Slashdot Mirror
iPod May Become Next Fair-Use Battleground
jaredmauch writes "USA Today is reporting on a trend of selling iPods on eBay which are preloaded with music and movies. This raises interesting questions about the legality of the files, including those that offer seemingly legitimate services of transcoding DVDs for the iPod video (while selling you the DVD disc as well)." An example from the article: "A 60-gigabyte video iPod loaded with 11,800 songs, with a starting bid of $799. The iPod alone would cost about $400. 'I don't see how it's different than selling a used CD,' seller Steve Brinn, a Cincinnati pediatrician, wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY. 'If the music industry asked me not to do it, I just wouldn't do it.'"
The same reasoning could be used... "I wasn't selling him cocaine illegally. I was filling his prescription for cocaine. No, I didn't check to see if he had one. I made it clear that if he didn't have a prescription, he shouldn't buy the cocaine from me."
Think the cocaine argument would fly in court? Then why would the fair use argument these pirates are trying stand up? It just doesn't hold water for me.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
'I don't see how it's different than selling a used CD,'
iPod and used CDs to become next fair-use battleground
he will probably be asked not to do it shortly enough
selling a modded xbox with 60gig of pirate software.....
different opinions i guess...
If somebody just asked me to not find legal ways around the intedended laws I wouldn't. Should somebody really have to tell people not to do things? Does the average person really not care what laws are intended to do, as long as they can get around the rules directly address?
I could put a used CD of the Bay City Rollers on eBay with a starting bid of $19,000,000. It doesn't mean anybody's buying it.
Show me evidence of lots of iPods actually being sold for far above retail value because of the songs loaded in them, and maybe I'll agree there's an issue to discuss here.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If he had purchased all those songs legally, and eliminated all of his own copies upon selling the iPod, it should be legal.
...for a 25% discount compared to an empty iPod.
I think there's a critical distinction to make before you can decide if it's legal or not:
Is this someone selling many of these iPods, making many copies of digital songs when they don't have permission to? That would seem pretty clear-cut illegal.
Or
Is this someone selling their iPod and the only copy they have of the songs, which they acquired legally. How can that possible be illegal?
In the case of the article, it's clearly someone running a business with pirated music. But, if I wanted to sell my loaded iPod and don't have copies of the music elsewhere, is there really a law on the books that stops me?
I also think the question at the end of the article is apropos: If you own a DVD, can you legally put the movie on your iPod at all given DMCA restrictions?
Hey, it's a fair system: you have just as much right to buy laws as any big corporation.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It's not your property. You have a license to use it. It's the property of the copyright holder, usually not the artist.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
This really isn't a fair use issue at all. If he were charging to pick up someone's CD collection, transcode them, and load them up onto an iPod, it would be an issue of fair use. If he were doing that except instead of loading each CD individually, he was taking them from a pre-transcoded library, it would be an issue of fair use (though perhaps more shaky, considering past rulings). But this is just plain old copyright infringement, and for profit, no less.
Does anyone notice that, in about ten years or so, when almost all our music is digital, the used music market will start to drop off? Eventually, as long as we don't create another audio-featuring medium, no one will be able to buy any used music from anyone.
When you sell your cd case + cds, you're transferring the physical cd's, unlike the iPod case where you're transferring mere copies of the songs on said cds.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
This seems to be just liked used CD's. Selling them isn't a question of fair use; its a question of having the right to sell something you've bought. The only "fair use" question would come into play if you were selling the mp3 copy as an adjunct to the sale of the CD; and I would think that is not fair use.
Quite simply, selling a backup of any medium on eBay is strictly prohibited. A good example of where this enforced, is when a vinyl is sold with a CD-R copy of the record.
Given the fact that you can't buy movies on iTunes yet, this is a no-brainer. Even if the iPod were sold with original copies of the CD, it's still a breach, and as such can't be sold.
The real interesting point here is whether or not eBay is open to the sale of "used" MP3s, and how in fact the ownership of these items can be transferred if at all.
Currently MP3/AVI/MP4 are all considered to be backup mediums, and as such are removed for Unauthorised Copies.
However, if you bought them off of iTunes, and they are the only copies you have, then it seems pretty clearly legitimate. (Unless there are heinous contractual terms preventing transfers of the music from the original purchaser.)
What if you bought them from Apple but had made some copies? Apple's DRM allows a certain number of copies to be made. Can I sell a few of my copies of the $0.99 song I bought and retain a few of my own? This is where it gets murky...
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Even though it's normally treason, if you had an iPod full of files from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, you could probably sell it on eBay and get off scott free 'cause if the US Government didn't want you spreading their secrets, they'd tell you to stop right?
This is probably the weakest excuse I've ever heard for sharing copyrighted materials. Either the guy is stupid, or he's got the lamest case of denial ever.
I guess if it's on an iPod, it's not really a copy cause it's got that DRM stuff right? The feds would show up and just be blinded by the cool of the new g5 video iPod in all it's glory.
(In an unrelated note: Hurry up Fox! I want House MD episodes on iTunes yesterday!)
last year, when considering the sale of my 15GB ipod, i thought about leaving my 2000+ songs on there and addign that as a selling point. with what little common sense i DO have, i figured it would be illegal and i didnt want to get sued.
/.er, but i try to fly "under the radar" with my offenses.
it is obvious that you are not allowed to sell the songs. with all the stuff we see EVERY day about people being sued, how could you think that selling an ipod full of music wont get you in trouble? i hate the RIAA as much as the next
OK, this is just wrong, as it goes against playground rules; if the record company's aren't making money, why should you? Charging $$hundreds for just copying some stuff, come on, you just charge for the media and swap..
And remember kids! Selling iPods full of music is illegal! (Well maybe not if they're all downloads from itunes, but ripped from CD sure thing). So make sure you sell your iPod with all files deleted from it!
And sell the undelete program in a separate auction. Which is linked from the cleansed iPod auction.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
If I put the songs onto a CD-RW, and sold it as a CD, I'm sure that would be coopyright infringement, even if the person already owned the songs. Are these people doing something different because the medium also has the ability to play the music? Or is there another reason this is different?
Copyright gives you the exclusive right to make copies. It does not give you ownership of all said copies. If a consumer buys a CD, the consumer owns that copy of the music. And if the consumer has Fair Use rights to make a copy, then the consumer owns that copy as well.
"The question that needs to be asked is, if you buy a DVD, are you allowed to put it onto an iPod?" Onigman says.
This is somewhat off-topic, but this is the best example to show your friends, family, and senators why the DMCA is bad. Here we have a perfect example of something we should be legally allowed to do with traditionaly copyright law (space-shift), it's certainly technically feasible, and there is demand. But we can't actually legally do it, because of the DMCA.
Back on-topic, selling iPods preloaded with media is most likely illegal, unless you include the original media in the sale. (Just like selling any other type of copy of media is illegal).
IANAL, but...
Now, just like with laptops that come loaded with $10,000 worth of software "for demo purposes only, if you don't own the license, you must remove it upon receipt," this is copyright violation, and, by definition, piracy.
The iPod sold for $152 more than an equivalent 'blank' iPod. Therefore, someone was willing to pay a premium for the added content. Therefore, the seller made money off of the content that they put on the iPod, in violation of the copyright holder's rights. That meets the FBI's definition of piracy.
