Beta
×

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!

iPod May Become Next Fair-Use Battleground

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the my-pod-my-rules dept.

Media (Apple) 334

jaredmauch writes "USA Today is reporting on a trend of selling iPods on eBay which are preloaded with music and movies. This raises interesting questions about the legality of the files, including those that offer seemingly legitimate services of transcoding DVDs for the iPod video (while selling you the DVD disc as well)." An example from the article: "A 60-gigabyte video iPod loaded with 11,800 songs, with a starting bid of $799. The iPod alone would cost about $400. 'I don't see how it's different than selling a used CD,' seller Steve Brinn, a Cincinnati pediatrician, wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY. 'If the music industry asked me not to do it, I just wouldn't do it.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

if they ask for you first born (-1, Redundant)

seabreezemm (577723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551786)

Would you give them that too? I paid for them, i own them. I'll be damn if they can tell me what I can do with my property.

Re:if they ask for you first born (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551847)

I'll be damn if they can tell me what I can do with my property.

Hey, it's a fair system: you have just as much right to buy laws as any big corporation.

TWW

I'll bet the RIAA would surely claim fair use... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551993)

I'll bet the RIAA would surely claim fair use if they bought iPods, filled them with songs and then distributed them to their own employees.

Re:if they ask for you first born (3, Insightful)

csoto (220540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551848)

It's not your property. You have a license to use it. It's the property of the copyright holder, usually not the artist.

Re:if they ask for you first born (2, Insightful)

soupdevil (587476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551955)

Copyright gives you the exclusive right to make copies. It does not give you ownership of all said copies. If a consumer buys a CD, the consumer owns that copy of the music. And if the consumer has Fair Use rights to make a copy, then the consumer owns that copy as well.

Bullshit, if you pay for the license you own it. (3, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552019)

IF we are buying the license, then we should have the ability to sell the license to someone else.

This will certainly be taken to court. Look, if you purchase a car, and your car company expects you to pay insurance to protect your car, but suddenly the state tries to claim that they actually own your car and that you only can purchase a license to drive it, and to top it off you don't even own the license, I'm sorry but thats just robbery.

If you pay for a license but don't gain any rights, if you buy an ipod and purchase the music, but somehow you don't have the right to resell the music, then what are you purchasing?

When the time comes where we have to buy licenses to breathe air and drink water, and some company comes along and strips you of your license, well I guess you'll just die.

It's one thing to allow the traditional recording industries to exist, by buying their music on ipod, but its another to give them the right to strip you of ownership, if you are basically providing welfare for these record companies, then if they were wise they'd actually be sitting down at the table to make a deal with Apple, and with consumers.

If they refuse to sit at the table, then Apple and consumers will eventually replace them with companies who do respect the right to sell Ipods on Ebay. To be frank, they are over-reaching here, and its hurting them over and over again. You cannot maintain a monopoly by force. Google is smart enough to know that the best way to maintain their monopoly is by actually putting the consumer first. The artists know this too, they make music that their fans want because they have to sell both CDs and concert tickets.

Look, here are our options, either we can have a fake corporatized art and music industry, where corporate bosses tell artists what music to make, and then tell consumers what music to buy, and then force both the artist and consumer to be caught in a loop similar to Microsofts tactics, or we the artists, consumers, CEOs, programmers and lawyers can get together and decide to offer an alternative.

Ipod, Itunes, Google, Open Source, GPL, GNU, Creative Commons, these are some of the alternatives. If the traditional industries were smart, they'd simply adapt to the market instead of trying to control it. The market ultimately cannot be controlled, and the more control you try to put on the market, the bigger you make the market for any competition which decides to offer freedom as a product. So it's simply, the recording industry is helping to fund new freedom industries and freedom based products.

Re:if they ask for you first born (2, Insightful)

AlterTick (665659) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552062)

It's not your property. You have a license to use it. It's the property of the copyright holder

Actually, the only part that actually is property is the hardware. Copyright law does not confer property rights over songs. The only property in copyright is the copyright itself. Songs, by their very nature, cannot be owned. What they have, what they posess, is the exclusive right to copy the song. Property must have a specific physical instance in order to satisfy the definition. Where do they keep the British Crown Jewels? Tower of London. Crown Jewels are obviously property. Where do they keep the song "Helter Skelter" by the Beatles? Well, there is no one pllace. It shows up a bunch of places, not least of which is in people's heads.

Despite the unfortunate popularization of the oxymoronic term "intellectual property", you cannot own a song. You can only hold its copyright.

Re:if they ask for you first born (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14552200)

It's not your property. You have a license to use it. It's the property of the copyright holder, usually not the artist.
So far as I have seen, no DVD movies or musical CD's I've ever purchaced have presented me with any end user licensing agreement. Therefore the DVD, CD, etc is my property, and I should be able to make copies for my personal use according to the "Fair Use" clause. If I use those copies in my iPod, computer, DVD Player, etc there should be no legal issue. As the CD, DVD, etc is itself my property I CAN resell it. I cannot sell copies however, as I'm not the copyright holder. If I choose to resell the DVD, and also happen to bundle the DVD with the iPod, and the IPod has a copy there should be no legal issue either. It's only when I'm selling the iPod with the movie on it is sold on it's own, and I'm keeping my copies or originals of the media in question that it becomes a valid concern for copyright law. The only noteable exception to this is digital purchases (via iTunes etc) where there may actually be an end user licensing agreement that you must commit to before being allowed to use the service.

Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (5, Insightful)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551791)

The sellers are using the same argument many software spammers use. "We're not selling you the software. You should already own the software. We're just selling you a backup copy... wink, wink."

The same reasoning could be used... "I wasn't selling him cocaine illegally. I was filling his prescription for cocaine. No, I didn't check to see if he had one. I made it clear that if he didn't have a prescription, he shouldn't buy the cocaine from me."

Think the cocaine argument would fly in court? Then why would the fair use argument these pirates are trying stand up? It just doesn't hold water for me.

- Greg

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (-1, Troll)

seabreezemm (577723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551852)

And thank you rep of the MPAA for your bullshit comments... Now back to reality.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551858)

I agree, bullshit.

