Slashdot Mirror
Record Industry Wants Royalties for Used CD Sales
cuberat writes "In a continuing effort to maintain their image as evil incarnate, record companies are considering charging used CD retailers a royalty for every CD they resell. The story is in today's San Diego Union-Tribune here. When are these guys going to get a clue?"
The record companues were in NO WAY involved in the transaction, they got theirs on the first sale, why should they get more money ?? Do used book sales generate for authors ? Does Ford get money when I sell my car as used ??
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Ok, so in other words, if I _OWN_ something (a CD), I have to PAY someone else for the right to sell it?
IANAL, but it sounds like pretty shaky legal grounds to me.
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
One proposed remedy being debated by record label executives is federal legislation requiring used-CD retailers to pay royalties on secondary sales of albums.
Interesting choice of phrasing. The executives aren't debating whether or not they should lobby for the legislation, or support the legislation - they're debating the legislation itself. No criticism of Frank Green (author of Union-Tribune piece) is intended; unfortunately, I think he is being totally accurate.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
I thought the right of 'first sale' had already been well hammered out in americas courts? Once I buy something physical, it's MINE, and I have the right to resell it however I want.
Sounds to me like RIAA is trying to duplicate the software industry and relabel the 'purchase' of an album as a license.
Didn't the book publishing industry already try this?
I'm pulling this out of my butt (er... long term memory) so I may be getting part of this wrong, but I remember seeing a history of the publishing industry where they tried to do this very thing. I believe it was around the turn of the last century. Book publishers were trying to make books "licensed", thus keep them from being re-sold (or I assume checked out from a library) without the publisher's consent. I can't remember why it failed (could have been taken to court, or could have been a public relations nightmare), but it did.
Another poster has links to court cases upholding the doctorine of first sale. I'd expect the music industry to achieve the same amount of success as book publishers a hundred years ago.
The article makes this ridiculous statement without offering any kind of proof. We may know this is a lie, but the typical reader of the article may not know.
The article also quotes a record store owner whining about how they can't compete with the used CD stores on price with new CD's costing as much as $18 and used CD's having the same sound quality as new ones.
No shit. We've been saying CD's have been priced too high all along. Message to recored industry, "When the competition beats you on price and matches you on quality, the obvious solution is to lower your prices. This is true in all industries." BTW, I was referring to to digital quality, not music quality. I can hardly stand most of the shit they try to pass off as music these days (am I getting old?).
-- Will program for bandwidth
They did. It's the Bobbs-Merrill v. Strauss case. I forget the exact cite. It flopped because 1) there's a general rule that you cannot have binding contractual terms after agreement, 2) just because you have a copyright is no exception to this. And of course, there's the untried but interesting theory that at least for ordinary consumer transactions, it would be contrary to copyright policy EVEN if it were permissible elsewhere.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I put this CD on consignment (or sell outright) at my local used record store.
Someone comes in and purchases my CD. (thank you!)The RIAA wants a royalty on this sale.
I am not employed, retained, on in any way affillated with the RIAA.
Why are they paid for the blank CD-R? The secondary sale? They cannot recoup money from me! I owe them nothing. They are stealing from ME.
As I have said time and time again, the RIAA, the MPAA, The Big 5, the Industry, whatever you want to call them, they are after control over creation and distribution of content.
If the abillity of individuals to create and distribute independent content is stifled, the 1st amendment is GONE.
Remember this saying? Freedom of the press belongs to those that own one.
Don't let what has already happened to Radio, TV, and Newspapers happen to music too.