these files, but they claim they don't decrypt this info, but rely on the hash as unique, but at the same time they say that they determine that it is actually owned by THAT user. How can they know it's owned by that user but leave the stamp encrypted?

It assumes that the user has no backups or other computers which could contain copies of the original iTunes purchases. Apple has been very persistent in reminding people to back up their iTMS purchases. Also, I've never done it, but isn't there a method that you can contact Apple to re-download purchases in the event of a disaster. What's to prevent me from "selling" all my iTMS purchases through this service, then un-installing and either restoring from backup or requesting new copies from Apple?

I also believe that under iTMS terms of service they explicitly state that the files provided are licensed, not sold. I'm sure you plan to try some attack on that tack, but that still leads me to this heading the way of Psystar. If the end-user never really bought anything but a license, then they don't really have a first sale argument.

Full disclosure: I'm a singer/songwriter (rights holder), and not a laywer, but I do follow these sorts of cases. I don't see how this is going to go your way (ultimately). First sale is an important right, but it's crap like this that will get legislation to override it. I think you're kicking the hornets nest (and for the wrong people).

This is extremely laughable. (0)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843657)

I find it hilarious that the people arguing for allowing resale are probably the same people that bitch about DRM.

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period. If you sell someone something that can be easily obtained for free then what value are you selling back? Selling back a non-DRM protected song sounds more like a Con rather then a legitimate business practice.

But, if digital content is protected by DRM that allows only one user to access it, then I would agree users should be able to sell the license for the digital content so another person can take ownership of that license. It means the original owner can no longer access the content.

If you support the concept of reselling digital content, they you are embracing DRM. But you can't have it both ways, DRM-Free content that you can sell to other people, that is called PIRACY!

There is no freaken way in hell that the government is going to allow you to profit off of someone else's intellectual property, period. Get over it and move along.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843869)

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM

The problem is that Physics and Computer Science show that there can be no cheap and effective DRM.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (3, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38843933)

This is not explicitly true. Many products are routinely sold that can be obtained for free, given the labor of obtaining is a sufficiently arduous task. The person is really buying the convenience of a harvested product.

Take for instance, oxygen, or nitrogen gas. (Especially nitrogen). You gan collect copious quantities of it for free. However, the task of harvesting and refining it is nontrivial, and possibly expensive in both time and invested infrastructure. As such, somebody that basically just pumps and superchills ordinary air, and in so doing fractionally distills out the nitrogen and bottles it (the nitrogen itself is still free), they can sell it as long as there is a demand.

Another example is dirt. You can scoop up dirt for free too, but people still buy it routinely.

See also: manure, compost, etc.

The value of the files, which can be easily sourced, is in the increased convenience of the service, and any implied goods accompanying that service, such as legal indemnification for posession. (Eg, you won't get sued by the riaa for downloading it.)

This value is set by what peope are willing to pay for it. Profitability can only occur if the price people are willing to pay is greater than the costs of offering it for sale.

You could argue that it could never be profitable... that's a reasonable argument. But you can't argue that it can't be sold. (One can sell at a loss.)

The real problem here is that this operation sets real limits on what the ACTUAL market value for the recording industry's digital products really are, instead of the artifically insisted upon values presented in court during infringement cases, and also the cumulative effects that such a service would produce.

Specifically, the recording industry relies on continually reselling copy from its back catalog. (60s and 70s classic rock, 80s music, 90s music, etc...) there is a demand for this because the old storage mediums break down with age, and require replacement. A digital resale locker like redigi permits the new sales of theroetically unaging copies (mp3s don't wear out....) to change hands potentially unlimited numbers of times. Coupled with continued first hand sales, an increasing supply of second hand files can theoretically end up in redigi's possession, saturating the market.

This will greatly impact the ability of the riaa and member labels to continue to snack on replacement/redundant copy sales, which accounts for the vast majority of their revinue stream.

That's why they hate redigi, and also why we should embrace redigi.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844017)

I think I fall into the realm you find so laughable. Here are my two feelings. They do not conflict in my mind.

1) You should, legally, be able to do it.
2) It's not technically feasible without DRM so I'd never do it.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's smart. It's legal to dance the Macarena. I feel fairly strongly that it should remain legal. However, I have no plans to ever do it.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844085)

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period.

That's precisely why you can't resell CDs, paper books, analog photos, etc.

Actually, this battle was already fought for paper books, and the good guys won.
Once you sell something, it's not yours anymore. That's a separate issue from copyright.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (3, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844107)

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period.

Sure you can. It's actually quite easy. You're missing a fairly fundamental concept, which is this: what is necessary to prevent playback of copies is not required to merely prevent sale of those copies. To do the former, it must be impossible to get a decryption key without proving that you are the current owner. This is fundamentally impossible to do in an unbreakable way, and the harder you try, the worse the customer experience is. By contrast, to do the latter, you need only the ability to uniquely identify each sold copy of a file. This requires nothing more than a guarantee from the companies that sell the original tracks that there will never be two identical copies of the track, plus a verifiable, ideally signed marker of some sort to determine authenticity.