Now, if the seller instead says "GIve me a list of your TV shows/movies/music, and I'll pre-load your iPod with that for you," it's a lot more gray. That is at least nominally only including content for which the recipeint has the legal rights to use. But selling it with stuff preloaded, and saying "you must remove..." is shipping it with infringing material, then telling the recipient to do something active to become legal.
I'm not one who believes 'IP theft' is anywhere near the same as physical property theft; but this is roughly the analog of selling someone a car with a stolen stereo in it, and saying "Upon receipt of this car, you must turn the stereo in to the proper authorities." You're still selling stolen merchandise. (I think this is the first time I've found an 'IP theft vs. propterty theft' analogy appropriate!)
I have no problem with people who want to commit 'civil disobedience' by breaking copyright for personal use. But the moment you have monetary gain, it's no longer okay. That's not 'fair use' any more.
If you include the source material (CDs, DVDs, or Apple account media was purchased with from the iTunes Music Store,) then I would consider it 100% legal.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Sounds familiar.
Is there any place where someone can buy a 250GB hard drive that is pre-loaded with movies or Simpsons episodes? If not, then maybe I should start a little black market business...
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
From the article:
"The question that needs to be asked is, if you buy a DVD, are you allowed to put it onto an iPod?" Onigman says.
This pathetic display of greed is costing the public more then the recovery from sales that may be lost over this issue.
Where are the consumer-right to use products for the intention that they were purchased for? A few decades ago no one said a peep about taking a Record and recording your favorite songs on a cassette recorder to play in your car.
Why should an Ipod and an DVD be any different?
A DVD to an Ipod is what a Record is to a cassette player.
If consumers buy a DVD, then consumers should have the right to use that DVD in other products they may purchase.
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
I'll bet the RIAA would surely claim fair use if they bought iPods, filled them with songs and then distributed them to their own employees.
Amen. Perfect Analogy.
Not any better than someone with a box of burned, pirated disks on the street corner.
IF we are buying the license, then we should have the ability to sell the license to someone else.
This will certainly be taken to court. Look, if you purchase a car, and your car company expects you to pay insurance to protect your car, but suddenly the state tries to claim that they actually own your car and that you only can purchase a license to drive it, and to top it off you don't even own the license, I'm sorry but thats just robbery.
If you pay for a license but don't gain any rights, if you buy an ipod and purchase the music, but somehow you don't have the right to resell the music, then what are you purchasing?
When the time comes where we have to buy licenses to breathe air and drink water, and some company comes along and strips you of your license, well I guess you'll just die.
It's one thing to allow the traditional recording industries to exist, by buying their music on ipod, but its another to give them the right to strip you of ownership, if you are basically providing welfare for these record companies, then if they were wise they'd actually be sitting down at the table to make a deal with Apple, and with consumers.
If they refuse to sit at the table, then Apple and consumers will eventually replace them with companies who do respect the right to sell Ipods on Ebay. To be frank, they are over-reaching here, and its hurting them over and over again. You cannot maintain a monopoly by force. Google is smart enough to know that the best way to maintain their monopoly is by actually putting the consumer first. The artists know this too, they make music that their fans want because they have to sell both CDs and concert tickets.
Look, here are our options, either we can have a fake corporatized art and music industry, where corporate bosses tell artists what music to make, and then tell consumers what music to buy, and then force both the artist and consumer to be caught in a loop similar to Microsofts tactics, or we the artists, consumers, CEOs, programmers and lawyers can get together and decide to offer an alternative.
Ipod, Itunes, Google, Open Source, GPL, GNU, Creative Commons, these are some of the alternatives. If the traditional industries were smart, they'd simply adapt to the market instead of trying to control it. The market ultimately cannot be controlled, and the more control you try to put on the market, the bigger you make the market for any competition which decides to offer freedom as a product. So it's simply, the recording industry is helping to fund new freedom industries and freedom based products.
we don't care. we just want to listen to music. and we will continue to do things exactly like this eBay case for all time.
why?
because you shouldn't have to be a lawyer in life to just be able to listen to some music. all of these "vile evil illegal" things us consumers are doing with music have nothing to do with anything except the march of technological progress. the only people who should change are the music cartels. the consumers should do whatever they want, the artists should do whatever they want.
what technology has done is made consumers suddenly able to do things only cartels could do before. in the pre-internet environment, with only a few cartels around, it was easy to enforce the arbitrary rules that made the music business profitable for them.
notice that these arbitrary rules have nothing to do with morality or right and wrong, they only have to do with a profitable business model from a bygone era. what consumers are doing now with music files renders that business model obsolete, as there is no way to enforce these arbitrary rules anymore, since it's not just a few big cartels who have these powers. really, i think the us government and the legal system have more important things to worry about than if an 8 year old downloaded flipsyde from a friend. as if that is even inherently wrong in any valid moral context. it's only wrong in the context of killing some rich company's business model.
the cartel's attempts to make their pain our pain because technological progress is rendering their business model obsolete is not a valid position to prosecute any consumers. period. nothing will stem this tide. nothing the cartels can do will change the new landscape. pandora's box has been opened. you can't put what has been let out back in the box.
the only future for us as consumers and artists is the chinese model: piracy is rampant and unstoppable, and accepted. artists simply make money off of endorsements and live shows. that means they won't make jay z or fifty cent money, but music will be made nonetheless, and artists will still be financially quite comfortable, because artists make music for the sake of music first, not for the sake of making money.
it's not like someone suddenly announced that wall street traders will make a tenth of what they used to make, and so no one wants to be a wall street trader anymore. people make music because they love music. period. that's been true ever since we were just banging on drums around a campfire, and will always be true, no matter what the economic future of the music world holds. and besides, it's a way for teenage guys to get chicks. do you honestly need anymore incentive than that?
music, in quality and quantity, will not change in the least. you could even make the argument that music would get better in quality and quantity, without an artificial financially driven entity sitting between consumer and artist.
and music distributors?
they will die.
and i really don't see what the problem is with that. all we are witnessing is their painful death throes now, and their attempts to drag us down with them. fuck them.
but there will always be a niche for someone to "get out the word", for an influential company to promote struggling new artists. the last dying vestige of the old music cartel's corpse will morph into this new entity. old school disributor --> new media promoter
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If I can't copy the music between iPods, can't move the music to a new computer, and now can't sell the iPod with the music on it, what exactly am I buying? Do I even get to LISTEN to the music, or do I need to first sign a form somewhere that clearly states my intent to do so with no other persons within earshot? Good grief.
I buy an iPod loaded with music, sync it to my computer, and wham, I have no more music on my iPod. (Yes, I know you can "mount" an iPod as a disk and take the software off that way. But, it comes with out any meta-information (including the name of the song) and if it is copy protected, you couldn't easily play the files anyway.
If this is a scam, why bother with an iPod? Get a CHEAP MP3 player, and "sell" that.
"Steve Brinn, a Cincinnati pediatrician"
Maybe we can solicit opinions from people who actually have some knowledge on the subject. I mean, they might as well just have asked my garbage man, or a egronomist, or a CEO. Sure, the guy is a doctor, but his degree ain't in law.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Actually, the only part that actually is property is the hardware. Copyright law does not confer property rights over songs. The only property in copyright is the copyright itself. Songs, by their very nature, cannot be owned. What they have, what they posess, is the exclusive right to copy the song. Property must have a specific physical instance in order to satisfy the definition. Where do they keep the British Crown Jewels? Tower of London. Crown Jewels are obviously property. Where do they keep the song "Helter Skelter" by the Beatles? Well, there is no one pllace. It shows up a bunch of places, not least of which is in people's heads.
