Slashdot Mirror
Apple Responds To iTunes "First Sale" Question
atallah writes "It looks like Apple has come out and explained its position on resale of songs. It is interesting that they didn't flat-out reject the idea.
Check out this Business Week article."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Apple comes out looking like they (a) understand copyright restrictions and took that into account already, and (b) still don't want to be the RIAA and crack down on this sort of thing. This is called "design". They made it difficult enough to sell iTunes songs that they don't need to worry about reselling, even if it is legal. That said, someone's going to find a way around it eventually, if current trends hold.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
They keep saying it's impractical to sell the songs...well, how about trading songs with other iTunes users? I'm sure there is some right somewhere where you can give stuff away that you bought a copy of. (Basically sell it for $0). So...the real question is...why can't i just forward my legally purchased songs to Jim Bob the same way i could hand him my physical CD.
In stores which buy my used cds, they offer me a fraction of the price for the cd. If I payed $12, then they offer me $4. Why cant I do the same with the music I buy from Apple? Sell 10 tunes for $5? Especially if they sucked.
Notice how cleverly Apple sneaks in how it will not assist in transferring the song's ownership.
Thus, it neatly avoids entangling itself in the 'first sale' right issue by making it entirely an issue of 'practicality'; without offering a mechanism to transfer the Apple ID, Apple locks you into ownership.
-Alex
Economically, I don't believe there is going to be much of a market for resold music...We just don't see it as that much of an issue
Wrong! Many many people will buy mp3s if its only 10 cents an mp3 and they would not mind a "used copy". Someone reselling can put the price so low if he has rights to the song after he is done listening to it.
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
Apple says it's impractical because a song is $.99. However, what happens in a few years when someone has 100 songs that they no longer listen too. Wouldn't it be practical to sell that lot of 100 songs for $50?
So basically Apple has said that it may or may not be legal to resell a song, but it would be technically difficult to do so, and it only cost 99 cents in the first place so why would you want to? Thanks for not answering the question! Maybe I do want to resell a song. Maybe I want to sell my entire iTunes music collection. Maybe I'm clever enough to overcome the technical difficulties. Would it be legal or wouldn't it? And if Apple established that it was, wouldn't I feel better about buying from the iTunes music store?
I think this is the whole point of the argument. It's very much akin to if a subscriber to Everwaste actually owns the character and items aquired by that character in order to sell them on eBay. If it stands up in court, it just measn that a) Apple has to facilitate a free transfer function or b) Apple removes DRM. (Guess which one would happen first.) I guess the could do C) change the TOS to make it apparent that you don't own the damn thing at all, but are paying a rental fee for long-term use.
Deny everything. Apple has put their fingers in their ears and are sitting in the corner singing "la la la I can't hear you". Technically they are probably right, this is not very practical - but the legal validity of such a sale still needs clarifying as it has ramifications for other applications of copyright law to digital (by which the lawyers seem to mean "downloaded"[0]) content.
[0] They don't (yet) seem to claim this legal dilemma would apply if the music was on a CD, only if it's downloaded... This, to me, seems nuts - why does the medium in which you obtained the content make a difference?
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
First of all the whole idea of selling songs on the digital media is bad atleast until all the DMCA act and all others like it get really tested and amended to remove some that silliness that they have incorporated. Second like any other online sale digital music should also be allowed to be sold just like any other piece of junk music we buy. Until them paying a $ for each crappy song is still too much. besides the artists get few cents. Scew RIAA and the DMCA . Boycott CDS for a while which would force them to come with a better business model.
Or they could theoreticaly set it up so that a song could be transfered from one account owner to another. But it's impractical again
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Technical issues could be overcome with an addition to the Apple Music Store authorization system that let you give your song to someone else, deauthorizing you in the process. No major technical difficulties there. The real problem comes in verification that you have not made copies for yourself. If you have, then the "re-sale" is simply a fraud. The only way they could do this is have every computer that is authorized on the account report back whenever the song is burnt to a musics CD - it would be worthless as a data file (unless you manually drop it on your iPod...), only allowing you to sell songs you have never duplicated. However, I don't think Apple wants to keep track of everyone's CD burning, and people are just as unlikely to be interested in the prospect.
Of couse, you could get around this by using a program that grabs the audio stream during playback and acheive the same end result.
