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)
Legal considerations are beside the point; it is very near impossible at this time to sell an iTunes song without also selling your Mac...and your credit card. There's always ripping from a CD burn, but at that point it isn't an iTunes song, it's a below-quality CD rip.
It seems reasonable that you should be able to do this but if Apple were to facilitate this (I'm not sure you were suggesting such a trading feature be built into iTunes or not but it's an interesting subject), the problems become clear. If I were to trade my songs with you, there's no way Apple can check to make sure I haven't made an line-out type recording of the content and re-encoded it into mp3. Basically you need to have a way to ensure that when I trade away my digital goods, my digital goods are really gone. That's tough to do and that's why I think Apple would never consider adding this.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Ultimately, what I would like to see is the free distribution of music files through the Internet. The idea of a used copy is silly (I'm sure you know that but the RIAA probably wouldn't get it) and the only cost at that point is the bandwidth required to share files. I would like to see the whole business model that currently exists go the way of the dodo. The government funds the arts. If that were expanded, people could have music for free (by paying taxes) and artists could receive money. Artists can also receive money by giving concerts. I've had enough of people in suits getting money because some guy with long hair who plays a mean guitar is locked into a death grip with the RIAA.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
And they are entirely right.
Just as a bookseller in no way has to help you sell the book when you are done with it.
How the song you bought would be delivered, and waht mechanisms apple provided for you to do things with it were CLEARLY spelled out by Apple beforehand, as this is a logical question to anyone who wants to download stuff.
Apple is entirely right.. they are not getting in the middle of it.. why should they? They were clear about what they offered, and what it cost.. and you took it.
Serious collectors frequent estate sales. They're good places to find collections which are of no interest to the survivors of the deceased. Books and music are often overlooked.
The Apple spokesman dismissed the resale potential of a 99 cent download. He overlooked the value of a 1000 song collection, where transfering the license keys would be well worth the effort.
They would create an ebay like system directly in iTunes that would allow me to sell my music to other people. Both music I created and music I've purchased from itms. They provide the audience, I provide the bandwidth and content, Apple would get a cut which would go towards paying the artists and record label if one were involved. The rest goes to me, and lets say for each sale of an individual song the overhead of label costs would decrease for each time the song is sold. Obviously the centralized listing of sellers would have to be seperate from itms, but I think it could work. Think napster with a twist.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
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 obvious question then being, why should you require verification? If I've purchased a game, ripped to ISOs and resell it's illegal. If I photocopy a book before selling it it's illegal. If I borrow a CD at the library and copy it it's illegal.
The system doesn't have to be perfect. Just deauthorize any song that is sold, and make it synch it to other devices when possible, like when using iTunes to synch music collection. And let those that want to break the copyright to so, they already can in lots of other ways.
Even if you knew it was burned to a CD - what prevents someone from taking that CD to another machine, and make a copy of the copy? Whoops. It's simply not possible to verify that only X copies exist, no matter what kind of uber-DRM you add.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What if I purchase a song and decide that I don't want it anymore. Can I give it away?
Sound waves should be free!
Please show the court the object you purchased.
The doctrine of first sale doesn't apply just to copyright.. it applies to everything. You can only sell something once.. then it's not yours anymore.. the same goes for a book.
Apple isn't weaseling out of anything.. they are merely showing that something is not their problem to solve.. they were up front about what you were paying them for. The rest is up to you.
Is it illegal for me to sell a CD if I've made a backup copy? Maybe, maybe not, but that possibility doesn't mean that RIAA member companies have to monitor such backups in case I try to sell a CD used at a later date. I could as easily (more easily, really) connect my CD player to some recording device--my computer, say--and make a copy without any chance of detection as use a program that intercepts my computer's audio signal on its way to the line-out port. I could photocopy a book, keep the copy and sell the original as "used". Everything you cite as a burden for Apple applies equally to other media, yet it doesn't seem to be much of a concern for those publishers.
For that matter, I could buy music from the iTMS, burn it to a CD, and then make and sell dozens of copies of the CD. If I'm using Toast to make bit-for-bit copies, then iTunes's restriction to 10 burns before changing the playlist doesn't apply, and I can make a little factory of pirated CDs. Apple is under no obligation to stop this. They put up digital restrictions that make it somewhat difficult, they discourage their customers from doing it--and not only is that legally sufficient, it's unnecessary except as a concession to the RIAA because they wouldn't have gotten a contract otherwise. In fact, it's more copy protection than a typical CD.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Assuming that resale of online music becomes legalized, practicalized, and widespread, this could mean the end, or at least reasonable limits to the mass-consumption pop crap that floods the music market.