Despite the unfortunate popularization of the oxymoronic term "intellectual property", you cannot own a song. You can only hold its copyright.
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
There are people capable of getting something preloaded with somebody else music taste and preferences. From this I can draw three possible explanations:
a) The guys selling the Ipods are marketing geniuses and know exactly what the market wants, or
b) Apple has created a herd of zombies who would care less about the content as far the thingy is in their ears, or
c) I have woke up into a brane where individuality comes from uniformity.
What if:
We all burn all our CD's in the streets, (Since they are all going to fail within 2-5 years anyway) and only retain the Digital copies of our Music.
Would there be any way to enforce any copywrite crap if nobody has any of their origional disposable media any more?
I don't understand why this post has to be about the iPod. This is true of all kinds of items sold on eBay, including everything from other types of mp3 players and media players to "external" enclosure hard drives and even whole computer systems (where the issue extends from multimedia content to installed commerical software applications for which the original media is not included because the seller intends to keep the license).
This isn't new, and it isn't about the iPod either. It's a much larger issue. Just go ahead and search eBay right now for devices with music and movies on them.
Ok so i can't sell the copy of windows or office that came pre-loaded on the pc i paid for. But i can Buy and mp3 player fill it with songs and sell it. Doesn't anyone else see the problem with that? Ebay should not be allowing these sales, you can not Guarntee where all the music/media originated.
Looks like the videostore industry has to be outlawed. I mean since you arent actually paying for the video when you rent it, they are actually video pirates.
Look, the video rental industry has something to lose here if the laws are changed. There are industries at stake here, so its a much more serious issue than piracy.
It's not your property. You have a license to use it. It's the property of the copyright holder, usually not the artist.
So far as I have seen, no DVD movies or musical CD's I've ever purchaced have presented me with any end user licensing agreement. Therefore the DVD, CD, etc is my property, and I should be able to make copies for my personal use according to the "Fair Use" clause. If I use those copies in my iPod, computer, DVD Player, etc there should be no legal issue. As the CD, DVD, etc is itself my property I CAN resell it. I cannot sell copies however, as I'm not the copyright holder. If I choose to resell the DVD, and also happen to bundle the DVD with the iPod, and the IPod has a copy there should be no legal issue either. It's only when I'm selling the iPod with the movie on it is sold on it's own, and I'm keeping my copies or originals of the media in question that it becomes a valid concern for copyright law. The only noteable exception to this is digital purchases (via iTunes etc) where there may actually be an end user licensing agreement that you must commit to before being allowed to use the service.
there was the case of the guy selling his iTMS songs (just to see what would happen), but he sold the only copies of the DRM'd AAC files and transfered his iTMS store account to a disposable email address and a giftcard or some sort of visa card like thing that he could pass along.
nobody stopped that auction (iirc) and he even said he did it to see if he would be told to cease, and what grounds they would cite. he outlined that he ensured that the songs were only for the buyer (deautherized his computer to play them etc).
if these people just rip CDs/DVDs and don't include the original then it is pretty much a digital bootleg. there are services that will rip and iPod your whole CD collection but they are for the exceptionally lazy/busy and only rip and load music off real CDs.
since when have people been so lazy they will pay two hundred dollars extra to get 10,000 songs which probably suck (quality of the file and quality of the music its self). What happened to good old p2p when you know you are doing something illegal and are less likely to be charged with it.
I hope the RIAA/BMI read this as it serves to demonstrate that slashdot readers really do care about copyright and fair use. It is quite clear that the 'record industry' considers slashdot and the like to be a breeding grounds for copyright pirates. Well it just isn't true is it? Unless, of course, the responses on this page are a carefully orchestrated smokescreen!
Andy Bisson
The reason the first sale doctrine allows re-sale of a used CD is based on the principle that you are selling the same copy that you bought, therefore you are not actually violating the exclusive "right to copy" in the copyright, merely the "right to publicly distribute", which is waived by the doctrine. However, selling pre-loaded iPods is violating both rights, so I don't see how the same logic could be applied.
I think everything you just said every time I see an episode of MTV's Cribs.
I'm a big tall mofo.
As a potentional consumer, this sort of preloaded iPod deal seems to be of limited value.
Not only will an iPod *not* allow you upload songs onto your computer, for storage, but if you want to actually add any more songs at all, you'd have to reformat the iPod to accomodate the new iTunes account, taking all those songs with it. So, why would I want an iPod with someone else's music collection on it?
The idea does raise a geniunely evil possibility though. I'm no fan of DRM, but I can see why musicco's are worried. If I collect tens of thousands of MP3s from eMusic, etc., and came into a financial pinch where I needed money quickly, what would stop me (besides the FBI) from selling a collection of DVDs ("Great Pop Music Through the Decades. All Artists Included!") for like $1,000 or $10,000 each? AS few discretly handled deals and I could be sitting pretty.
joab
When I sold mine on eBay I didn't know if it was technically legal or not but I certainly wasn't going to delete several hundred songs just so I could mail the buyer an empty one. I didn't charge extra for it and I didn't see anyone doing that at the time, but I guess feel like it's just a little (no, a lot) "cheap" to try and squeeze that extra bit cash for something that you're not really losing...
You will never have the right to transfer digitally-based files to anyone else under current law, regardless of whether you delete your own copy (which would be the equivalent of giving or selling someone a physical CD - you don't have it anymore, so it's okay). Even if you delete your own copy of the file(s), the copy you gave to the other person is just that - a copy - and you don't have the right to make that copy for purposes of distribution. There is no possible way to legally transfer a digital music file unless you have the right to copy (either by holding the copyright or having permission of the copyright holder). So all legal files must come first-party from whomever has that right.
Not saying this is good; just stating how it is, Ric Romero style.
how do Itunes or the Ipod present an alternative to the existing entertainment industry. Neither of these Apple products create an alternate production scheme. These are simply distrobution models [I'm not even sure the Ipod qualifies as that], and further, Apple makes it's deals with the established production companies for distrobution rights.
That still leaves the matter of producing an album to begin with.
Perhaps a more accurate sentiment would be that self-recorded Direct-to-Consumer MP3 sales are the alternative scheme
I was wondering, does just remembering the song fall under fair use?....
The real issue that has never been resolved is what constitutes proof of ownership of music. I know of no court precedent or legal definition of what I must do to prove I own the music I have, if I'm asked to. (Original media? Original cash register receipts? Does anyone save their music receipts and keep them forever?) Producing the original CDs is one thing, but what about (1) I bought and paid for several CDs of which I made a compilation, but lost the originals a while back in a move or something. I still have my mp3s and CD-R. I legally bought the music, but how do I prove it? (2) I digitized a song or two from old LPs/cassettes, but don't want to lug those obsolete media around with me the rest of my life (I don't even have a cassette player anymore and threw out 90% of my cassettes) just to prove I own them. (3) I copy my MP3 collection to a computer at work ... etc etc etc ... record companies want you to license the music on either the fast food (pay every time you consume a song) or cable TV (pay for the service even when you're not using it) model. I don't like either one better than CDs. If someone pre-loads an IPOD with stuff and sells it (example: https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/product.asp?idProdu ct=IPO11Z), what is the legal status of the files? If someone loads someone else's MP3s, that's clearly illegal dissimination of copyrighted material. But, I've heard even ripping a CD and making MP3s is illegal or a gray area. So who committed the crime? At some point, someone is going to rule on this, and I imagine the outcome will not be good. Prohibition days again? Speakeasies where you load your IPOD? Boot screens for MP3 players that list only the public-domain King James Bible audio, with a secret key to pull up the real music? Will a judge be enlightened enough to think better of making something that (a) everyone does and (b) there is no realistic way to enforce or stop the illegal behavior? We'll see...
