Slashdot Mirror
Testing The Right To Resell Downloaded Music
David Gerard writes "A man has bought a song from Apple iTunes and has put it up for sale on eBay. "I only spent $0.99 on it but I bought the song just as legally as I would a CD, so I should be able to sell it used just as legally, right?" Does the Right of First Sale still exist?" The seller says he's seeking attention, but not to himself. Rather, he calls this "an experiment in property rights in the digital age," and promises not to keep a copy once the sale is done.
Isn't it assumed that the DRM included in iTunes would disallow something like this even though it should be completely within the right of the purchaser/owner? I think this is another major problem with DRM technologies. They assume that the purchaser will desire to keep the media indefinately rather then sell it. Then again with the music industry already attacking used CD sales from cutting into their profit I highly doubt they'd want it any other way. What's better then forcing new copies of songs/albums to be purchased rather then continue the ability for it to exchange hands via a 3rd party at a possibly lower rate then the Music Companies would be willing to discount it to?
An interesting point to consider is that,
Currently Apple doesn't allow download outside US, so if he is infact legally allowed to sale his bought music, then
Can he sell it outside US, at a higher price and make profit ?
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
My only hope is he doesn't ruin the iTunes music store for the rest of us somehow.
This is excellent and brings up quite a few legal questions.
Given that I'm not a lawyer though I'll just give my opinion (worth less than the original price of the song).
1) Unless it clearly states in the agreement made with apple, there is nothing preventing him from making this sale. He purchased the right to listen to that song in the specific format, it's his to dispose of as he chooses.
2) Making a sale for a profit in no way makes him a bad person (and he's claiming he'll be donating the money). I can't see how he could be legally required to pass this profit on to the original artist or to the supervising agency (in this case Apple who sold him the song).
3) The RIAA has nothing to do with this. As someone mentioned, they don't complain about the resale of CDs or DVDs (at this point) and there is no legal basis for them to in the future.
All and all I think this is an excellent way to bring attention to this issue. My only concern is that it will cloud the already muddy legal waters and make things more difficult for us lay folk to understand.
Cheers.
The high bid is currently $20.50. I'm sure that a few lawyers who want to get involved in the case will pump this bid sky high. It may be worth $20,000 to some lawyer trying to get famous. It's just speculation now, lets see what happens.
Sadly, there's probably some truth to that. Since filesystems don't actually delete a file when you delete them, the residual bits of data would be the RIAA's biting point.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
- De-authorize his computer from iTunes (so that the song will have its full, legal ability to be authorized on three machines)
- Copy the file to whatever media he's using for transfer
- Delete the original
- Cancel the credit card used to purchase the song
- Send the song, the Apple ID and password to the buyer
Simple!