With resale available at the press of a button, after the initial catchiness has worn off and the latest Britney song has become just as sickening as the rest, the User A can release his copy for a resale at the going market rate. This rate would depend on the original track price, number of copies for sale and the number of potential buyers.
User B, who hasn't become sick of the song yet, can pick up A's used copy instead of buying another new copy. This curbs the sale of a song to the number of unique users actually interested in the song at one time.
Instead of releasing lowest-common-denominator slop to try to appeal to all people at once, recording artists will be forced to make solid works aimed at specific listeners, who will want to hold onto it for a long time. Or at least it will even the field between those who do and the slop-shovellers at Sony.
It could even start a futures market -- people buying thousands of copies of a song at a cheap point, hoping that it will regain popularity at some future point. This could redefine the term "entertainment industry" as we know it.
Of course, this is all based on the above (false) assumption that companies have their consumer's interests at heart. Since they want to sell as many songs at as high of a price as possible, Apple will design iTunes to make sure that this never becomes possible.
I often download iTunes songs, burn them to CD, and then rip them. The quality sounds fine to me. I don't personally do it for resale or illegal copying; I'm a jazz musician, and when I want to practice and memorize a new song, I make versions of it that are electronically sped up and slowed down so that it's in 6 or 7 different keys, so that I can practice playing along with it in all those different keys. This of course falls under the personal use exception to copyright, not the doctine of first sale.
The cool thing is that when you have a digital technology that doesn't have a bunch of plastic padlocks built into it, different people can do different things with it, and they don't have to say "Mother may I."
It was interesting that the article claims there are legal decisions from the copyright office saying first sale doesn't apply to digital stuff -- that's the first I'd of heard that. Can't say I really care, though: Congress gave me the right of first sale, the personal use exception, and the fair use doctrine, so a bunch of unelected bureaucrats can take them away from me when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Find free books.
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.
Good point, but what about selling albums? In that case it gets big enough to be worthwhile.
"'Tis a small mind indeed cannot think but of one way to spell a word." -Mark Twain
I disagree. Apple has always implied the difference between their service and others is that you are *buying* music from them as opposed to licensing/renting it from a service. Every other digital music distribution "treats their customers like criminals". I think that Apple (and a lot of Slashdot posters) feel that when you buy a digital good you own it in the same way you own a physical good. Hence the interesting question of if you are allowed to resell that digital good.
Random is the New Order.
Yeah! That's what surprised me too. I have never heard the "Right of First Sale" doctrine questioned before when it comes to digital works.
If this is, indeed, the case - and the courts do decide that digital works aren't covered by it, that really opens up a whole can of worms.
Among other things, it means Microsoft is right after all, when they want to stop you from reselling unopened/unused OEM versions of their operating systems that were originally bundled with new PCs. (First Sale doctrine is the main argument people had in their favor, when trying to recoup money lost when they were forced to buy their new laptop or desktop system with Windows pre-loaded on it.)
Even the "personal use" exception seems to be under fire these days, as the publishers of digital works keep trying to find more ways to milk extra $'s from people (DMCA, etc.).
Unless things change, one of these days, you just might find it has become illegal to practice existing music without paying for a "musician's license" from the recording industry. (We're sorry, but without a license issued by the original copyright holder - you're simply engaging in attempted illegal reproduction of our copyrighted works, Mr. Musician!)
Think about it. If there existed a tool that could remove copy protection from an AAC file, what would be the result?
1) Some would argue that it is a useful tool that facilitates the legal owner of a digital work in their right to re-sell the work. Much like DeCSS was a tool that facilitates a legal owner of a digital work in their right to access it.
2) Others would argue it's an illegal violation of the DMCA that enables piracy by allowing someone who may be the legal owner of a digital work to then distribute copies of that work. Much like DeCSS was a tool that allowed a legal owner of a digital work to distribute copies of it.
The big question: Will the result be different when we are talking about music instead of movies? Would people see the logic in being able to have full access to their digital library?