The iPod + music thing is nothing more than, "I'm selling a CD case, including my CD collection which resides in that case."

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING THAT.

Nor is there anything wrong than selling your old iPod with songs you've downloaded through Apple's service - songs you've *paid* for.

Whether or not they're copying files to a new iPod is a seperate matter altogether.

Not exactly (4, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551880)

When you sell your cd case + cds, you're transferring the physical cd's, unlike the iPod case where you're transferring mere copies of the songs on said cds.

Re:Not exactly (3, Interesting)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552049)

I agree as long as you sell the only copy of the song and do not keep a copy for yourself. I do not see spending $15 to download 15 songs from iTunes Music Store as being any different than spending $15 to buy a physical CD. I have just as many rights to sell resell my only copy of the digital form as I do to sell my only copy of the physical copy. The RIAA has no room to bitch. It costs them many times less to produce a single AAC or MP3 than it does to produce hundreds of thousands of copies of the physical media, jewel case, and album art. No room to bitch at all.

Re:Not exactly (2, Interesting)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552234)

I agree, but there's no way to actually "transfer" ownership of the files. Using iTMS for an example, unless the seller turns over the ID and password for their iTMS account, the buyer is left without the ability to validate a computer to play those files, so I don't think they could ever be transferred off of the iPod. Hopefully the buyer is aware of the limitations.

Unfortunately, I think what's going on on ebay is essentially selling the same music multiple times while still retaining the original. IOW making a profit off of illegal copying.

Re:Not exactly (4, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552241)

I'd have to say it's pretty hard to imagine that, unless the guy selling the aforementioned iPod is a complete idiot, he dropped almost 12 grand between the iPod and iTunes and is willing to part with it for $800.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (1, Informative)

stipe42 (305620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551869)

Great analogy. Music==cocaine. Well yeah, I hardly see the legal difference between the two.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (2, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551884)

Not really. IF the person bought the songs off of ITunes and deleted the copy on his computer why wouldn't this be legit?
It is going to get to the point where I can not let a friend barrow a CD that I paid for even if I don't want to listen to it.
So when will congress start investigating drug dealing and sex with minors in the Music industry?

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551930)

So when will congress start investigating drug dealing and sex with minors in the Music industry?

They'll get right on that after they finish snorting up their stashes of coke and banging their interns until they can't walk.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (2, Insightful)

CommiePuddin (891854) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552067)

IF the person bought the songs off of ITunes and deleted the copy on his computer why wouldn't this be legit?
It is going to get to the point where I can not let a friend barrow a CD that I paid for even if I don't want to listen to it.


It depends on what the ITMS TOS states. (Disclaimer: I do not own an mp3 player, nor have I purchased music online) If the TOS expressly limits the secondary market for the songs that are sold through their service, and you break it by selling a loaded iPod, then the RIAA (or Apple) has a claim.

I would check the TOS myself, but Apple is throwing me a 404 error [apple.com] from their webpage [apple.com] .

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552115)

Well

Which congress are you talking about? State congress? which state?

As far as the music industry goes, if you want to launch an investigation into the music industry, you won't be doing it from congress because the music industry has more lobbyists than the tech industry.

When Google decides to investigate the music industry, that will be the end of the music industry. It's simple, Google simply has to give up the search information on specific industry execs to the state, federal government, or the media and that would be the investigation.

Honestly, I'd prefer if politics were left out of the music industry so I can enjoy music, but I suppose if you own stock in Google or in the traditional media companies, you might have something at stake here besides just a few CDs and your ipod.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551893)

We're just selling you a backup copy

Except that some of them are doing exactly that. They even prove that you own a copy of the DVD by selling the DVD to you as part of the package. Where does that fit in your "bullshit" scale?

As for selling an iPod's worth of music (assuming these aren't all mp3s), when I buy a song from iTMS, I receive a license to play this song on N devices. Why can't I resell that right for some subset of my N devices?

Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of these items are just run-of-the-mill infringement like the xboxes loaded with 70 games, but I believe there might be legitimate cases made for some of the rest.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (4, Insightful)

Odiumjunkie (926074) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551894)

Your argument only applies in cases of the music being ripped from cd or downloaded illegally (i.e a copy) - that would be a case of the vendor making personal backups, then selling them assuming the customer owns the original cd - but a far more complicated legal area is where the music has been purchased as legal downloads, then put onto the ipod. In that case, it is the original product being resold, unaltered. I would assume that since the customer bought the right to playback the music, they can also sell it - but it would be very hard to establish whether or not the music had been purchased legally, and also whether or not it had been copied.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (4, Insightful)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552011)

Your argument only applies in cases of the music being ripped from cd or downloaded illegally (i.e a copy) - that would be a case of the vendor making personal backups, then selling them assuming the customer owns the original cd - but a far more complicated legal area is where the music has been purchased as legal downloads, then put onto the ipod.

I'm not discussing fair use in general. I'm discussing the seller in the article.

The seller goes by a shady legal theory used by spammers and other pirates... they make a "back up copy" for you. If you don't own the original item, you shouldn't buy or use the "back up".

Selling iTunes songs you bought and destroying your copies so you're truly transferring ownership of the file... it may well be legal. But these people who sell "pre-loaded" iPods with 11k songs and 30 hours of video for a $300 premium are not people who are within the letter or spirit of "fair use". They are just the same software pirates who spam you all the time about "0Em S0ftwhere" finding another lucrative piracy venue... Ebay.

- Greg

Well outlaw Blockbuster (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552160)

Looks like the videostore industry has to be outlawed. I mean since you arent actually paying for the video when you rent it, they are actually video pirates.

Look, the video rental industry has something to lose here if the laws are changed. There are industries at stake here, so its a much more serious issue than piracy.

Re:Well outlaw Blockbuster (1, Informative)

Mage Powers (607708) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552337)

video rental places spend lots of money on a copy of a dvd, because they get a copy thats licensed for rental.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (2, Insightful)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552079)

Your analogy involving cocaine is inherently flawed. For that to be valid, music itself would have to be illegal. Your first analogy is slightly more correct.

