Slashdot Mirror
eBay Running Trial for Downloadable Music
supersandra writes "Looks like eBay has been inspired by all those millions of iTunes song sales. They're running a six-month test offering downloadable music through authorized sellers, who would have to 'ensure copyright protection for the content and meet service-level agreements.' Also of note, 'music buyers won't be allowed to resell the files on eBay.'"
I have 5 gigs of that .... ebay here i come!!!
Seriously, I would never pay for DRM-encrusted windows-only music files; and I don't get why it has taken off as much as it has.
If you want my money, either give me unemcumbered files; or (if you're an online station) give me a large selection of music that I can pick and choose what individual songs are being streamed to me. Launchcast has a great selection; but if there's a way to pick and choose what you want to hear (instead of "well, you like the ramones, have some greenday") I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.
Here's what Ebay should do: take mp3.com's formula for indy music and tweak it; auction off download rates for each artist by the number of songs sold, and start with $0 per song, then start slowly charging more and more until the song reaches a cap of say $1.50 USD that goes directly to the artist. Calculate the popularity of the song by the number of purchases, and raise/lower the cost for the audience. This would be a really good model to make money. I would likely forget about selling RIAA titles because they all sound the same to me, per genre. Indy music is the way to go for me.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I find this more than a little hypocritical, since the entire concept of eBay is about reselling physical goods. In an entirely digital world, eBay's own policies would preclude it from selling anything.
We've been using a service that has supported this funstionality for some time. They've already processed several thousand auctions for digital goods. They just want us to include a copyright statement in our auction listing to not conflict with the eBay downloadable media policy.
It is pretty interesting to look at how a place like eBay, usually for one-off items, can work for goods with unlimited availability lke digital goods. I hope it works out.
I checked out the site (accessible at music.listings.ebay.com) and couldn't figure out what format the files come in. Anyone want to buy a song and find out?
If this is their best idea for how to grow the business, I'm worried. iTunes Music Store had a 'small profit' last quarter - but it really exists to sell iPods - what equivalent business model does eBay intend to use, or for that matter , what better model do they intend to use?
Never pet a burning dog.
Another way of looking at this is that now if I'm a music seller, but want to also buy some music, I'll need to register for another accounts. This is sure to boost the number of registered site users (>100 million IIRC), and will keep the marketing drones happy!
I'm wondering if someone will be able to sell high quality rips of some of the rare and out of print material from some lesser known artists and independent labels. I have an addiction to some genres that were never popular in the world, and all but unheard of in my country. Obtaining some artists in nigh impossible, or decent quality since the cd runs were so small, and in some cases only a few vinyl were pressed.
It would be very cool if someone could get rights to resell some of that. I don't really care about the most of the pop stuff. But if only someone could put out the rare stuff. It would be great.
And completely off-topic, Ministry has released a decent (pretty damn good) followup to their New World Order CD from when Bush Sr. was in office, called Houses of the Mole. Heard it. def. worth checking out.
This would be a great way for independent musicians to sell their music directly to their fans, without giving a "slice of the pie" to the RIAA. At least now, they can be assured of getting a majority of the sale proceeds.
how about the same one that has worked for them all this time:
Charge for listing an item
Charge again if it sells
I like microcars
A year ago, we had to do a case study on eBay for a business class. I jumped all over it and told my team that we would suggest independent music sales, due to the fact that eBay already owns the transaction processing services necessary for small payments. Then we could create stores where the bands could sell their swag, etc... avoiding a duplicate of iTunes and other downloadable music services.
Well, at least we got a good grade for the project.
-Joe
What I'm interested to see is if eBay will eventually allow for the sale of downloadable music that is recorded and released without the involvement of record companies. In other words, what if eBay opens the door to taking the record companies out of the loop between the artist and the listener.
In all likelyhood, the RIAA will crap golden twinkies and try to find some legal means to make ebay sorry they went down this road.
I'm guessing you work there. mp3.com owes my band about $60-80 for cds and songs played. Not a lot, but enough to be annoying.
My first email said, "you keep changing how much you owe us, and when will you pay us" and got a response that said "we'll answer in 7-10 business days". I replied to that email once a month. Then I'd get the same 7-10 email which I'd respond to the next month. That went on for a year or a bit longer. Then they started answering, "You need to upgrade your mp3 account to get an answer".