When iTunes Music Store was announced, it would have been a complete flop except for one thing: Apple had successfully negotiated what seemed like very generous DRM terms for their customers. Compared to the other options, most people were happy to plunk down their dollars and reward Apple. But no one bothered to ask what happens when someone wants out and looks to offload their collection.
If Apple were to continue its example, it would provide users with a mechanism to transfer songs. If Apple does not or cannot provide this...then really it's terms are not as generous as they advertise. There might be a compelling class-action lawsuit in this. Apple never said they prohibit the transfer, but they are the only ones capable of performing a transfer without encouraging their customers to use DeCSS-type tools that violate the law.
What would happen if everyone who purchased music on iTMS told their credit card companies to dispute the charge because they didn't actually get the legal copy they expected? Maybe someone should try it as a test case like this resale.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
But you could do more than that. There's no reason you need to own a piece of music you're not playing right now. You should be able to rent out anything you own but aren't currently playing. Automatically.
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)
Right. Now do that 500 more times and exactly how many people are going to flip thru 500 JPEGs instead of spending $20? "Oh, shit. I didn't get pages 241-247 off of KaZaA!"
The ones I've seen online aren't done like that. They are done by teams of people who each scan and OCR a chapter, then release it as PDF after correcting it by hand.
I'm not disputing the traditional media companies are fighting tooth and nail to preserve their existing profit model. Not am I disputing that they will eventually lose -- it is like trying to hold back the tide.
What I'm saying is that there is a distinct difference in both cost and mechanism for duplicating and distributing andlog and digital media. YOU were talking about digitizing -- converting analog to digital then distributing the digital.
The new digital era really makes the publishers -- the middlemen -- mreo and more marginal. It becomes possible for the artist/author to distribute their work without the publisher.
The main reason digital books haven't taken off more is because there is no decent digital display as good as a book. PDA screens are too small. PCs & PDAs are too fragile, too heavy and too expensive. Most people don't want to sit in front of a monitor to read a book. Once a decent device for this is created, the publishers are going to really start their death screams...
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The way iTunes DRM works makes things much simpler and less controlling but also takes away the user's ability to transfer songs. When you download a song, Apple attaches a DRM "lock" to the actual music file. Then, when you register your computer with Apple they give you the "key." That way, you only need to be online to get your computer the key. Other than that, iTunes never phones home about any use of the songs. In order to transfer a song, Apple would need to make the original purchase invalid and create a new one. There is no way to invalidate just one purchase under the system. You'd have to give the buyer your whole account. Or yourself a whole new account. Even then, you could easily keep all your old (and sold!) music on another machine that hasn't synced to the internet. The beauty of Apple's system is the freedom it gives the user, like true ownership. No cage comes down around the music if you have no network connection.
On the bright side, let's say you want to unload your whole collection of music. You could literally SELL your whole account with all your music after removing your credit info. Now that seems like a realistic sale. Selling just one song 99 makes little sense. Selling hundreds to someone who likes your taste just might work very well. The buyer of your account would know if you were still holding on to an authorization key because iTunes would tell them so.
And is still used on some rom-swapping sites these days. But it's more of an urban legend than anything else since - correct me if I'm wrong - it has no legal weight at all. Instead this '24 hours and delete' has become a particularly hard to kill meme which a great many people seem to believe but in actual fact is pretty much untrue.
Re-selling individual songs might not be cost effective, but selling collections is.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So my roommate, who works with some high-end audio software that runs on a Mac discovered something interesting.
If you open an iTune with a particular piece of editing software on the Mac, and click save-as, no more DRM.
I would tell you the name of the product, but I don't remember it (not being an audio nor Mac geek myself). It costs in the $800 range but you *can* find it fairly easily in a semi-pbulic lab at, say, a school has a good audio engineering program.
And no, the arangement doesn't require that you buy the iTune for the computer running the software.
(I really wish I could say that I was withholding the name of the program because of the DMCA, but I am just a big dummy and I cant remember.)
Then again, said "big" corporation making and marketing the "cimcumvention tool" which is also "one of the big names in Digital Audio Production" would make for interesting conflict of interests.
Do you think Lars be happy to know he is using the same software to master his music as the random college hippies are using to steal it?
And no, my roommate is not using this discovery to violate anybodies copyrights, he just mentioned that he'd found the flaw by accident and that it was funny...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press