If one were to own all the media listed, would it be illegal to purchase an ipod preloaded with the content? I cant see that as being illegal. What about users who are too inept/lazy/etc to transcode the content themselves? Should there be no legal recourse for them to get their content onto their devices legally? What about the guy shipping used copies of the content along with the unit? Excuse me, I think I smell a business opportunity here.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552133)

Not all of them. If you'd (finished) RTFA, you may have gotten to the part at the end that says:
"Customers of TVMyPod, launched in November, order an iPod plus the CDs, movies and TV shows they want. TVMyPod then buys the disks, loads them on the iPod, and ships the iPod and all the disks to the customer, says TVMyPod co-founder David Onigman.

Even that raises legal questions, because most DVDs are encrypted to prevent them from being copied. "The question that needs to be asked is, if you buy a DVD, are you allowed to put it onto an iPod?" Onigman says.
That is indeed the more interesting question. Why would I not be allowed to put it on an iPod? Or anything else?

The DMCA allows circumvention for interoperability, so it seems like a legitimate purpose. And really, one wonders what the purpose of encryption is when so many uses are, or could be construed as, legitimate. From what I understand, it's only illegal to circumvent copy protection to make illegal copies. But it's already illegal to make illegal copies (otherwise what kind of copies would they be? Right.. legal). The DMCA seems more like a group hug between Congress and Abra^h^h^h^hHollywood than anything else. A slight nod, wink, and a pat on the ass. RRraaoww.

Re:Bullshit, Bullshit, and more Bullshit (1)

subsolar2 (147428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552191)

The sellers are using the same argument many software spammers use. "We're not selling you the software. You should already own the software. We're just selling you a backup copy... wink, wink."
Similar situation around here ... around the fourth you can purchase all sorts of Fireworks all the way up to 6" shells, the fireworks dealers make you sign a paper stating that you are leagally permitted to use the fireworks in the area you will be using them in and that they are not liable for any damages.

The dealers of course don't check to see if you have the permits and are licensed and every year a couple people get seriously injured or killed hadling stuff that they have no clue about proper handling.

Modify the article title... (2, Insightful)

op12 (830015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551794)

'I don't see how it's different than selling a used CD,'

iPod and used CDs to become next fair-use battleground

Re:Modify the article title... (5, Insightful)

slowbad (714725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552042)

Everything makes perfect sense once you repeat to yourself, "DRM is not there for my benefit"

Spend five minutes in a Cingular wireless store and you will see what the average person thinks
when they aren't able to transfer previously purchased ringtones or games to their new phones.

Re:Modify the article title... (2, Informative)

chicken_moo (822458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552249)

If you actually ask Cingular about this, they'll tell you you can re-purchase the ringtone and then dispute the charge after you download it -- effectively giving it back to you for free. A pain in the ass workaround, and huge potential for abuse, sure...but that's the best they'll do for you.

Re:Modify the article title... (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552065)

iPods and used CDs are different, so I think the original title is correct.

Not even the RIAA would dispute that you own the physical CD medium, and that it's your right to sell it. If you've made a backup copy first, then you're a bad boy and they'll sue you.

But it's harder to prove ownership of the music/video on the iPod. If you downloaded it from iTunes, you can't get it back off the iPod, so that's all legal. (More or less. I don't know what would happen if you opened an "iPod service station" downloading playlists to other people's iPods, but it sounds like a very inconvenient thing.)

In this article they're specifically citing cases of ripped music and downloaded video on the iPod, and that's almost certainly a violation of fair use. They're trying to get around it with the wink-wink "we're assuming you already own this music", but I doubt courts will let that excuse fly.

In the limit the cases do have a lot of similarities. You could, in theory, just pass that CD around, re-selling each CD at the same price after you've ripped it. But it's less convenient; you'd have to move around hundreds of CDs and the overhead costs become huge. Buy an iPod with many songs, and you can do a whole lot of copyright infringement all at once.

Re:Modify the article title... (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552289)

Not even the RIAA would dispute that you own the physical CD medium, and that it's your right to sell it.

That's not true, they have disputed it. I believe Garth Brooks was one big name performer who was trying to push, along with the RIAA, to make the used CD market illegal, vowing not to allow stores that dealt in used CDs to sell his new material.

it's only a matter of time (2)

naringas (733106) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551796)

he will probably be asked not to do it shortly enough

i don't see how it's different too... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551809)

selling a modded xbox with 60gig of pirate software.....

different opinions i guess...

If somebody just asked me... (1)

ElGameR (815688) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551823)

If somebody just asked me to not find legal ways around the intedended laws I wouldn't. Should somebody really have to tell people not to do things? Does the average person really not care what laws are intended to do, as long as they can get around the rules directly address?

Re:If somebody just asked me... (2, Informative)

theRiallatar (584902) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551867)

Does the average person really know every nuance of copyright law? If I had an iPod that I wanted to get rid of, and I were a Joe Six-pack, familiar with eBay, I'd probably just list my iPod for sale, and if it sold, ship the thing, and be damned what was on it. I may not necessarily have the inclination to say "Oh, I need to erase all the crap on this thing first."

Re:If somebody just asked me... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552199)

If somebody just asked me to not find legal ways around the intedended laws I wouldn't.

Why give up the ability to do something legal when you don't have to?

Should somebody really have to tell people not to do things?

Yes, it's called the legislature.

Does the average person really not care what laws are intended to do, as long as they can get around the rules directly address?

Nope, why should they?

Meaningless (2, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551833)

I could put a used CD of the Bay City Rollers on eBay with a starting bid of $19,000,000. It doesn't mean anybody's buying it.

Show me evidence of lots of iPods actually being sold for far above retail value because of the songs loaded in them, and maybe I'll agree there's an issue to discuss here.

Re:Meaningless (2, Interesting)

BDaniels (13031) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551909)

I don't know if they're getting far above retail value, but it's definitely a selling point. When I had a 2nd Gen up on eBay, I got lots of prospective buyer questions: "Does it have music on it? Does it come with music?" When I replied "No, the HD will be reset before I ship it", I never heard from those buyers again. When I checked the eBay listings, other iPods with music were selling for more than I got for mine.