Weasels.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
They're running a six-month test offering downloadable music through authorized sellers, who would have to 'ensure copyright protection for the content and meet service-level agreements.'
Well, since foolproof DRM is an impossibility...I take that to mean that they have no music for sale.
Also of note, 'music buyers won't be allowed to resell the files on eBay.'
...because they wouldn't be able to sell any in the first place under their DRM terms. QED. ;^)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
3rd - "sellers chosen for the pilot have to ensure copyright protection for the content and meet service-level agreements." If I wrote it, it's got copyright protection. That's what copyright does - protects my work when I create it. Or are they talking about some DRM scheme? It's not clear.
4th- If DRM is required, how does it get put on? Will someone send me a Windows-Only exe to screw with my track? Do I have to send a wav somewhere? Again not clear.
Ebay. Stick with what you do. Leave the failing at a Digital Music Store to everyone else.
This will be an uphill battle. I-tunes is the dominant e-music source due to the interoperability with the Ipods. The Ipods truly are the "Sony Walkmans" of the 21st century -- their interface is great, and I dare any detractors to try it for a week first before disparaging it. The fact that the Ipods tie in so closely with I-tunes is the reason why I-tunes is successful -- not the other way around. Simply branding a music store "E-Bay" without hardware to back it up will fail miserably, unless their DRM was far more favorable than Apple's (i.e. can burn it unlimited times).
That would be a concept..
.. YOu pay to have the right to listen to 10 songs, you choose what you want. When you want new songs, you 'recycle' your tokens..
Since you cant buy and sell content.. Sell 'listening tokens'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Isn't this like what SCO does? Tries to sell something that is given away somewhere else?
One thing I have noticed on eBay, however, is that people DO resell physical CDs. So my question is how does the "fair use" of copyright come into play here. Assumming Joe Seller has copied the CD, under fair use, can he keep his copy when he sells the original?
What If someone steals my physical CD but I still have my high-quality MP3 on my player? Did my right to the MP3 get stolen too?
etc. Discuss amongst yourselves.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the 'auction' concept for small purchases. My time is worth way more than the few cents difference and if the provider could be different from song to song, that really makes me run the other way screeming.
The savings would be so miniscule that they out weigh having to manage (1) unexpected pricing, (2) compare/work with multiple vendors.
For a large purchase or one of a kind item, sure eBay is the eWay, but for this, I give it the thumbd down.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Rhapsody. Gives you what you need. Plus the custom radio stations that you can setup are nice.
You mean, like a monopoly? Hmm...is it ok as long as it's not Microsoft?
If reality was like Slashdot, most people would be (-1) Redundant.
"Assuming Joe Seller has copied the CD, under fair use, can he keep his copy when he sells the original?"
No. Copyright law allows you to make copies *of recordings you own* for your own use. If you sell the original, then by definition, you don't own it any more, and therefore have no right to create or keep copies of it.
"What If someone steals my physical CD but I still have my high-quality MP3 on my player? Did my right to the MP3 get stolen too?"
No, again. You still "own" that CD, even if it's not still in your possession. That's what makes the copy the thief has "stolen". So, you still have a right to create and keep copies of the CD. Now, being able to prove that you have the right to that copy is going to be pretty hard if you don't have any evidence that you bought the CD.
-Mark
NEW BACK STREET BOYS SINGLE
Current bid: US $0.00 (Reserve not met)
Time left: 9 mins 19 secs
7-day listing
History: 0 bids (US $5.00 starting bid)
High bidder: -
The trash some people try to sell.....
Why do people just use itunes? Competition is a good thing, and I'm sure the crowd here will agree that 1) monopoly = evil, and 2) alternatives = good. I mean, why not just drive ford? Why not just play sony? Why not just eat bananas?
The more companies start offering digital media for sale, the better off we'll all be. They might not have it quite right just yet, but they seem to be getting enough encouragement from the market to keep trying which is a very good sign. Sooner or later one of these retailers will give us exactly what we want and it'll all be thanks to these early efforts.
Choice is well and good but a lot of the time I'd rather be presented with one option that is great. It saves a ton of time (which is valuable). I'm not saying I have low standards, but for argument sake, sometimes a lot of competitive choice ruins the market and makes people upset whereas if one company does it right the first time it gets a high level of acceptance. There have been tons of products like this, mostly of the "essential" variety. Music might not directly qualify but if Apple goes to lossless compression and reduces the DRM and keeps the price the same, many people would not only say it's a fair system but that it is a completely acceptable system.