In other words, to support resale of commercially-sold tracks, you need only take advantage of the watermarks that most or all of those services put in the tracks to begin with. Tracks are usually sold with additional info in the track's metadata that ties it to a particular user's account so that if it gets pirated, it can be traced back to the person who illegally distributed it.

This means that every digital download is unique and trivially verifiable as authentic or inauthentic without the need for actual DRM that would limit your ability to play the file. Thus, all that is necessary is a central database that every reseller talks to, in which the current ownership of every track that gets sold is tracked based on which account purchased it originally.

At least I'm assuming this is how they're doing it. It's certainly the most straightforward and obvious way to do it.

What this does not do, of course, is prevent you from making a copy before you sell the track. However, resale of physical CDs and DVDs has exactly the same problem, making this argument largely irrelevant as far as drawing a legal distinction between the two types of resale.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38845531)

This addresses a problem with media-free content in general. How do you establish that you have the right to the files you have? What's to keep the government or Apple coming in and claiming all of a sudden that all of your stuff is pirated?

The "ownership" problem exists regardless of whether or not anyone wants to transfer that ownership.

Physical media is a nice token of exchange and proof of ownership in that regard.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38846189)

This requires nothing more than a guarantee from the companies that sell the original tracks that there will never be two identical copies of the track, plus a verifiable, ideally signed marker of some sort to determine authenticity.

I've got two words for you: Analog hole.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38847409)

You don't seem to get what is being discussed here.

Sure, you can copy a watermarked file via analog hole -- but you can't "sell" that re-recorded file through ReDigi, even if you compress it with equivalent settings and all, because it doesn't have a valid (i.e. signed) watermark.

And as GP said, the fact that you can copy it (don't even need the a-hole for this), then sell the original to ReDigi, who then sells it used to a customer, is exactly analogous to copying a CD, then selling the original to a record store, who resells the used CD to another customer -- in both cases, the reseller is in the clear, because they didn't buy and sell a pirate copy, and didn't illegally copy it on their own. The only one violating copyright is the original owner.

All that said, if I had some iTunes watermarked tracks, I would not sell them to ReDigi -- if the person who eventually buys them were to distribute them widely without removing the watermark, Apple could check the watermark and associate them with my account, causing trouble for me. And even if I could win a copyright infringement case (since I sold them, and would presumably have receipts/account info from ReDigi to show this was before they showed up on P2P), that doesn't help me against any actions Apple might take, e.g. canceling my iTunes account.

Re:This is extremely laughable. (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#38846187)

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period

Uh oh, a lot of antique shops and used car dealers are in for a big surprise. ;-)

(Let's assume you meant your comment specifically within the context of copyrighted content.) Are you saying used bookstores and used CDs stores don't work?

Beyond that, I wonder what "adequately protected through DRM" means. Has anything ever been adequately protected through DRM, or is this a purely hypothetical discussion?

It would be nice... (1)

razorh (853659) | more than 2 years ago | (#38844151)

To see this won and applied to e-books as well. In many cases books for kindle are more expensive than paper books yet you can turn around and sell a physical book after you've read it and you (currently) can't do the same with an e-book.

Do you own it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844505)

If I buy a hammer, I can give it away, I can loan to a friend, I can rent it out, or I can sell it. If you can't do all of these things you don't actually own something.

What a twisted bunch of BS is this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38844757)

Totally laughable. The concept is so ridiculous it defies comprehension. It defies hyperbole. It goes past hyperbole returns at the other end and becomes an understatemen. I am a designer I demand payment from people sitting on chairs.

Re:What a twisted bunch of BS is this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38845601)

First sale doctrine, once someone buys your designed chair from you he can resell it to someone else, second person to third, and so on ...

I hate to bring this up, but... (1)

graikor (127470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38846473)

I know we all want to retain the right to resell what we have purchased, even at a loss, but this system seems to have a DRM that isn't terribly effective. It looks like an obvious flaw, and no one's pointing it out, so I guess we're supposed to pretend we don't see it?

It appears I can make a back up of my iTunes music, install the files on a secondary computer which is running the ReDigi DRM software, and sell them from there. This would not impact my files on my iOS devices, nor would it affect the files on my primary computer which does not have ReDigi installed.

The only way I could see this meeting a bulletproof Rights Management standard would be for the only non-ephemeral copies to be stored in the locker in the first place: in other words, you'd have to download directly from iTunes to the cloud, so that no copy of the song would ever reside on your computer. Once you have the file on your system, there will always be a way to copy it, and the DRM agent isn't omniscient.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...