Re:Meaningless (5, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551936)

From TFA:
A "brand new" 60-gigabyte video iPod loaded with 10,000 songs plus more than 50 movies and TV shows, including the three Matrix movies and the first four seasons of 24. In the listing, the seller says the buyer "must already own all of the music and DVDs. ... If not, they must delete them as soon as they receive it in the mail." The item sold for $551 on Monday.


You were saying? Sure not *far above* market value, but still.

Re:Meaningless (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552261)

I bet if I spent long enough digging through eBay archives, I could find several untouched iPods which sold for above retail. The fact that USA Today got wind of ONE iPod that sold for over $550 only proves that there's one idiot out there, not that iPods have created a fantastic new frontier for media piracy.

Re:Meaningless (4, Insightful)

ecklesweb (713901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551941)

Actually, it's the other way around. People are selling iPods + music for far below the retail value of the songs loaded in them. If the iPod+music sells for $800 and the device is worth $400, Those 11,800 songs are valued at just over 3 cents a piece. That's a damn sight cheaper than they go for on iTMS.

If someone's making a business out of selling pirated copies of songs at 3 cents a piece, I can see how that would ruffle some RIAA and Apple feathers.

As I said in an earlier post, if someone is selling their only copies of 11,800 legally acquired songs for 3 cents a piece, then that's their business and there's nothing to see here. But that's not the case, is it?

Re:Meaningless (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552010)

You missed my point. Nobody is selling warez-loaded iPods for $800 in any real quantities.

The best example they could come up with was one fool out there somehere who paid $551 for a used iPod. The example they lead with is being offered for $800. That's very different from news that it was sold at that price.

Given that people willing to screw the copyright holder's can already buy music that cheap at AllofMP3.com, it seems kind of silly to suggest that there's massive demand out there for iPods laden with pirate booty for double the new retail price.

As I said, show me that there are thousands of people out there paying ourageous sums of money for iPods, simply because they want the pirated content on the hard drives, and I'll eat my words and agree that it's a real issue. As it stands now, it looks to me like typical slow-news-week hype.

Re:Meaningless (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551981)

One. [ebay.com]
Two. [ebay.com]
Three. [ebay.com]

Now, I'm not sure that satisfies all of your qualifiers, but regardless of how many are sold and/or how much they sell for, the legality of the sales still remains in question.

Re:Meaningless (1)

EddieBurkett (614927) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552151)

How can these iPod's be listed as 'New' when they've been filled with music and such already? When I see 'new', I expect to get a nice unopened, shrinkwrapped item. Couldn't the RIAAA go after them for false advertising as well?

Re:Meaningless (1)

TCQuad (537187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552216)

When I see 'new', I expect to get a nice unopened, shrinkwrapped item.

Well, see, they'll show you a picture of what it was like brand new. Then they'll open it for you and preload all the music and videos that you want on it. Then they'll send it to you.

But don't worry. The one they're sending you was absolutely the one they pictured still sealed in the box, only opened once to load all that extra bonus content on it. Honest.

Re:Meaningless (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552188)

Wow. Three iPods. That must be costing the movie industry dozens of dollars. Clearly new legislation and ramped-up enforcement is needed.

Re:Meaningless (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552232)

Also, somebody paying $480 for a $400 iPod (which is new, other than being taken out of the box to fill it up) is not really evidence that they are doing so for the content. They might just happen to live in a country where iPods are not convenient to buy at retail price.

I mean, if what they really wanted was the movies, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just buy HK bootleg DVD's.

could be legal (5, Informative)

stoanhart (876182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551839)

If he had purchased all those songs legally, and eliminated all of his own copies upon selling the iPod, it should be legal.

Re:could be legal (2, Interesting)

csoto (220540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551882)

Technically, the "EULA" could prohibit transfer of the assets (not sure if iTunes Music Store does this), but you're basically correct. And if a EULA did prohibit transfer, I would argue against that under fair use limitations of copyright - the same reason you're allowed to sell used CDs (as long as you don't retain a copy of the licensed materials).

Re:could be legal (3, Insightful)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551916)

If he had purchased all those songs legally, and eliminated all of his own copies upon selling the iPod, it should be legal.

According to TFA, that wasn't the situation. The seller was stating that if you didn't own any particular song or video on other media, you were obligated by copyright law to delete it from the iPod.

Spammers use this kind of shady legal reasoning to sell pirated software: They're not selling you the software. They're selling you the service of creating a back-up on CD/DVD. If you don't already own the software, you shouldn't buy it. It's not their fault if people who don't already own the software are buying these $60-$80 backup CDs and illegally installing the software.

It's a bunch of hogwash, IMO. And whether they're getting ill-gotten gains by slapping copies of software on CDs and selling them via spam or they're slapping pirated music and video on iPods and selling them via Ebay, it's still crap. If the case you cited (seller deleted/destroyed any other copies he had of the music/video he was selling) was what was happening, that would be one thing, but most of these sellers are not that honest.

Re:could be legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14552144)

"Spammers use this kind of shady legal reasoning to sell pirated software:"

Ofcourse, and a legitimate music or film company would *never* resort to the exact opposite of this method, now would they ?

Example #1 : All I seem to hear is that it *should* be illegal for me to make a duplicate of a CD I payed for, just to keep the origional outof harms way (CD in car, kids or pets playing with it, etc).

Example #2 : A direct friend of me discovered that a DVD, at some moment within a few months from purchasing it, had cracked (and got "Too late, not our problem anymore" from the store). A friendly E-Mail to the company was more-or-less rejected, but when at last a response came it was "just re-buy the damn thing".

Funny, as he *allready* payed the person holding the rights to the works on that DVD, and just wanted to have a working copy of it (he was ofcourse willing to part with the old, cracked one).

They have no problem to claim that you never own such a work, but only a licence to look at it (and the DVD itself is just a carrier), but at the same time try to nullify that licence when the "just a carrier" gets damaged.

Yeah, I'm sure that those "Spamming software pirates" are doing something quite different from the "Legitimate owning company". But I'm afraid that they both have only their *own* interrest in their minds, not the one of their "customers" (no "Fair play" from either of them) ....