EasyCinema in the UK does exactly that, with online booking and seats starting at 20p (about 35 US cents), including all taxes. Unfortunately, a big cartel of greedy Hollywood studios wants people to pay a lot more, so the choice is quite limited. The MPAA would undoubtedly stop eBay or any other company doing something similar in the US.
A scheme for the resale of "used" e-books. Unlike Kerry, that would get my vote.
Consumers, by definition, do own limited duplication rights on copyrighted material. If I buy a CD it isn't a mistake that I can make backup copies of it. That copyright law hasn't differentiated between digital and physical doesn't somehow mean those rights, such as fair use rights, the right to first sale, and so on don't exist.
Of course, there is the chance you were trying to use some wit to mock the MD technology, in which case I am a fucktard, but my post is still a valid way to get streamed content onto your MD.
The problem is that you -- assuming you're in the US -- have no right to reproduce copies of music you buy from allofmp3. And reproduction occurs when you, e.g. download music to your RAM or hard drive.
allofmp3 might be great, but Americans just cannot use it legally here since our laws apply to what goes on in our borders, and whatever they're selling, they're not selling in accordance with US law.
-- 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.
But is that the case? I mean, they can't sell in the US, but they're not - they're selling in Russia. If the transaction takes place on their servers, aren't you just downloading to your RAM or hard drive music that you legally purchased in another country, for the intents and purposes of the law?
As far as I know, independant artists can sell their music through all the normal normal music services
Independent artists can't sell through the "normal normal music services" that dial-up people use, that is, Compact Disc sales through Wal-Mart and Best Buy brick and mortar store chains. The major labels pay to rent shelf space in those stores.
how would EBay give them a greater advantage?
Even within the realm of fully-paid-up perpetual rentals of digitally downloaded records (it's not really a sale without a significant right of resale), the eBay brand would bring name recognition.
For example 17 USC 117 computer software backups must be destroyed or transferred with the original -- unless of course you could successfully show that you made them under fair use or something. However, 117 is the only one of its kind I know of. Copies made under 107 or 1008 are subject to no such restriction.
Both fair use (section 107) and the AHRA (section 1008) grant a wider exemption to non-commercial use than to commercial use. If the owner of a CD reproduces it under 107 or 1008, sells the original under 109, and then keeps the copy, the record label would have an easier time talking a judge into ruling the copying commercial (and therefore possibly infringing) on grounds that the former owner of the CD realized a net financial gain from the exercise.
Ok, but that just raises new questions. How does one "own" a digital file without containing it in RAM or on a disk? Also, if that's the case (i.e., that you can't copy it), wouldn't that apply to music purchased via more conventional means (e.g., on CD, from a store), and if not, why not?
I've been downloading music for a little over six years now...and they are just trying it out. Geez...
I can't afford a sig!
IANAL, but my understanding of copyright law was that you didn't own the file, but a copy of the file(ownership of the container versus the content). The problem being when you actually try to transfer ownership(take it from my computer, and bring it to yours), partly because of issues with destroying my copy.
If Ebay does do this, it's certainly a loss for consumers, we certainly should NOT be more restricted with online copies of music than we are with a CD we no longer want, especially in countries(like Canada) where we pay a premium on blank media because the definition of "fair use" is a little bit more stretchy.
Right now it's not an issue, but Ebay being a very large trading community for a lot of types of items, their rules tend to trickle down the road in unexpected ways. It wouldn't surprise me that enterprising politicians, looking for soundbites, wouldn't be inspired by restrictions in there, and if not stopped by the public, turning them into more restrictive interpretations of fair use. It's no immediate threat, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's certainly a concern.
eBays's own policies PROHIBIT the sale of "digital only" materials. Their policies state that it has to be a phyiscial item for sale, hence there is a shipping charge standard on every sale form.
Why not target these sellers and just flood ebay with safehabor reports indicating that these people are violating ebay's policies?
Even if they ignore half of them, eBay will spend a considerable amount to check out these reports, which will ultimately make them call the experiment a failure.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. To clarify, when you say "you didn't own the file, but a copy of the file" and talk about the content, are you referring to the actual creative work (the musical composition, and the recorded performance thereof) the file is a copy of? If that's the case, there's no argument whatsoever; there's no way a person can buy any one copy of a piece of music, be it by tape, disc, download, or whatever, and think that having legally acquired that copy for one's own listening purposes conferred upon that person the copyright to the music...