I so wanted to use my moderation points in this thread, but instead will post.
.99 and how they had found the sweet spot. We are still deluding ourselves at that number. I am not attacking Apple, because I realize there price is dictacted heavily by the monopoly of the "labels".
In my opion, Ebay is the closest thing in the history of man to a truly free market, meaning that the true value of a product is determined by the forces of scale, and supply and demand. On the other hand we have music sales, which again in my opion, is a market that is basically a monopoly and artificully maintained.
What we are seeing here is the the true value of a song, somewhere around $.03. I recall previous discussion of iTunes pricing structure of
It is very fascinating to observe, this collision of market idealogies.
DK
we just want to listen to music. and we will continue to do things exactly like this eBay case for all time.
So you buy the iPod, take it home, sync it up to your computer... and...
FOOM
All the music's gone.
You don't get to listen to it.
Unless you're just going to use the iPod standalone, and never (even accidentally) sync it up, you're spending $300 for a time bomb. Even then, you're going to lose all the music when the hard drive dies.
This isn't fair use, it's a scam.
...if he can actually prove that he owns the music on the iPod.
... If not, they must delete them as soon as they receive it in the mail." The item sold for $551 on Monday.
A 60-gigabyte video iPod loaded with 11,800 songs, with a starting bid of $799. The iPod alone would cost about $400. 'I don't see how it's different than selling a used CD,' seller Steve Brinn, a Cincinnati pediatrician, wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY. 'If the music industry asked me not to do it, I just wouldn't do it.'"
The example we get in the article summary has a few conditions to consider. IF the seller actually owned all that music, and has proof of ownership (i.e. receipts), then transfer of sale is perfectly legal, especially since it's sold on a medium (the iPod). (Parallel example: I can order a custom-track CD from a music publisher online, get the CD, then sell the CD later.)
But come on... eleven thousand, eight hundred songs? He would have had to shell out $11,800 for all that music! There's no way that he'd part with it then for $800. In a case like this, it almost seems like the seller is deliberately inflating the value of the merchandise, without himself legally owning any of that music. That's piracy.
Reading the article, we get something even more dubiouly legal, a "condition of sale":
In the listing, the seller says the buyer [of a "brand new" 60-giabyte video iPod loaded with 10,000 songs plus more than 50 movies and TV shows] "must already own all of the music and DVDs.
Oh my goodness, where do I even begin? So I can sell someone a gun, say, and then tell them, "If you've ever been convicted of a violent crime, then you must never use this gun," and then I'm off the hook? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The seller has certain responsibilites that they must abide by for a legal sale. For guns, it's doing a background check. For iPods, it's owning the music that comes on the iPod.
If you own this music, you either a) transfer the music to a computer and delete it from the iPod, then sell the iPod, or b) sell the music with the iPod, including the proof of ownership. Anything else, and you're seriously in danger of getting the RIAA on your ass.
To do anything about this you'd have to have a DRM system that would track the ownership of devices and content, would delete copied content when the user gives up ownership and at the same time would transparently allow content to be copied between a user's devices but no further. This is just not possible.
Every non-RIAA-affiliated citizen of this country whines all the time about not being able to do what they want with their digital media, songs or otherwise. The kicker is, that if people really cared about it at all, it would be a ballot issue and congress people would lose their seats over it.
I'm going to make a really large assumption here, only because I don't feel like looking it up, but I bet that RIAA's lobby group paid through the nose for all the legislation they've had passed in the last decade. The fact is, there is no one paying Congress not to pass the laws and there is no one sticking it to them when it comes time to vote. Instead, voters focus on the extreme left and right of arguments that are already compromised all to hell. Namely Abortion, War in Iraq, Personal Privacy, etc... Every one of those is currently Moderate enough to appease everyone who isn't an extremist.
Want to fix DRM? Vote it out of office.
...and then sold it on eBay, would you actually be committing four crimes?
Once for the initial theft, twice for the illegal eBay resell, third for selling music, and finally fourth for selling movies?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Let me get this straight. You get yourself an ipod, you purchase 1,000 songs at a buck a each. With this music you have only limited use rights and no right to resell your investment what so ever. Now... Who's the Pirate?... Who are the crooks? I think your looking at the wrong end of the cow.
copyright is a right granted by the people to corporations, and individuals (in the old days, when individuals could compete), to give them a financial incentive to write music/ make drugs/ make gadgets that enrich our lives
;-)
it was limited in scope
however, the corporations have extended and obfuscated the original intention such that copyright, in their view, and apparently also in the view of historically myopic fools like yourself, is now to own everything, for all time
that was a nice switch, wasn't it?
people: "we give you the financial incentive to create" has become
corporation: "no, we give YOU what we want, when we want, and we own everything"
this is not morality, by any standard of morality, in any religion, in any culture, in any time period
money can buy a lot of things, including legions of lawyers to scrub the original intention of copyright aside
is the notion that money can corrupt a notion that is foreign to you? well then why can't you see that happening in copyright and patents?
intellectual property law is a growth industry, for a reason. it feeds and is fed by corporate interest. not by the interest of the people. the individual on the street cannot compete with a legion of ip lawyers. however that doesn't mean that the individual on the street is the one who the government and the laws are accountable to in the end.
that notion? that the government and the laws are accountable to the people in the end? what is that funny idea?
IT'S MORALITY
and as for your statement that less money in music will make music more shallow and vapid... PFFFT! that assertion is hilarious, thanks for the laugh
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...you're completely wrong; it's trivial to retrieve the songs from an iPod. The iPod does *not* stop you from uploading its songs to your computer; iTunes merely does not provide a convenient way to do so. There are dozens of third-party utilities that allow you to do this. The easiest way is to just copy the files off of the iPod using your favorite file copying utility (something exotic like Windows Explorer).
While it's definately illegal, it seems that it wouldn't be a huge amount different than listening to the radio. There are only so many things you can play, and can't change them too easily (with the radio, I suppose you could always drive down to the station and drop off a CD...)
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I don't actually have a law degree on this particular subject (and I don't play a lawyer/expert on T.V.).
However, IMHO, selling MP3 players with the added feature of loads of tunes/movies as a means of upping the price for the product seems as though it isn't really a legal application of the music user's rights.
In addition, is selling an MP3 player loaded with music is perhaps identical to selling hard drives, generic video tapes, audio tapes, CD-Rs and DVD-Rs with music/movies already on them? Why would selling a loaded MP3 player (much like a storage device) be any different than selling storage devices loaded with music/videos?
I'm not sure that this is the same thing exactly as transferring one's RTU of software. In theory, one can sell one's software (if the EULA allows it), provided that no copies will be retained by the seller, and that all materials, copies, and license are transferred to the purchaser. Are we saying that if we sell an MP3 player loaded up with goodies, that we will then delete all other copies of soft-copy-purchased media? Do we also give the purchaser all hard-copies (perhaps original CDs, tapes, etc.) of the media?
Whether or not one likes (the RIAA/MPAA, intellectual property, patents, or other creation protections/protectors), isn't selling MP3 players loaded with content effectively giving away "copies?"
Like I said, I don't have a law degree with this... just expressing opinions...