I understand Apple's position. Even if it isn't the greatest solution, they have stated that they believe in the "first sale" right, even though it isn't practical to implement. Their stance can be noted when the time comes that support for those rights is needed.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
They seem to be handling this pretty responsibly. Most companies (and people as well) will go on the attack when this sort of thing happens. The MMORPG companies have been particularly mean about this sort of stuff when they probably could have done things in a much more responsible way. I'm really not a fan of Apple, but it's nice to see that somebody keeps doing things right when everyone else seems to be sueing, legislating, lying, bribing, bombing, terrorizing, and so on.
-dbc
This wouldn't stand up. If you could do so for free, then there would instantly be huge sites devoted to sharing music amongst one another, maybe with a cover charge of a few dollars, in case someone decides not to play fair.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Since no music can ever become out of print or rare at iTunes, that removes another incentive to buy "used" songs. People would have to sell them for less than 0.99 to make others interested and to compensate them the complexity of buying the song on eBay instead of the convenience of iTunes. That would make sense with large collections and, I believe that once this will really become important for iTunes customers, Apple will do something. After all, lack of a resell market for digital songs would somewhat limit their value and make people hesitant to spend money on them.
But in any case, iTunes is a doomed venture. Unrestricted MP3s/OGGs are the way to go. Eventually it will become obvious, although Apple might get a fair profit alongway.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
It's hard and impractical to resell individual songs that we never envisioned needing the extra clause in the TOS. Please mull over how to transfer your songs while we add the clause.
Thank you,
Apple
(40gigs / 5mb a song * $.99 a song) + $500.00 ipod = ~$8,500.00
One problem with geeks is they read, but don't understand.
What Apple is saying is "we don't want to get into that."
The reason Apple is saying that should be obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it. For those of you that don't, the reason is this:
They want to sell you music.
In the legal system, there are fictions that are there so things can get done.
In technical terms, there are hacks in place that everyone knows are skanky, but nobody wants to look to closely at them because they make stuff work. The technical equivalents are things like DNS, SMTP, etc. They suck, but what can you do?
In the same vein, Apple wants to keep selling music. It does this by playing both sides of the fence - negotiating licenses with publishers, and allowing loose licensing by the users.
As long as nobody looks too closely, well, everything's OK.
Users can do whatever the hell they want, but Apple has to play a game, and play it well.
Its called the PC users market. Frankly, I'm surprised that an astute entrepenuer hasn't set themselves up with a iTunes account, and resold music to PC users at a slightly marked up price. Since PC users don't have any truly competitive program, this entrepenuer could make a killing.
You see when the trustee sells something back to the bankrupt person it has still been legally sold, with the estate of the person the benifitee. Bankruptcy or deceased person's estate, either one can settle this legally. All it will take is one person who lists that they bought 5000 of these things, and for the trustee to demand payment. This is where people should watch for first sale doctrine to be fought. Hint, you'll need to root for the trustee. Kee[ in mind that trustees can sell things that could not easily or otherwise be sold.
If it stands up in court, it just measn that a) Apple has to facilitate a free transfer function
Wrong. They will by no means be required to facilitate a free transfer function. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that they have to help you do it---and certainly not for free. That would be like saying that a record company should pay your postage if you sell your CD over eBay.
Having said that, I think it would be great if Apple would provide this facility.
"Economically, I don't believe there is going to be much of a market for resold music...We just don't see it as that much of an issue," he said.
Gee, tell that to the used CD stores I've bought dozens and dozens of CDs from over the years.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
The problem (at least what Apple might see as a problem), is that eventually almost all of the songs that people want will be available through resale, meaning that Apple will get a smaller cut than if they were purchased "new." This means smaller and smaller profits for Apple, and I doubt they'd go for that.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
Why does the transfer of the electonic version of the song need to be free? Considering the (realtively) small amount of time it would be used (less than 0.0001% of sales) , I can easily see the cost of the transfer being $2-5 per song. Transfer accepted, but not cost effective.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
Let's see, you pay 99 cents for the song and now you're going to resell it. Unless it's no longer available why would I pay you more than 99 cents for the song or pay you at all when I can just as easily get it from a trusted source: Apple.