Apparantly They Might Be Giants(the band) have decided to start selling their new CD on their website as pure unadulterated actual MP3s! None of that other crap that has tons of arbitrary usage rights. "You can burn this song to 3 CDs, transfer to up to 2 computers, and listen to it up to 14 times. This song will self-destruct in 5 days, sucker!" Is it a GOOD idea for them to be selling the actual MP3s. Obviously, they realize that a lot of people will emidiately put it on Kazaa. But on the other hand, by selling it on their website on their own, the $9.99 that you pay for the CD goes straight to their pocket, instead of countless middlemen.
I guess this is why we see auctions with TINY fine print like "This is not an auction for Star Wars Galaxies Credits, you are simply bidding on a Word Document With Hints, tips, suggestions, and macros. You will get detailed explinations of how to make this money and much more Thanks"
Yeah, ebay is serious about their TOS-----> serious TOStockmarket. And protection for the buyer? Yeah, right..........
1. PayPal Buyer Protection -
2. Standard Purchase Protection -
When am I covered under these programs?
Both programs offer protection when you pay for an item that you don't receive, or receive an item that is substantially different than what was described in the listing. In addition, the following eligibility rules apply:
Only TANGIBLE items (physical goods that are shipped) are covered. Services and intangible items such as emailed recipes, e-books, etc. are not covered.
No, thanx. I still like CDBaby.com. Plus, CDBaby makes it easier for me to not run into the RIAA-tainted "artists."
* weedshare.com 50% to artists, webjay.org iuma.com CDBaby.com Epitonic.com ampcast.com
Google + ebay = Goobay :-S
;-) )
If google took over ebay then essentially you'd just see a tab on the search bar that says ebay BUT look at froogle(closest google search to ebay) and ebay side by side and you start to see the differences:
1: ebay slow - froogle fast
2: ebays charges sellers for featured listing - froogle uses AdWords
3: ebay lists items ending first - froogle does it using google magic (I dont know how)
4: ebay cluttered - google proffessional
But ebay is growing a lot and it probably wouldn't be taken over by google.
(They'd hire an ebay employeee
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
Sure it is. Just like both Volkswagen and Jaguar both sell cars. Still, there are huge differences. In the car example the quality, status and other things differ. In your example the legal status, for example, of what they are doing differs.
My point is, if there ever was one, something that was said by Voltaire a long time ago. "A witty saying proves nothing."
Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
As for re-sale, I don't believe that is legal in this case, though I know some guy was trying to determine the legality by re-selling an iTunes song on eBay. (I believe eBay pulled it so the answer is still unknown.) It seems that this is somewhat like photocopying a book and trying to sell it. (In the eBay case, the guy was going to delete the file, so it's sort of like trying to sell the photocopy then destroying the original.)
The problem is a confusion between the laws and what people think they actually purchase. When you buy a CD, you don't "own" the music. All you own is the piece of plastic. You don't even own the 1's and 0's because there aren't actually any 1's and 0's on it. All it is is a piece of plastic with patterns of holes. You own the plastic, but the pattern of holes is copyrighted. You can put the plastic in a device that reads the holes and produces patterns of sounds. Fair use allows you to make a backup copy of the pattern. You can even change the pattern in the plastic if you wish (e.g., melting parts of it) because you own the plastic. In general, you own the medium, not the content.
The problem is, purely digital music is just a pattern of 1's and 0's stored electronically. You certainly own medium it is stored on (hard drive, flash memory, etc.) but you don't own the pattern. The term "file" really just refers to the pattern, so in fact you can't really own the file according to law, and so you can't really re-sell it. You can re-sell physical items (CD plastic, hard drive, real estate, etc.) but you can't just sell the pattern.
Generally, The laws haven't caught up with this problem yet. When you purchase a song "file", you're not actually purchasing anything, you are just licensing the use of the pattern the same as with software. Software is worse because not only can't you re-sell the pattern, you aren't even allowed to figure out or change the pattern in many cases under the DMCA.
It's an issue the public and government don't fully understand yet and don't have a good solution.