Re:could be legal (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552229)

In this case I think it's fairly obvious that the seller isn't deleting the songs from his computer before selling the iPod. He's buying new iPods, sticking them in the cradle, hitting sync, then putting them up on Ebay for a $400 profit.

While it would be easy enough to prosecute these guys under existing laws, I have no doubt this will be used as an excuse to create even more restrictive and unreasonable laws instead, much the same way AVIs were used as an excuse to create the DMCA, no matter that the law hurt a lot of legitmate users as well.

One guy is selling one with the 3 Matrix movies... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551843)

...for a 25% discount compared to an empty iPod.

distinction... (5, Interesting)

ecklesweb (713901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551844)

I think there's a critical distinction to make before you can decide if it's legal or not:

Is this someone selling many of these iPods, making many copies of digital songs when they don't have permission to? That would seem pretty clear-cut illegal.

Or

Is this someone selling their iPod and the only copy they have of the songs, which they acquired legally. How can that possible be illegal?

In the case of the article, it's clearly someone running a business with pirated music. But, if I wanted to sell my loaded iPod and don't have copies of the music elsewhere, is there really a law on the books that stops me?

I also think the question at the end of the article is apropos: If you own a DVD, can you legally put the movie on your iPod at all given DMCA restrictions?

Re:distinction... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551961)

I also think the question at the end of the article is apropos: If you own a DVD, can you legally put the movie on your iPod at all given DMCA restrictions?

Depends. The DMCA doesn't criminalize making the copy (you are allowed to make backup copies of media you own); it criminalizes breaking the encryption to make the copy. If the encryption was broken by someone in a different country where there is no DMCA, and you then make a copy of the unencrypted content, then you are not breaking the encryption, you are merely making your copy.

Of course, it could be argued the other way. You purchased an encrypted copy of the work, so any unencrypted version would not be legal to use, and it would be illegal to reproduce a working encrypted copy.

IANAL, so take these statements with a grain o' salt.

Re:distinction... (1)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551969)

>I also think the question at the end of the article is apropos: If you own a DVD, can you legally put the movie on your iPod at all given DMCA restrictions?

I wonder about the layman on this as well...

Let's say techie-who-doesn't-care-about-DRM shows layman how to put DVDs on his iPod.
Layman doesn't know about CSS encryption, the options are all preset magic for him.
The layman also doesn't really understand DMCA.

Can you show criminal intent?

Obviously, I can't stab someone with a knife and say "Well, I didn't know it was a knife and that stabbing someone with it would be considered stabbing", but with as simple as the transcoding tools have become, are the tools well enough understood by the public to be considered as common knowlege as knives?

[BTW, I sold an iPod that had music that I ripped from CDs to a friend... I also gave the CDs to my friend as part of the sale. There's no mechanism for me to transfer downloaded music from one account to another, so I'm not sure I would have given him iTMS music... I just would feel right about giving him music that he had no real way of recovering]

Re:distinction... (1)

no_opinion (148098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551985)

Your distinction is probably valid, but I don't think it's possible for someone to give you the songs that they have legally acquired if all you are getting is the iPod. If they bought the CD, you should be getting that too, otherwise they are giving you a copy, which you have pointed out is illegal. Right now they can't give you their legally purchased iTunes downloads because there is no way to transfer a song from one account to another. Similarly, if they gave you an iPod loaded with movies, they'd have to also give you the DVDs. Of course, I'm ignoring the whole CSS issue.

Re:distinction... (1)

un1xl0ser (575642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552093)

I run Linux, and don't use iTunes. Can someone clarify if the license for music downloaded from iTunes is transferable? If it is, then you can go ahead and transfer your license to someone. I don't think that it does, and I don't think it ever will have a provision like that.

Before the 1990s, there really wasn't the means to transfer music off of the media in a lossless fashion. There is now. If record companies wanted to, they could have ELUAs on each CD to make clear what your rights to use the data are. The don't currently (maybe on some DRM media), but certainly not on a majority.

You can't rip a bunch of your music (load up your iPod) and try to sell it at a profit. That person does not have the rights to use it under "fair use" laws. People have to start thinking, and stop askin pediatricians what they think about IP laws and piracy.

Re:distinction... (1)

shawnce (146129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552280)

I run Linux, and don't use iTunes. Can someone clarify if the license for music downloaded from iTunes is transferable? If it is, then you can go ahead and transfer your license to someone. I don't think that it does, and I don't think it ever will have a provision like that.

To play protected ACC files (FairPlay) on a computer you must use (legally speaking and as implemented) iTunes and that system has to be authorized to play the music by the iTMS account that purchased the music in the first place (your can authorize up to five systems at any given point in time per account).

iPods music collections are only allowed (legally speaking and as implemented) to be slaved to a single iTunes instance at a given time. A given iTunes instance can master any number of iPods. In the case of FairPlay the set of songs that an iTunes instance is authorized for can be copied on to a slaved iPod and that iPod will be able to play those song without any further connection back to that iTunes instance.

Anyway in a nut shell you have to transfer your whole iTMS account to another party in order for them to legally be able to play any music purchased via that account, even if that music exists on an iPod. So you cannot transfer a sub-set of songs, it is all or nothing.

Re:distinction... (1)

boldtbanan (905468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552148)

A bigger issue is the ownership of downloaded songs. We're moving toward a scheme in the music industry that will match what has been done in the software industry for a long time now: you do not own the music/software, you merely have been granted a license to use it.

Such a license could also be created so as to be non-transferrable, in that if you sell someone the original media, they don't get the license. In addition, the license may expire after some arbitrary amount of time. This is what the music industry is ultimately attempting to do with DRM (forget the whole piracy argument, it's mainly a front for getting the DRM in place).

Now, if the price of music were hugely reduced by the new licensing scheme, since renting is cheaper than owning (and by hugely I mean less than 1% of current costs), that might be acceptable, but the ultimate goal is to implement the licensing without reducing the price of music.