And why would you charge less than 99 cents for it? It's a dollar. Most people aren't so scroogish about their money that they will try to get a dollar back. And most on-line money transfer places don't make it economical to sell something for a buck. The fees are too high. With PayPal you'd only end up with 66 cents on that dollar. And it's quite a hassle to mail you a dollar in which case I'm paying an additional 37 cents at least.
Apple got it right. The technical restrictions and the low cost make it a waste of effort to try to resell to regain the cost of the product, much less make a profit. They quite literally made it impossible to be undersold.
If songs ever stop being offered by Apple then one may have a business opportunity. But that would require buying numerous licenses of each song to make it worth it and require some foresight into what's going "out of print" that people will still want years from now in order to avoid wasting money on songs you'll never be able to sell once the market swings your way to check out what you have.
Instead of fighting Apple in this worthless pursuit of pennies, you'd be better off forming an allience with indie bands and set up a business being the first time sellers of their music. There's a huge market for that.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
It's very refreshing to see a company actually talking about the issue, instead of suing over it.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
for $0.99 you get not only a product, an encoded AAC audio file with an album cover graphic and meta data describing the song, but you also are buying a service.
That service is the key. (pardon the pun)
Apple is providing the means to manage the unlocking of the file - presumably for as long as you own the AAC file. But Apple's service is limited. Their service does not include the management of your license. Their service does not include a utility to transfer ownership or will AACs to your heirs. One much booed but accepted limitation is that it doesn't include the ability to re-download the songs you purchased, so you have to archive them yourself.
There are lots of alternatives out there. Apple has bundeled the product and service they feel is most compelling to the marketplace. 10,000,000 songs have been purchased so some people are compelled. Yet there will always be the OGG zelot or the eBay seller who really needs to push the limits of the license. To both groups as it turns out, I recommend they but the CD, rip it to OGG, and when they are done, delete the OGGs and eBay the CD for half what you paid. You might even come out only paying $0.99 a song that way.
As for me, I'll stick with iTMS which gives me more than I could ask for, and all they ask is $0.99 (plus tax).
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
I can sympathize with Apple's position here; the effort to setup some kind of (ideally) automatic system to transfer the digital rights and still prevent piracy isn't worth it to them. However, when you're talking about multiple files, it quickly becomes relevant to the owner who wants to sell.
Issues like this is why I still buy a CD whenever the impulse strikes. I just don't buy as many as I used to; I'm much choosier about who I'm supporting.
You see, as far I as I'm concerned, CD's are future-proof. I can rip them into whatever format I want to use. Right now I'm using AAC in iTunes, but that could change. I may want to sell the music, or let my partner listen to it on his office computer. Digital files are definitely the future -- who can doubt it -- but for right now, the CD (or other physical media) is the safest investment.
We accuse the RIAA, MPAA, and other big special interest groups of not adapting to the internet and clinging to outdated paradigms. Aren't you doing the exact same thing, applying a paradigm that easily applies to physical property but can't be applied (or is technically unfeasible) in the digitial realm?
The article has pretty much highlighted that Apple has a flat head. Nothing more, nothing less. I think it's pretty fair for them to say that "It may be legal (or illegal), but it's pretty darn impractical!" Sure it would be much nicer if there was an easy way to re-sell the music files, and I do believe that it's legal, provided you follow a few common-sense steps such as not retaining a copy after the sale.
A lot of slashdotters are probably gonna complain that Apple needs to create a method for transfering ownership, and all I can say is, no they don't. I have every right to sell my DVD collection to a friend in England. (I live in Japan.) He has every right to go out and buy a DVD player that can play them, or modify his own, since it's a different region DVD. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass and almost evil to have region coding, but that has nothing to do with the copyright of the DVD in question.
The only difference with the DVD and iTunes file is that with DVD's, the "impracticality" was put there on purpose, which in my mind means the organization(s) responsible for the region coding are a bunch of assholes. As for the iTunes file, the copy protection method was put there so that Apple could manage to
1) strike a deal with the labels,
3) deliver what the consumer wants (downloadable legal music), and
2) still manage to maximize consumer rights. (CD-R burning.)
(And yes, 4: profit!, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that.)