Near as I can tell, there's literally Nothing To See Here.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Um yes I will place a bid of .99 for NSYNC "I Need Love". moments later.. "You've been outbid by JustinSoDreamy1874". Um yes, impossible. I must have this.. I will bid 1.99. ..repeat until (rationale exceeds desire for justin. hint: rationale=low). Um yes victory.
Why bother, allofmp3.com already does sell ogg. And flac, and monkey's and...well, just about every common format, including wav(!?!). Lossless compression does cost double (2c per MB vs 1c/MB for mp3/aac/ogg...why, I have no idea).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I guess you never heard of www.ebay.de, which seems to be quite popular.
I don't think copyright prevents you from making a copy, or that fair use negates that in some cases. Once you have the copy, you can do whatever you like with it, other than those rights granted solely to the copyright holder. Since the right to copy is not granted solely as part of copyright, you can copy it all you want. It's distribution that's illegal, not copying.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have no problem paying for music downloads, but they MUST be MP3.
Music Should Be Free (as in Freedom, not Beer)
:wq
Contact your state Attorney General. Palm wouldn't send me a rebate check one time, so I e-mailed my AG and they jumped on it for me. Took a while, but Palm ended up sending me a bunch of free merchandise.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Here's the first key thing to know: the law defines a copy as a material object within which an intangible creative work is fixed. A good rule of thumb is, if you can reproduce something without needing, say, a Star Trek replicator, it is a work.
So this post -- which I see here, and you see there, and thus is in two places at once -- is a work. The RAM on my computer in which the work is in is a copy. Your RAM is yet another copy.
With this in mind, it's usually a good idea to use the verb 'to reproduce' when you mean 'to create a new copy of the same work.'
Anyway, it's easy to own a copy containing a digital work. Letters are digital (for them to be analog would require there to be something between A and B). You probably mean how can you own a digital copy of a digital work. But more seriously, a CD would probably answer your question nicely.
That you persist in using a technology that cannot allow you to view a work (which is not infringing) unless you reproduce the work into a new copy (which is infringing) is your damn problem. This is basically what the courts have said in MAI v. Peak and the line of cases stemming from it.
17 USC 117, which deals solely with computer software you buy a copy of, realizes this and permits you to make whatever copies you need to in order to run the software.
But it's unique. Other than that, you're relying on fair use (which has a four part test that can be seen at 17 USC 107) or, say, laches (i.e. that it's unfair for RIAA to sell you CDs without expecting you to use them in ordinary CD playing equipment, however it might work).
Fair use probably allows you to reproduce some copies of, say, CDs, by ripping or just viewing in a manner that involves some reproduction. The fair use factors -- which must be looked at each and every time -- are basically how much of the work you're using, how you're using it, the nature of the work, and the economic effect on the US copyright holder.
If you buy a CD and rip it, although you are using the whole work (bad) and the work is creative (bad) and you're not transforming it into a new work (bad), you are having basically no commercial impact on the US rightsholder (good) and while no factor is more important than any other, nor is it just a matter of mathematics, we're willing to let it slide as fair use.
If you buy a PIRATED CD then there is a significant economic impact, and now all the fair use factors are against you.
allofmp3 is not reproducing or distributing copies in a manner that would be legal if they were in the US. This makes them pirates in the eyes of US law, whatever their legality might be elsewhere.
For you to download from them is necessarily to reproduce a copy without authorization of the US copyright holder. If you're in the US, you're bound by US law, and this is against US law. You have no good defense -- such as fair use -- because as noted, all the factors would likely be against you. You're basically screwed.
Ignore the issue of it being an international transaction; if it's illegal for me to go to Holland and bring back hash, or to call up Holland and ask them to send hash to me here in the US, why on earth would you think that it's legal to do roughly the same thing with copyrighted works? Differing legality does not result in everything being legalized if it is legal elsewhere.
And n.b. that while this is NOT a matter of importing music (which is the moving around of pre-existing tangible objects, viz. copies, not the creation of new copies which is unavoidable in downloading), imports are also significantly controlled by US law and are not as legal as you probably think they are.
-- 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.
You are wrong. Read 17 USC 106. It grants the exclusive right to reproduce the creative work to the author. You do not have that right.
Copyright -- which for some odd reason ought to tip you off that it involves a right to copy -- is a whole bunch of different rights. Distribution is ONLY one of them. There's a ton, in fact. The important ones are at 106, but there are others scattered around Title 17. You ought to read the law before spouting off half-assedly about it.