For this scheme to work, all of the major labels would have to be in collusion or else market forces would tend to reduce the price (although not as much as in other markets, since artists are restricted to a single label, and people tend to buy music based on the artist, not on which artist is cheaper). We all know the music industry doesn't engage in price fixing [musiccdsettlement.com]

People need to wake up about this, although I don't see that happening until after everyone's music starts to expire after 5 plays or 30 days, whichever comes first

ok, /rant

Not a fair use issue (4, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551859)

This really isn't a fair use issue at all. If he were charging to pick up someone's CD collection, transcode them, and load them up onto an iPod, it would be an issue of fair use. If he were doing that except instead of loading each CD individually, he was taking them from a pre-transcoded library, it would be an issue of fair use (though perhaps more shaky, considering past rulings). But this is just plain old copyright infringement, and for profit, no less.

Used Music No More (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551862)

Does anyone notice that, in about ten years or so, when almost all our music is digital, the used music market will start to drop off? Eventually, as long as we don't create another audio-featuring medium, no one will be able to buy any used music from anyone.

Re:Used Music No More (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552296)

The market dried up partially because with digital music there is no need for any album to ever go out of print again. It used to be that unless you wanted something released in the last year or in the top 1% of the most popular music you were stuck rummaging around through filthy overpriced unorganized secondhand music stores looking for the record.

Now you can have a shiny new copy anytime you like. Since many online music stores naturally discount their music, it's often the case that you can buy the online version cheaper than the secondhand music store version (which was only 20% off of the original cover price anyway).

NOT Fair Use, NOT Infringement (1)

DJCheburashka (949102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551889)

This seems to be just liked used CD's. Selling them isn't a question of fair use; its a question of having the right to sell something you've bought. The only "fair use" question would come into play if you were selling the mp3 copy as an adjunct to the sale of the CD; and I would think that is not fair use.

Re:NOT Fair Use, NOT Infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14552014)

just liked used CD's

<pedant>
Used CD's what? Mind explaining to us why there should be an apostrophe there?
</pedant>

It depends. If the songs were bought from iTunes or some other paid download service, I don't see why anyone should squeal.

If they were ripped from CD, I'm sure the RIAA would extract their pound of flesh, unless the CDs came with the iPod.

I'd like to know why the laws are so arcane there has to be a discussion. Malice or stupidity on the part of our (ok, the corporations') legislators?

almost mrc="reflects"

eBay won't let it be... (5, Insightful)

altheusthethief (918055) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551898)

Quite simply, selling a backup of any medium on eBay is strictly prohibited. A good example of where this enforced, is when a vinyl is sold with a CD-R copy of the record.

Given the fact that you can't buy movies on iTunes yet, this is a no-brainer. Even if the iPod were sold with original copies of the CD, it's still a breach, and as such can't be sold.

The real interesting point here is whether or not eBay is open to the sale of "used" MP3s, and how in fact the ownership of these items can be transferred if at all.

Currently MP3/AVI/MP4 are all considered to be backup mediums, and as such are removed for Unauthorised Copies.

Re:eBay won't let it be... (1)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552051)

Quite simply, selling a backup of any medium on eBay is strictly prohibited. A good example of where this enforced, is when a vinyl is sold with a CD-R copy of the record.

There are a bunch of people on eBay selling CD-Rs of scanned manuals for HP and Tektronix test equipment. Seems to me that this is a blatant copyright violation ...

Re:eBay won't let it be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14552327)

Sure is! I bought one for a dual-trace tek scope I got, but not off ebay, this was just from some guy's website. I bought a copy of the manual for my Mercedes, too. The difference between these two items is that the mercedes manual is still available for sale but the CDROM manual (which sucks! it's missing pages and you can't see the contents of basically any of the pictures because of a bad scan job) is available for sale... for like two hundred bucks. And it's missing the same content, this is just a copy of that two-CD set. The Tek manual, well, no one is going to come hassle them for it. I'm surprised that the automakers aren't going after people for cdrom manuals, but then, in many cases there's no money in it for them anyway. Someone paid a flat fee to license their content and print their manuals. When I got my Nissan paper manual, I bought it from some third party company, and they probably didn't see a cent.

How did the music get there? (1)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551899)

If they were ripped from CD's, you're selling copies of the CD. That's copyright violation, unless you include the CD.

However, if you bought them off of iTunes, and they are the only copies you have, then it seems pretty clearly legitimate. (Unless there are heinous contractual terms preventing transfers of the music from the original purchaser.)

What if you bought them from Apple but had made some copies? Apple's DRM allows a certain number of copies to be made. Can I sell a few of my copies of the $0.99 song I bought and retain a few of my own? This is where it gets murky...

will that work with iTMS songs...? (1)

johnpaul191 (240105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552204)

there was the case of the guy selling his iTMS songs (just to see what would happen), but he sold the only copies of the DRM'd AAC files and transfered his iTMS store account to a disposable email address and a giftcard or some sort of visa card like thing that he could pass along.

nobody stopped that auction (iirc) and he even said he did it to see if he would be told to cease, and what grounds they would cite. he outlined that he ensured that the songs were only for the buyer (deautherized his computer to play them etc).

if these people just rip CDs/DVDs and don't include the original then it is pretty much a digital bootleg. there are services that will rip and iPod your whole CD collection but they are for the exceptionally lazy/busy and only rip and load music off real CDs.

You just can't stop the cool. (1)

nixkuroi (569546) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551906)

Even though it's normally treason, if you had an iPod full of files from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, you could probably sell it on eBay and get off scott free 'cause if the US Government didn't want you spreading their secrets, they'd tell you to stop right?

This is probably the weakest excuse I've ever heard for sharing copyrighted materials. Either the guy is stupid, or he's got the lamest case of denial ever.

I guess if it's on an iPod, it's not really a copy cause it's got that DRM stuff right? The feds would show up and just be blinded by the cool of the new g5 video iPod in all it's glory.

(In an unrelated note: Hurry up Fox! I want House MD episodes on iTunes yesterday!)

Sold mine.. (-1, Troll)

ivekford (941839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551926)

I sold my old ipod mini to a friend for $50. It had about 900 songs on it, but after the person recieved the ipod, they promptly removed the music to upload their own.