A Passionate Independent Musician
Ah, so close.
Yes, copies are property, and copyrights are property, and works are not. But no, you there's nothing odd about the idea of intangible property. Copyrights are intangible, for example.
Basically, something is property if you can 1) use it, 2) lend to and recover from others, and 3) dispose of it by selling it, destroying it, etc. Just because something is intangible doesn't mean you can't do this. But a creative work can't be recovered, conveyed, destroyed (usually), etc. People can't lose knowledge like they can lose a sock; they can only share it or not.
-- 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.
And also why this scenario is likely to fail. I've ripped my CD collection into high grade MP3's. Picked up a Shuffle because it was the best bang for a 1G MP3 player (not caring a bit if it can do AAC or Windows formats in the least) at the time, and also doubled as a memory stick. I plug it into my box, all is good. I plug it into on of my other boxes that has iTunes on it, the software tries to purge out the files and create a new link to the shuffle. The worst is working with customers, however. I bring over a file on the data partition and several times the customer's local iTunes install will wipe my non-DRM'ed songs (just by them saying yes due to the autoplay - argh)
Someone could buy this, but they could never update it or modify the play list without doing some poking about in the iPod's file system.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Can I sell used digital tracks? Can I lend digital tracks to others deleting my copy while it's lent out? Consider a "hot-potato" or collaborative library style p2p system where each member contributes the songs he owns to the pool. When another member wishes to hear a song, she determines which member or members own the song, borrows (or buys for free) the song (which the owner then deletes), listens to the song, and then either returns it to the owner or registers with the pool as the new owner ready to lend to others.
I wonder what a court would think of this... One would most likely need to come up with a file transfer protocol that could "move" a file rather than "copy" a file (like, transfer bytes 1 to X, wait for confirmation, delete bytes 1 to X, transfer bytes X to 2*X, ...).
>the only future for us as consumers and artists is the chinese model:
/ARE/ the future for making money as a musician. But maybe not. Maybe we'll all just wait to download the bootleg recording of the live performance.
>piracy is rampant and unstoppable, and accepted. artists simply make money
>off of endorsements and live shows. that means they won't make jay z or fifty
>cent money, but music will be made nonetheless, and artists will still be
>financially quite comfortable, because artists make music for the sake of
>music first, not for the sake of making money.
>it's not like someone suddenly announced that wall street traders will
>make a tenth of what they used to make, and so no one wants to be a wall
>street trader anymore. people make music because they love music. period.
>that's been true ever since we were just banging on drums around a campfire,
>and will always be true, no matter what the economic future of the music
>world holds. and besides, it's a way for teenage guys to get chicks. do
>you honestly need anymore incentive than that?
I must take exception to the idea that artists will still be artists even if they don't get paid. Sure they will. They will be called "hobbyists". Music will be something they will do in their limited spare time, because the rest of their time will be spent like yours and mine is - putting food on the table. I think the number of options and quality of music will decline, because not only will there be fewer people who can afford to have the time to devote to just making music, but there will be fewer people who can afford to donate their time to running sound studios and songwriting and all the other people behind the scenes for music production.
I don't think you can glibbly say that people will continue to do what they love regardless of getting paid or not. If that were true at least 50% of Americans would stay home and masturbate all day long instead of going out for a paycheck.
The fact is, musicians have always been compensated throughout history. Whether a quartet commissioned by a duke, a troubadour paid by a bartender, a busker on the street, or a drummer getting tossed some tablescraps from the guy who owns the campfire, musicians have been in demand and have been commissioned for hire. The difference was, in the time before recordings, live music was your only option, and generally only the wealthy could afford to pay for music on demand. Recorded music brought music on demand affordably to everyone, and moreover, allowed the musician to effectively get paid for many more "performances" than he could physically do in person. Now, because of "piracy" (or whatever you want to call it) that revenue stream is, as you correctly state, gone.
I'm not sure it's right.
I mostly agree with the sentiment of your post. I'm getting damn tired of this DRM crap myself. Frankly, I think if I have bought it and it is in my hands (i.e. a CD or DVD), or if I have paid for the pipeline coming into my house (i.e. cable TV programs), then I should be able to copy them for my own use.
In the case of the Ipod thingie, if I have paid for the music that is on that Ipod, and it exists only on that Ipod, then I should be able to sell it with the Ipod for profit.
Maybe "live" performances
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
didn't the recent Sony DRM settlement in NY value the songs at about 3cents?
the songs were being given to the abused customers as part of the settlement and worked out to 3 cents a song when equated to the 7.50 value of the . i know there was a slashdot post on it doing the math, too lazy to look it up
Who wants to listen to 11,000 tracks of bhangra music the pirate had a penchant for..?
Actually the RIAA would probably sue as one crime PER SONG with resulting absurd millions in alleged damages.
Because the iPod is an extraoridinally popular item that has grabbed the media's attention. True, this issue has been around for a while, but it will take something like the iPod to bring the issue into the light, get it on the cover of The New York Times, and thus into open public debate, and eventually, the Supreme Court.
This too, will end.
Yeah, I actually said "it's legal" in my original draft, but then after previewing, changed it to the "I would consider..." (In addition to other black-and-white statements changed to be opinion.)
CDs would be legal, DVDs wouldn't (although if you digitized from a VHS tape, it would,) and I don't think the legality of transferring an Apple ID has properly been tested yet.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Yeah - talk about a genius.
Rule #1 about selling iPods on eBay filled with copied music: don't talk about selling iPods on eBay filled with copied music.
I wasn't arguing that things haven't changed over time where profit has superceded progress.
,and you stole someone's canteen, you have committed an immoral act. you are depriving someone of sustenance.
;-) when the economics of producing and distributing a book cost something, then you needed copyright to reward the companies for giving us what we wanted. but when costs go to $0, what economic incentive is needed? copyright, like real estate agents, encyclopedia manufacturers, etc.: the internet has destroyed them.
then you completely understand the points i am making
I was pointing out that the underlying values for IP were not arbitrary, but were in fact the result of trying to develop a method for fair compensation.
then we agree 100%: what was once fair, is now not fair. you seem to think that i am fighting the original agreement. i am fighting the absurdity it has morphed into. i have no problem with granting companies limited benefits in exchange for research/ production in order to reap rewards for researching/ producing. i have a problem that those limited benefits have morphed into unlimited benefits. and, you seem to have the same problem. so we agree on the scope of the problem here, and we agree on the nature of the problem. your words and my words have no contradiction
It's also hypocritical to argue that corporations are greedy, when copyright infringers are the ones taking.
you can't take a song. you can copy a song. if i steal your car, i've deprived you of a car. if i copy your song, you can still listen to your song. the world of atoms is not the same as the world of bits. the morality of theft does not apply. you need a new more nuanced understanding of how things work in the internet age, as your current way of thinking about copyright is like trying to apply sharia law: too harsh and simple, and disregarding of the actual nature of the trangression involved.
