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.
that's because apple wanted to see what they could *really* charge for online music
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.
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?
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.
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 seems to be exactly what the Ebay guy wanted to challenge. Is Apple not violating a buyer's right to sell their property under the First Sale Doctrine if they prevent the user (maybe through the DMCA) from transferring it? I would say they are. Obviously, this challenge could also be applied to alternative forms of legitimate digital media and clearly shows the extent to how much the DMCA tramples consumer rights.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
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."
(40gigs / 5mb a song * $.99 a song) + $500.00 ipod = ~$8,500.00
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
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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
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.
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?