All in all, I see no reason that whether the music comes with a ipod or not is a issue. Most people will just download the music for free, so the music should not raise the price at all.

its obvious (2, Insightful)

loserhead (941655) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551928)

last year, when considering the sale of my 15GB ipod, i thought about leaving my 2000+ songs on there and addign that as a selling point. with what little common sense i DO have, i figured it would be illegal and i didnt want to get sued.

it is obvious that you are not allowed to sell the songs. with all the stuff we see EVERY day about people being sued, how could you think that selling an ipod full of music wont get you in trouble? i hate the RIAA as much as the next /.er, but i try to fly "under the radar" with my offenses.

Remember kids! (4, Insightful)

wfberg (24378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551929)

OK, this is just wrong, as it goes against playground rules; if the record company's aren't making money, why should you? Charging $$hundreds for just copying some stuff, come on, you just charge for the media and swap..

And remember kids! Selling iPods full of music is illegal! (Well maybe not if they're all downloads from itunes, but ripped from CD sure thing). So make sure you sell your iPod with all files deleted from it!

And sell the undelete program in a separate auction. Which is linked from the cleansed iPod auction.

Re:Remember kids! (1)

slowbad (714725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552215)

And sell the undelete program in a separate auction.

I've puchased games in the past because I knew a fix would allow me to play on 2 machines.

Why won't Sony and others let the market decide DRM -- release the same CD both ways.
I suppose the one you copy would be $120 and the one you cannot would be around $12

It sure wouldn't be the other way around with $12.00 unprotected and $1.20 protected:
in the history of copy protection, nothing ever goes down in price with a supply monopoly!

How is this not piracy? (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551940)

If I put the songs onto a CD-RW, and sold it as a CD, I'm sure that would be coopyright infringement, even if the person already owned the songs. Are these people doing something different because the medium also has the ability to play the music? Or is there another reason this is different?

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14552005)

Amen. Perfect Analogy.

Not any better than someone with a box of burned, pirated disks on the street corner.

Best anti-DMCA example (3, Interesting)

Steve525 (236741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551965)

"The question that needs to be asked is, if you buy a DVD, are you allowed to put it onto an iPod?" Onigman says.

This is somewhat off-topic, but this is the best example to show your friends, family, and senators why the DMCA is bad. Here we have a perfect example of something we should be legally allowed to do with traditionaly copyright law (space-shift), it's certainly technically feasible, and there is demand. But we can't actually legally do it, because of the DMCA.

Back on-topic, selling iPods preloaded with media is most likely illegal, unless you include the original media in the sale. (Just like selling any other type of copy of media is illegal).

Re:Best anti-DMCA example (1)

CommiePuddin (891854) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552128)

That's misleading, though. The question that is actually being asked is If you buy a DVD, are you allowed to put it onto an iPod, sell that iPod+DVD at a profit, and retain the DVD?

If original source isn't included, it's unethical. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551972)

IANAL, but...

A "brand new" 60-gigabyte video iPod loaded with 10,000 songs plus more than 50 movies and TV shows, including the three Matrix movies and the first four seasons of 24. In the listing, the seller says the buyer "must already own all of the music and DVDs. ... If not, they must delete them as soon as they receive it in the mail." The item sold for $551 on Monday.

Now, just like with laptops that come loaded with $10,000 worth of software "for demo purposes only, if you don't own the license, you must remove it upon receipt," this is copyright violation, and, by definition, piracy [answers.com] .

The iPod sold for $152 more than an equivalent 'blank' iPod. Therefore, someone was willing to pay a premium for the added content. Therefore, the seller made money off of the content that they put on the iPod, in violation of the copyright holder's rights. That meets the FBI's definition of piracy.

Now, if the seller instead says "GIve me a list of your TV shows/movies/music, and I'll pre-load your iPod with that for you," it's a lot more gray. That is at least nominally only including content for which the recipeint has the legal rights to use. But selling it with stuff preloaded, and saying "you must remove..." is shipping it with infringing material, then telling the recipient to do something active to become legal.

I'm not one who believes 'IP theft' is anywhere near the same as physical property theft; but this is roughly the analog of selling someone a car with a stolen stereo in it, and saying "Upon receipt of this car, you must turn the stereo in to the proper authorities." You're still selling stolen merchandise. (I think this is the first time I've found an 'IP theft vs. propterty theft' analogy appropriate!)

I have no problem with people who want to commit 'civil disobedience' by breaking copyright for personal use. But the moment you have monetary gain, it's no longer okay. That's not 'fair use' any more.

If you include the source material (CDs, DVDs, or Apple account media was purchased with from the iTunes Music Store,) then I would consider it 100% legal.

Re:If original source isn't included, it's unethic (1)

arachnoprobe (945081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552231)

If you include the source material (CDs, DVDs, or Apple account media was purchased with from the iTunes Music Store,) then I would consider it 100% legal.
It "feels" right, and it should be legal, but it isn't. (IANAL)

Sounds familiar. (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551984)

Sounds familiar. [slashdot.org]

Is there any place where someone can buy a 250GB hard drive that is pre-loaded with movies or Simpsons episodes? If not, then maybe I should start a little black market business...

Also in the article: (1)

catahoula10 (944094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551987)

From the article:
"The question that needs to be asked is, if you buy a DVD, are you allowed to put it onto an iPod?" Onigman says.

This pathetic display of greed is costing the public more then the recovery from sales that may be lost over this issue.

Where are the consumer-right to use products for the intention that they were purchased for? A few decades ago no one said a peep about taking a Record and recording your favorite songs on a cassette recorder to play in your car.

Why should an Ipod and an DVD be any different?
A DVD to an Ipod is what a Record is to a cassette player.

If consumers buy a DVD, then consumers should have the right to use that DVD in other products they may purchase.

Re:Also in the article: (1)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552020)

A few decades ago no one said a peep about taking a Record and recording your favorite songs on a cassette recorder to play in your car.