There is the option to not listen to the music at all if you think it's overpriced, rather than trying to justify you are entitled to it.
there is no argument put forth manufacturing justification for something you are not justified to. because you are justified to that which is free. what needs justification is trying to apply the morality from another age onto the internet age. look at it this way: if you lived in the desert
but if you live on the shore of a lake, and you take a glass of water form it, what have you really stolen?
the economics of the situation define the morality of the situation. in a world of limited resources, supply and demand and price define morality. if you steal a loaf of bread, you've stolen something that cost something to produce, that had value to someone else who was willing to pay for it. that's immoral. such was the ancient age of tapes and cds and lps.
but now on the internet, there is no limited resources. what once cost $ to distribute now costs 0. how can you apply the sharia law of chopping off someone's hands for stealing a loaf of bread in this new environment? how can you fine a soccer mom thousands of dollars because her daughter downloaded flipsyde?
your "morality" is completely out of touch with the new reality. your "morality" is defined by an era that doesn't exist anymore. technology changes morality. when they invented the gun, or the atom bomb, or they perfected in vitro fertilization, new moral questions were posed by these inventions.
open your mind, think about the new reality, stop trying to dictate from a way of thinking in an era that is now dead
Just pointing out your shortsightedness that erasing copyright will automatically lead to the destruction of big corporations.
(snicker) actually, no, i am fully aware of the effect! as if music corporations are necessary in a world where no incentive is needed
you need to pay more attention to how dramatically the internet is changing our society. you're standing on ground you think is quite solid on these questions, when what you are actually standing on when you make your arguments is sand shifting beneath your feet
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> Steve Brinn, a Cincinnati pediatrician, wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY. 'If the music industry asked me not to do it, I just wouldn't do it.'"
What a wuss. Unfortunately there's enough guys like this to allow the music industry to walk all over the rest of us (who actually want to invoke our fair-use rights) too.
That is perfectly legal with an iPod. It is simply the first sale doctrine. Same as selliing used CDs.
Oh well, what the hell...
The fact is, musicians have always been compensated throughout history. Whether a quartet commissioned by a duke, a troubadour paid by a bartender, a busker on the street, or a drummer getting tossed some tablescraps from the guy who owns the campfire, musicians have been in demand and have been commissioned for hire. The difference was, in the time before recordings, live music was your only option, and generally only the wealthy could afford to pay for music on demand. Recorded music brought music on demand affordably to everyone, and moreover, allowed the musician to effectively get paid for many more "performances" than he could physically do in person. Now, because of "piracy" (or whatever you want to call it) that revenue stream is, as you correctly state, gone.
this is 100% accurate. but those words support my assertions not yours. before recorded media, musicians did fine. they were rich and were famous and were well respected. what the age of recorded media did to music was make them superrich and superfamous. and yes, indeed, that era is now dying. like i said, do you need fifty cent or jay z money to make music? if i say by becoming a musician you could be world famous and earn millions, has music been destroyed because it's not true any more that you could be world famous and earn billions?
live concerts, endorsements are now your revenue stream as a musician. and what is wrong with that? do you honestly believe your own words that all musicians will be hoppyists?! like any creative field, music is full of starving artists. this was true in the year 1700, in the year 1950, and will be true in the year 2100. do you honestly believe that starving musicians didn't exist in the era of recorded media, 1890-1999? but, just like in 1700, in the year 2100, when music conglomerates are long dead, there will still be very rich, very successful musicians... and starving musicians. nothing has changed
you can't use your argument that by returning to how things worked in the 1700s that music will be destroyed. because you yourself have outlined how in the 1700s music worked!
and finally, i will assert to you that any musician who would complain about the death of music conglomerates that music will drop in quality and quantity is not a real musician. a real musician makes music TO MAKE MUSIC, not to make money. so, in fact, getting some of the money out of the system will INCREASE the quality and quantity of music. because all the phonies will leave
we are human beings. we love music. we love listening to it, we love creating it. MONEY DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE IN THAT EQUATION, and additionally, there will still be enough money in the equation anyways
you yourself said so, by showing how it worked in the 1700s
you're arguing against yourself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
BART: Fat Tony, is the music on these iPods stolen?
FAT TONY: Bart, Bart, Bart... If your family were hungry, and you took a loaf of bread to give to them, would that be stealing?
B: I guess not...
FT: Well, let's say you had a really big family, so you took a truckload of bread. Would that be stealing?
B: Well, no...
FT: Let's say they don't like bread; they like music. And instead of giving it to them, you sold it to them at a price that was practically giving it away. Would that be stealing?
B: Hell no!
FT: Good boy!
Please forgive any inaccuracies; I haven't seen this episode in several years, but it seemed apropos...
The CB App. What's your 20?
This is exactly the problem with not having physical media, and the reason why I will never buy an MP3 online. Basically, copying is not theft, especially if the original item is just a collection of bits on the internet, that you purchasethe right to copy from the owner.
Clearly prohibited, but it's not like they check for it or anything. That items will sell for a lot, and they'll rake in the fees/money. That seems to work for them - raking in the money seems to be the only thing that matters to them really.
I was looking for a xbox a while ago, and the amount of chipped (that's illegal too) xboxes with 40+ backups (no originals included) was unreal. There were dozens of them every time I checked (and I checked pretty much daily for a whole month). That must have been going for years, and I don't think it's about to end either. Heck, I've also bought some "countereit" DVDs from China there too (copies of import DVDs that aren't for sale over here). There are TONS of illegal stuff there, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit - as long as they make money off it.
(This applies in the US. It may apply elsewhere. I have no idea.)
You own the copy. Sure. Do what you want with it - but don't distribute it, because that right is explicitly reserved for the copyright holder. That part of copyright law is not nebulous in any way.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
The word 'oxymoronic' does not mean what you want it to mean.
Incidentally, intellectual property seems to capture the essence of the concept, at least to me. What is your objection?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
It doesn't matter at all what the license agreement or ToS says. Apple, iTunes, the iPod, the store where you bought the cd, the shrinkwrap license, the damned RIAA...none of them have the right to tell you that you cannot resell a legally purchased piece of their intellectual property.
Why? The First-sale doctrine. The Copyright Act states that the owner of a lawful copy can "sell or otherwise dispose of" the copy. In this context, "otherwise dispose of" means renting, lending, or leasing your copy.
As long as the item you are selling is a legally purchased, original copy, then the Copyright Act expressly allows the resale of your copy.
@ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
It's not murky, it's illegal. You are only allowed to make those copies for personal use, selling one and retaining another is also piracy.
This is a great idea (a way to turn a DRM system against its owners), but the RIAA / MPAA lawyers would argue that posting even an encrypted, DRM-crippled version of a song / movie on a P2P network is copyright infringement. The fact that it's useless without the key doesn't stop it being a copy.
They'd also put in additional restrictions: You're only licensed to play a movie on one particular physcial device, or you need to pay every time it's watched. (This is the real point of DRM.)
When has there ever been a receipt on a song? If the RIAA wants to attack this they need to think up a good way to keep track of music acquired legally. Nowaday everything is a copy of a copy of a copy that was once copied. Everyone downloads from Limewire etc. or torrents, excuse me, most. As for "bundled" iPods. There is currently no way to tell unless they wanted to investigate every single case. Personally the way my iPod is set up, except for 50-100 of my 3800 songs the entirety of my iPod consists of complete albums (with album art) withover 200 albums I could probably fetch a pretty penny on eBay for someone looking for a nice collection and rock and other obscure stuff. Putting a price tag on data won't work for a long time. Unless they can keep an accurate account of who acquired what legally and who is the wrong I can't see it ever working. With the way technology is headed it almosts appears as if the RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) is asking "us" to take a step in the wrong direction technology wise.
After all, everybody's ipod has value added by the consumer!
Question is: what is it worth to somebody else? Probably, the answer is not all that much.
With so many time-consuming entertainment choices, how much are consumers going to be willing to pay for any marginal entertainment in the future?