-- 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.
That said, if I've bought the copy in Russia, where it's legal, can I not bring it into the US? I do realize that certain things are illegal here, but I think it's different from the hash example. With illegal drugs, they're just plain illegal here, period, regardless of where they come from. With creative works, it's not flat-out illegal to possess any such work; it's just not permitted to copy / distribute them without the permission of the copyright holder. That raises interesting questions.
For example, there are record labels in Europe that specialize in releasing rare film scores that aren't legally available here, because the studios (or whoever owns the rights) haven't authorized their release. However, because of differences in, say, German law vs. US law, they aren't necessarily illegal over there, although those labels can't operate over here (at least, they can't release some of the same scores). Now, US laws prevent those labels from releasing those scores here, which means they can't operate commercially here; that doesn't mean a private individual can't go over to Germany, buy some of those borderline bootleg soundtrack CDs that are technically legal there, and bring them back here, does it? They aren't being "released" or "distributed" here, after all, so copyright laws that govern how things can be copied, distributed, etc. here don't apply, as far as I can tell.
If that's the case, then what I'm wondering about something like allofmp3 is whether the fact they operate outside the US (as opposed to merely outside US law) has any effect. As far as I can tell, the "copy" of a work is created the instant their server sends it to you, not when it arrives in your computer, and while it's in transit it's already your property. Legally, what distinction is there between downloading something from allofmp3, and actually travelling to Russia (or Germany, or whatever) and buying a copy of something that couldn't be legally distributed here and bringing it back?
Actually, what I really should do is ask my brother, who is a lawyer...
That said, if I've bought the copy in Russia, where it's legal, can I not bring it into the US?
Firstly, realize that that is not what's going on in the allofmp3 case -- since a copy is defined in the law as having to be a tangible object, and no tangible objects go from allofmp3 to their customers.
That said, the reason is because the law prohibits it. To import a pre-existing copy into the US is distribution according to 17 USC 602, and the US copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute per 17 USC 106. That's subject to some limitations found in 17 USC 602 and 109 and elsewhere, but that's generally the rule.
The 109 exception is known as first sale. But it ONLY applies to copies that were made lawfully pursuant to US law. If you make a copy in Russia, and that copy is made in a way that would be legal had it been made in the US, then 109 applies and it can be imported lawfully. OTOH, if that copy is made in a way that would be illegal if it happened in the US, REGARDLESS of its legality elsewhere, 109 does not apply to it! (in fact, if there were a work and I had the US copyright and you had the Russian copyright, and I made copies in Russia thereby infringing on your copyright, it would nevertheless only be my copies that could lawfully be imported into the US.
602 has a few exemptions that protect individuals from being sued by copyright holders, but nevertheless unless the copies sought to be imported were made in a manner that would have been lawful if it had happened in the US, they're still illegal and at the very least can be seized by US Customs if they notice. (n.b. when reading 602 that the exemptions in 602(a) ONLY apply to 602(a) and NOT to 602(b))
The ultimate reason for this is actually pretty simple: imagine that there is a country bordering the US on the north, called Moosylvania. If their copyright laws are very lax compared to ours, or even just plain don't exist, then they can make copies that would have been infringing here, and could -- if we didn't limit imports -- send those copies into the US and flood our markets and undercut our own copyright holders and the entire point of copyright to begin with. What they do there is their own business, but that doesn't mean that we have to let them have an affect on our own soil.
As far as I can tell, the "copy" of a work is created the instant their server sends it to you, not when it arrives in your computer, and while it's in transit it's already your property.
That's wrong. Like I said, the law in 17 USC 101 defines a copy as being a specific tangible object. It is something you can literally hold in your hand. When you download, the downloaded data all by itself is not a tangible object, ergo not a copy. BUT the vessel into which YOU put it IS. Your hard drive is a copy. Your RAM is a copy. They are both within the US at the time the reproduction occurs, and you're the party that is ultimately responsible for having that reproduction occur; it's not as though the Russians are holding a gun to your head or remotely controlling your computer.
Read the MAI v. Peak case which basically stands for this proposition, and some of the cases following the MAI precedent, such as Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Intellectual Property Reserve. I won't say that I think they're very wise cases, but they are widely followed and you'd be foolish to ignore them.
-- 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.
Thanks for the information. A lot of that sucks, but it's good to know.