That's not true; the record industry forced through legislation requiring that you pay a tax on every blank cassette you purchase.

on behalf of my fellow americans (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552036)

we don't care. we just want to listen to music. and we will continue to do things exactly like this eBay case for all time.

why?

because you shouldn't have to be a lawyer in life to just be able to listen to some music. all of these "vile evil illegal" things us consumers are doing with music have nothing to do with anything except the march of technological progress. the only people who should change are the music cartels. the consumers should do whatever they want, the artists should do whatever they want.

what technology has done is made consumers suddenly able to do things only cartels could do before. in the pre-internet environment, with only a few cartels around, it was easy to enforce the arbitrary rules that made the music business profitable for them.

notice that these arbitrary rules have nothing to do with morality or right and wrong, they only have to do with a profitable business model from a bygone era. what consumers are doing now with music files renders that business model obsolete, as there is no way to enforce these arbitrary rules anymore, since it's not just a few big cartels who have these powers. really, i think the us government and the legal system have more important things to worry about than if an 8 year old downloaded flipsyde from a friend. as if that is even inherently wrong in any valid moral context. it's only wrong in the context of killing some rich company's business model.

the cartel's attempts to make their pain our pain because technological progress is rendering their business model obsolete is not a valid position to prosecute any consumers. period. nothing will stem this tide. nothing the cartels can do will change the new landscape. pandora's box has been opened. you can't put what has been let out back in the box.

the only future for us as consumers and artists is the chinese model: piracy is rampant and unstoppable, and accepted. artists simply make money off of endorsements and live shows. that means they won't make jay z or fifty cent money, but music will be made nonetheless, and artists will still be financially quite comfortable, because artists make music for the sake of music first, not for the sake of making money.

it's not like someone suddenly announced that wall street traders will make a tenth of what they used to make, and so no one wants to be a wall street trader anymore. people make music because they love music. period. that's been true ever since we were just banging on drums around a campfire, and will always be true, no matter what the economic future of the music world holds. and besides, it's a way for teenage guys to get chicks. do you honestly need anymore incentive than that?

music, in quality and quantity, will not change in the least. you could even make the argument that music would get better in quality and quantity, without an artificial financially driven entity sitting between consumer and artist.

and music distributors?

they will die.

and i really don't see what the problem is with that. all we are witnessing is their painful death throes now, and their attempts to drag us down with them. fuck them.

but there will always be a niche for someone to "get out the word", for an influential company to promote struggling new artists. the last dying vestige of the old music cartel's corpse will morph into this new entity. old school disributor --> new media promoter

Re:on behalf of my fellow americans (2, Funny)

kidcharles (908072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552276)

If I didn't see those ?'s, "'s, and that > in your post, I would have assumed your shift keys were broken.

What DO I own then? (1)

eander315 (448340) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552040)

If I can't copy the music between iPods, can't move the music to a new computer, and now can't sell the iPod with the music on it, what exactly am I buying? Do I even get to LISTEN to the music, or do I need to first sign a form somewhere that clearly states my intent to do so with no other persons within earshot? Good grief.

Re:What DO I own then? (1)

Shakes268 (856460) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552136)

You basically pay for the right to listen to the music at any time. You do not own the intellectual property of the artist. If you sell it, a specific amount of royalty money should be paid back to the artist.

So, what am I buying? (1, Informative)

qazwart (261667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552043)

I buy an iPod loaded with music, sync it to my computer, and wham, I have no more music on my iPod. (Yes, I know you can "mount" an iPod as a disk and take the software off that way. But, it comes with out any meta-information (including the name of the song) and if it is copy protected, you couldn't easily play the files anyway.

If this is a scam, why bother with an iPod? Get a CHEAP MP3 player, and "sell" that.

Reputable legal advise!?!? (2, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552045)

"Steve Brinn, a Cincinnati pediatrician"

Maybe we can solicit opinions from people who actually have some knowledge on the subject. I mean, they might as well just have asked my garbage man, or a egronomist, or a CEO. Sure, the guy is a doctor, but his degree ain't in law.

-Rick

The actual news is that... (1)

Marthirial (903605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552113)

There are people capable of getting something preloaded with somebody else music taste and preferences. From this I can draw three possible explanations:

a) The guys selling the Ipods are marketing geniuses and know exactly what the market wants, or

b) Apple has created a herd of zombies who would care less about the content as far the thingy is in their ears, or

c) I have woke up into a brane where individuality comes from uniformity.

What if there is no media? (1)

TattleTale1975 (711068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552122)

What if:
We all burn all our CD's in the streets, (Since they are all going to fail within 2-5 years anyway) and only retain the Digital copies of our Music.

Would there be any way to enforce any copywrite crap if nobody has any of their origional disposable media any more?

why is this post about the iPod name specifically? (2, Insightful)

Khyron (8855) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552123)

I don't understand why this post has to be about the iPod. This is true of all kinds of items sold on eBay, including everything from other types of mp3 players and media players to "external" enclosure hard drives and even whole computer systems (where the issue extends from multimedia content to installed commerical software applications for which the original media is not included because the seller intends to keep the license).

This isn't new, and it isn't about the iPod either. It's a much larger issue. Just go ahead and search eBay right now for devices with music and movies on them.

Ebay Ethics or lack thereof! (1)

PacketScan (797299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14552150)

Ok so i can't sell the copy of windows or office that came pre-loaded on the pc i paid for. But i can Buy and mp3 player fill it with songs and sell it. Doesn't anyone else see the problem with that? Ebay should not be allowing these sales, you can not Guarntee where all the music/media originated.

why pay the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14552244)

since when have people been so lazy they will pay two hundred dollars extra to get 10,000 songs which probably suck (quality of the file and quality of the music its self). What happened to good old p2p when you know you are doing something illegal and are less likely to be charged with it.

I hope the RIAA/BMI read this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14552288)

I hope the RIAA/BMI read this as it serves to demonstrate that slashdot readers really do care about copyright and fair use. It is quite clear that the 'record industry' considers slashdot and the like to be a breeding grounds for copyright pirates. Well it just isn't true is it? Unless, of course, the responses on this page are a carefully orchestrated smokescreen!

Andy Bisson

Doesn't Make Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14552318)

The reason the first sale doctrine allows re-sale of a used CD is based on the principle that you are selling the same copy that you bought, therefore you are not actually violating the exclusive "right to copy" in the copyright, merely the "right to publicly distribute", which is waived by the doctrine. However, selling pre-loaded iPods is violating both rights, so I don't see how the same logic could be applied.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?