I forsee a problem only if you advertise the sale of ipods with unlicenced music. Using eBay for this purpose is clearly asking for trouble.
But if you can negotiate a premium for your used ipod in a private party sale, I say good for you!
If you bought them off of iTunes, and they are the only copies you have then you are stupid. The files and the iPod are tied to the computer authorised to play content purchased for that account. The iPod will work fine until you need to sync it or it needs reformating. That computer that has the original purchased files is where you backup the iPod from in case of emergency. Buying these iPods off eBay is stupid as well, they will only play on that iPod, since the new buyer does not have the authentication account.
That's why many people refused to use iTunes when it came out. Waste of money in my mind, others had even harsher things to say. If you like the convenience of d/ling a file direct (I can rip a CD in minutes, and don't mind waiting a few days to get it) then you gotta live with the crippled usage rights. I declined. emusic.com man!
Blar.
Fu_k um all
Yep, this is going to get someone's attention.
Let me just throw in a hypothetical situation and some one can tell me how it goes down:
Say I buy myself an iPod. We'll be specific and say its a nice 60GB, and we'll even say I got it for around $350.00 (including tax and all that good bullshit). Now let's say I use a legitmate service to fill up my iPod like, iTunes or whatever and I buy a few hundred dollars worth of songs and fill it to capacity. After all cost we'll say I spent over $600 on it.
So I no longer want my iPod but being a nice piece of consumer hardware I can recoup all of my monetary value out of it and sell it on eBay. Since I have already paid for the songs once, there should be no legality issues regarding copyrights? The music was already paid for, assuming "they" (RIAA, whomever you wish to use in this example) want either the seller or buyer to pay, again.
I dunno, it's just silly. I mean tons of other mediums don't have these issues, or at least to the point of being noticible in the press. Look at used computers. Walk into any mom&pop style computer store and you can get old used computers, sometimes with their HDD's unwiped so they not only still have their operating system but a good bit of the files and software still installed. Afaik, no law or lawful action is taken aganist people for selling these things. Or at the least, again, none that has warranted news worthy notice on any site including /. (that I have seen).
Aw Frell this
This makes slashdotters look like a bunch of idiots. Yes, the RIAA is bullshit, and yes, our fair use rights are being eroded. However, "fuck them" and "they will die"... this is pure teen angst idiocy.
One aspect of copyright law allows people to resell copies they made legally under the "fair use" concept.
Since when?
qz
This is the same as selling a hard drive with Windows preinstalled. If you don't own a license for what is on the storage media, you must erase the storage device. If you don't, you will be thrown in jail and/or charged a large fine. There is no ifs ands or buts.
Anyone else remember Apple's response to reselling iTune Songs?
"Apple's position is that it is impractical, though perhaps within someone's rights, to sell music purchased online," said Peter Lowe, Apple's director of marketing for applications and services.
Apple customer resells iTunes song
Slashback
We might well ask why USA Today has suddenly and inexplicably taken on the mantle of moral sleuth (rather than its usual guise: dutiful stenographer), and the answer isn't hard to see. The lessons of Watergate--battered stock price for the Washington Post, hatred from half or more of the readership--have been well learned. Today's press finds it easier to rouse itself against the petty violations of the man-on-the-street than the grander corruption in our citadels of power. How brave.
So far as I have seen, no DVD movies or musical CD's I've ever purchaced have presented me with any end user licensing agreement.
You don't have to 'agree' to it - it's the law. I never agreed to refrain from killing people, but I would still be prosecuted if I did it. Them's the breaks.
This thread has me wondering. Anyway, I think it's safe to expect lawsuit-ilarity to ensue.
Your dog wants an IPod.
My head asplode.
What wories me about this sentiment is that it seems people don't understand the commercial nature of the music industry.
It people just did what the music industry wanted, soon the music industry would claim people would have to pay a music-tax for listening to radio or whistling tunes.
Probably the only thing stopping the music industry from doing this is the people who ARE willing to speak out for their legal rights.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
alot of people buy their music from itunes couldn't the files be legit maybe they just wanna sell the mp3's the bought
We're only legally allowed to talk about iPods... where have you been?
1: eBay should have stopped this by auction day one.
2: lacking reciepts, fellow is a pirate.
I think somebody let this auction go through just so they can say 'see? these iPods facilitate piracy!' One checkmark option in the preferences of a iTunes installation and that 'synch to nothing' feature goes away. But X number of conusmers can't find that checkbox..
However, If I want to put my purchased music, whether it's a digital legal download, a microphone recording, LP, tape, CD, on any media capable of reproducing it, it should be legal and anyone buying or leasing a device capable of it should have the legal backing to do so. Reselling the media? with proofs, or not at all. Illegal copies wrapped in a convenient package is still piracy.
The actual article has little to do with this aspect, but the comments seem to have gone this direction. Sure, folks with computer-savvy skills can wire this and patch that and do these things, but the common consumer is locked into a revenue system that defaults to extra charges for virtually nothing.
Imagine if your cable box had a nice remote, but each time you pushed the channel changer, it required a surcharge for 'data communications'. You could go to the store and get a compatible remote, or get up and change the channel, but the cable company provides the remote 'free' with the service. A percentage of their customers would fall for it..
We need a DMCA for consumers. 'No device or media product shall restrict usability for the purposes of incurring additional costs or limiting access to the consumer if comparable technologies allow the consumer to access this service or media at reduced or no cost.'
Now some might say this would outlaw the iTMS store selling music and tv shows because you could record a tv show and transfer it to your player for free if you take the trouble to do so. Nobody is forcing folks to buy the content off of their store, it's their choice to add this content rather than set their vcr. The costs of convenience..
However, if X company has cellphone that plugs into your computer to load ringtones easily, then Y company can't sell that phone with that feature disabled, or purposely restrict their networks to phones without that feature. In Europe, for instance, there are a lot of services they provide gratis that here in the US the phone companies charge for just because they can.
Sure, it's implausible in the real world, but look at what they want to legislate in on the other side with more restrictive media access built into future technologies. If the manufacturers have to comply with THAT legislation, then they should have to comply with new fair use rules that eliminate these closed markets..
Infinity is overrated, Infinity+1, now that's cool!
Actually, it absolutely falls under the purview of fair use that whatever YOU buy, should be available to you on ANY medium. You have the RIGHT to move things from your car, to your cd player, to your computer, etc. Although content providers are trying to restrict this right, they are actually violating the fair use doctrine. OVer time, consumers will win on this point in courts. I think the IPOD preloading issue is a nonissue if people are paying for the additional content.
Heh... put the collected works of Celine Dion on it and he won't even be able to give it away.
selling a used disc is not a crime because you payed to have acces to information stored on the disc, and you will lose that access once you sell the disc. or so the say.
because i'm used to ripping my friends' disc when they come home, and i'm sure i'd be able to sell a disc i own without losing the musics within (ripping, casting, copying, etc). therefore those juridical paranoids should as well forbid it too. they should also forbid libraries from lending books: i could (and actually did) scan some chapters, books, covers, etc. without paying anything for it.
to a point i ask: what would i be able to do? i can tape my favorite telvision programs, can't i? or photograph my favorite landscapes (ever thought of a nation protecting landscapes as their copyright?). you know, i can write down anything i hear or read, from an important academic essay to a politic speech.
the question remains: is it really good that people lose information, so that i'd be able to sell them back? is it really important (and possible) to prevent people from just sharing information (be it music, video, text, etc)?