I'd say Apple did a damn good job at it, even if it's not perfect. Truth is, the reason it isn't perfect is more or less the record label/RIAA's fault and not Apple's. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
I'm speculating a lot here, but I get this feeling that if you made a CD from the iTunes file, and sold the iTunes file AND the CD together, Apple could care less. Apple is merely providing a SERVICE in exchange for a small percentage of the sales. It may be legal grey zone, but it isn't damaging Apple's sales (as long as you're honest and delete your own copy after sale). Hell, it probably isn't even damaging the RIAA member's that much either, and is within the owner's rights. (And if it's within the owner's right, then it isn't even "damage" any longer.) But for some reason they make a fuss over it.
So what we have here is a very odd scene, really. "Holy shit, a large corporation using common sense! It must be a conspiracy!!" And it just as well may be, except it's a conspiracy that is backfiring on the RIAA and in return making Apple look pretty slick.
C'mon guys/gals, it's just common sense.
Hmm. Let's see here.
I have, in my hand, a copy of a Harry Potter book.
In my other hand, I have a digital camera. Watch, as I take a photo of page 52.
Oh my, it appears the text is readable. Here, let me just share this out on Kazaa... (As a matter of fact, most popular books are shared right now)
What was the difference again?
Reality check here. Copyright applies to patterns of information. ALL patterns of information can be digitized and copied at (practically) zero cost.
The real difference here is that the book publishers' war to outlaw libraries, used bookstores, and reselling was lost centuries ago. Nobody will even take them seriously if they try to put that genie back in the bottle.
Meanwhile, the RIAA/MPAA/BSA etc. still think they can win and create a world where they control all sales and uses of their products, and thus can have absolute control over pricing. If they beat the "new, digital era" drum loudly enough, they think they can get new laws rammed through guaranteeing their profit margins forever.
Sadly, it looks like the governments of the world may actually be so stupid as to let them.
Creating such a marketplace and policing it would take considerable time and effort. Just figuring out how to track how many times a song had been sold (and making that count hack-resistant) would be a big task. The margins would be lower than the iTunes Music Store, and there would be all kinds of litigation just waiting to be sprung on their ass.
Plus, there's already an 800-lb gorilla in the online auction world. They're called eBay, and they've already shown that they'll squash anyone who tries to enter that market.
Such a marketplace might be nice for a few consumers, but I doubt that most music lovers would be interested in bidding on individual songs. The genius of the Apple Music Store is that it makes it ludicrously easy to purchase, download, and use music. Adding more complexity to the equation would erase that advantage and confuse their customers.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Again apple shows other corps how to play.
Business and ethics can mix; but don't in modern times. Its nice to see some companies still doing things right. All these corporate terrorist lawyers are messing up the world ("civilally.")
Where did the old saying go?
"Its not wether you win or lose, its how you play the game."
Apple is 1 of a few who remember this. This is just another example of Job's influence; and also why apple will never win.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Is that the eBay guy is sill $0.50 ahead buying a $0.99 song that he doesn't like and not being able to resell it, rather than buying a $3 single he doesn't like and selling it back to a record shop for $1.50. Easy and practical resale is one of the advantages you get for shelling out the extra cash for a physical copy (and of course there are a lot of disadvantages to physical copies as well).
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Wrong. They will by no means be required to facilitate a free transfer function. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that they have to help you do it---and certainly not for free. That would be like saying that a record company should pay your postage if you sell your CD over eBay.
I think you could do a pretty good case when you show that Apple is refusing to acknowledge a change of ownership in their DRM, and so directly ignore the doctrine of First Sale. If you want the physical analogy, it would be having the right to sell your propery - only it is biometrically locked to you. And you have a company that can modify that lock, only they refuse to do so stating they have no legal obligation to help. Do you think that would be acceptable?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Setting up a transfer function is a good idea. A lof of the music (CDs) I have were given to me as gifts over the years. How can I buy an album for a friend via the iTMS? I think such a system, whereby I could transfer the ownership of the files, would boost sales as the gift giving market is huge after all.
Also, what happens to my music library when I am dead? How can I leave my music to my loved ones?
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
This is the most important thing that has every been said by a company on this issue. It basically admits that the way to fight piracy is to create a market environment where there is little incentive for piracy. And how do we do that kids? By lowering the freaking prices and making the product more accessible to the consumer. Thank you Apple.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?