>Do what you want with it - but don't distribute it, because that right is
>explicitly reserved for the copyright holder.
In almost every country that is a right that is consumed after the initial distribution. If I am not mistaken, the US has that in their copyright laws too, I believe it goes under the first sale doctrine or something like that.
>Incidentally, intellectual property seems to capture the essence of the
>concept, at least to me. What is your objection?
Depends on what you mean by "intellectual property". If we disregard that one typically use it to also include patents and trademarks and thus get total confusion, and just stick to it to cover copyright, we still have a problem. People tend to use it to cover both the copyright of the work itself and copies of the work. Those are two VERY different things. In addition, ownership of one does not imply or mean owenrship of the other. So while one would not "own" the copyright, one do own a copy. When people then mess it up by stating "it is not your property", it either makes no sense or is a completely wrong statement.
What I'd like to know is what happens when I buy a CD, make a backup copy, then the original is stolen from me? Can I sell the backup copy I had the forsight to make?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I've generally understood intellectual property to mean a concept, idea, or other abstract product of intelligent creativity, which is protected by law. There are several laws surrounding the expression, depending on its form and use, and they certainly cause confusion for people who deal in such products, but overall, things can be summed up in one simple rule: if you didn't make it, and no one explicitly told you that you own it, then you don't own it. Easy enough.
Arguing about the semantics of the word property is a void intellection exercise. Mental masturbation, if you will, likely pleasurable for the engagee, but totally non-productive.
I may as well go all the way.
I believe the copyright system is serving its purpose. Sure, it's ripe for abuse, and there are indeed people and organizations that abuse it, but overall it fosters a system of rewards that have made creativity blossom. Importantly, no worthwhile successor has ever been proposed.
I believe the same for the patent system, but to a lesser extent - I feel patents should be restricted to ideas that ultimately express in a physical way. Patenting a pure, abstract idea serves no one but the greedy.
Trademarks... ain't nothing wrong with them. I think they are unfairly lumped in by "intellectual property" opponents who figure additional targets will strengthen their case.
Ultimately, everything will shake out in a mutually acceptable way, because that's just how things work. You can't dictate to a free market.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Either you misunderstand me, or you misunderstand the law, at least in the US.
You can certainly sell your copy, or give it away, or burn it, or worship it like a god made flesh (or plastic). What you can't do is distribute independent copies, and keep the source copy yourself.
Other countries, YMMV.
(Note, I obviously didn't cover every case, but rhetorically torturing my statements doesn't win any points. For instance, talking about making 50 copies and distributing them all, keeping nothing, doesn't sidestep US law. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.)
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
While our *&!!%# firewall won't let me get to TFA, I will assume that this is only a debate if the iPod is full of legal downloads - Clearly loading copyright material (to which you do not have copyright) onto a device and selling it would not be any more legal if it's an iPod, a cassette tape, or a CDR!
So we must be asking: Is it legal to resell something you rightfully own. Answer? First-Sale doctrine says this is perfectly legit.
Now ... if the RIAA wants to continue their legal war, I suppose they could try and get a court order forcing the seller to prove license of each file on any given iPod ... but good luck getting a judge to sign that order w/o any grounds for believing that the files on a specific iPod constitute an infringement...
If I list a CD for sale on eBay, everyone assumes it's the original unless otherwise stated, and if anything other than the original arrives it would be a breach of the sales agreement. Same goes here.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
"IF we are buying the license, then we should have the ability to sell the license to someone else."
Why should this be the case? You pay for a driving license, and are not allowed to sell it to someone else. You pay for credit cards and are not allowed to sell them to someone else. You pay for a meal that you eat, and cannot re-sell it. You pay for a holiday, and cannot re-sell it. There are many things in life that we pay sometimes large amounts for and cannot re-sell.
"Look, if you purchase a car, and your car company expects you to pay insurance to protect your car, but suddenly the state tries to claim that they actually own your car and that you only can purchase a license to drive it, and to top it off you don't even own the license, I'm sorry but thats just robbery."
People are aware of the terms of the license before they buy. It is therefore more like paying to use a car you already know is owned by the state, and then moaning about the fact that it is owned by the state.
"If you pay for a license but don't gain any rights, if you buy an ipod and purchase the music, but somehow you don't have the right to resell the music, then what are you purchasing?"
You are paying for precisely what you agreed to when you made the purchase. Caveat emptor: if you don't like the terms, then spend your money on something else. iPods can be fed all the music they can hold without having to buy _anything_ from the iTunes store, and there are plenty of alternative music players as well.
"When the time comes where we have to buy licenses to breathe air and drink water, and some company comes along and strips you of your license, well I guess you'll just die."
You already pay for drinking water, and are probably paying for clean, breathable air (not that you're guaranteed to get it!).
"It's one thing to allow the traditional recording industries to exist, by buying their music on ipod, but its another to give them the right to strip you of ownership"
You have never owned _anything_ except the media that copyrighted materials reside on. When you buy a book, you own the paper it is printed on and the ink used to print it, period. When you buy a DVD or CD, you own the plastic disk. The information they contain is not yours, and never was yours, and the media that you do own tell you this. Furthermore, they tell you that they are _licensed_ for domestic use, and then list a whole bunch of things you cannot do with them. Thus, you can sell the paper and ink or the plastic disk, but only if _any copies made from them by you are destroyed_, once again emphasising the fact that you own the medium, not what is on it; by selling or otherwise passing the medium on to another, you also pass all rights to them, and cannot therefore legally read, view, or listen to any content that they contain.
With stuff bought from the iTunes store, there is no physical medium to own, so you are _only_ buying the right to watch or listen to some content, as has always been the case with content distributed on physical media. And because there is no physical medium that you own, _there is nothing you can legally sell_, because you cannot transfer the license to use content without the media that the content came on when you bought it. The iPod and content situation thus is a lot like the the one that pertains to TV hard-disk recordings of pay-per-view cable and satellite channels: you are allowed to watch that recording, but you cannot sell it to someone else along with the recording device that contains it. The iPod is yours, but what's contained on the iPod isn't, and cannot therefore be sold without the express permission of the copyright holder.
"If they refuse to sit at the table, then Apple and consumers will eventually replace them with companies who do respect the right to sell Ipods on Ebay"
Apple won't as long as Jobs is in charge. He used to own Pixar, and is now Disney's biggest shareholder, so he's running an electronics company with an entrenched media interest, j
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Good point. I wonder what would happen if someone who had the financial means went directly to various government agencies/bodies and demanded to buy some laws just as the corporations do. And they made a big stink about it too. Made sure the media took notice, etc... Would be a great prank really. My ultimate fantasy is to troll the PotUS,Senate and Congress not to mention the Supreme Court. ;P Of course that would probably be counted as some kind of treason or "terra" and I'd get thrown in the slammer in Gitmo like all other "Unamerican" Americans.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The initial statement was:
"It's not your property. You have a license to use it. It's the property of the copyright holder, usually not the artist."
Which clearly shows a complete missunderstanding of what the "property" in case is, what type of ownership is involved and so on. Which is what the replier commented on (and I agree with) and you seemed to have a problem with. There is a difference between the copyright to a work and copies of a work.
The original poster tried to claim that because someone doesn't own the copyright, one does not own the copy, a clear confusion and erronous statement. Believeing that one implies the other. There is no one arguing about copyright in itself, if it is bad or wrong and so on here, so no idea why you spend most of your entire post talking about that.