Slashdot Mirror
Two US States Restrict Used CD Sales
DrBenway sends us to Ars Technica for a report that Florida and Utah have placed draconian restrictions on the sale of used music CDs; Wisconsin and Rhode Island may soon follow suit. In Florida, stores have to hold on to CDs for 30 days before they can sell them — for store credit only, not cash. Quoting: "No, you won't spend any time in jail, but you'll certainly feel like a criminal once the local record shop makes copies of all of your identifying information and even collects your fingerprints. Such is the state of affairs in Florida, which now has the dubious distinction of being so anal about the sale of used music CDs that record shops there are starting to get out of the business of dealing with used content because they don't want to pay a $10,000 bond for the 'right' to treat their customers like criminals."
I moved to Florida roughly 10 months ago. This is the first I have ever heard of this. I've been googling around trying to find a reference to this in any type of local news media and I can't. Nothing so far. Maybe I'm missing it, but it seems like something of this magnitude would garner some attention.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Why does it figure that one of the dumbest laws I've heard of in a long time would start there?
Florida, well... I don't even need to describe the dumb things that go on down there.
Utah? They're best known for things like the "Clean Port 80" act (all internet porn should go on one port!), crazy anti-tech laws, "Yarro's Law" apparently passed at SCO's behest, and SCO, where we have Brent Hatch behind some of the crazy laws, not to mention their senator Orin Hatch and his crazy ideas.
Now, there are lots of nice folks in both states, of course, but any state that allows SCO folk to help write laws, well, I have to think they're positively Utarded.
"The legislation is supposed to stop the sale of counterfeit and/or stolen music CDs"
This is clearly irrelevant, since they should then apply this to the sale of _any_ second-hand goods - any of which _might_ be stolen or counterfeit.
Even if they did that, what is the point of "in-store credit"? Will they then stipulate that said credit can _only_ be used for the purchase of _new_ media, rather than other second-hand media?
Gosh, I'm glad I only live in a US colony (Australia) instead of mainland US! It seems the RIAA-pists won't be happy until there's an income tax component for "expected music/media consumption."
is telling. I think this affects me - while I don't often buy used CDs (sorry - my desires are too damn eclectic to be satisfied locally), I want the option. Does it affect others here, or are we all buying them off ebay, buying the tracks off iTunes, or simply downloading them?
Is this the RIAA trying to curb rights? Is this Garth's revenge? Or is it something less? And, anybody know where in Florida the police were investigating? Is there any way to have this looked at by the media? I think most people would care if the local news did a nice little piece about how their hard-earned tax dollars were being spent making sure Johnny couldn't buy a used CD, rather than #insert EVERYBODYPANIC.h
Ars, thanks for bringing this up.
(and hey, someone else comment - I can't believe that so few people care)
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Quote from the attorney who was trying to fight the legislation, during the final court session he said, "That's the stupidest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft." The courtroom fell silent, even the judge was speechless.
TLF
P.S. Yes it's overdone but... fuck, I have nothing else to say to this than Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
this move is in part related to drug use.
I worked in retail management with a focus on loss prevention. The connection between hard-core drug addicts and reselling stolen multimedia was insane.
90% of the chronic offenders we prosecuted cited drug money as their motivation and the resellers in New England, my market, were often little more than enablers. One employee of a major reseller in the area told me 'off the record' that a guy we had busted recently came in several times a day for several MONTHS with DVD box-sets still shrink wrapped and stickered from one of our stores. When I asked why they didn't call us he just shrugged.
These new regulations are short-sighted and egregious, but it is possible the RIAA is not solely to blame. The war on drugs is still going on and from what I saw, shoplifting multimedia is a habit of choice for drug offenders.
Some numbers:
It was not unusual to see multimedia loss numbers from a single location at my former company top $100k for a single year. New box set titles @ the time I was doing this resold between 40-60 cents on the dollar within the first two weeks of release. So a single box-store multimedia outlet could have been subsidizing local criminals with an average of +/- $50k/year.
I don't like the new laws, but the RIAA is most likely not solely to blame.
In fact, this could be exactly what we need. This is clearly such a ludicrous measure that if it goes into law everywhere, the apathy-riddled consumer might actually sit up and notice. When average Jimbo down the street gets hit with fees and taxes and fingerprints and anal probes while trying to sell his old stash of CDs, there should at least be a little more awareness about what the RIAA f**kheads are trying to do. Hopefully, that will lead to consumer action and eventually enough agitation to overturn this measure and also place some iron clamps on what the RIAA can and cannot do.
In other words, the more ludicrous the little battles are, the better chance we have of winning the war. Now the lawyers here can strike me down.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
If the record companies really want to play this game, then I say let them. If, when i purchase a cd or DVD, I am only actually buying a license to view/listen to the content contained on it, not the actual disk itself (the media companies could argue that the media is free, and that they are retaining ownership of it, you are buying a license), then so be it. However, now that I own the license to use this particular arrangement of 1s and 0s, it is my right as a licensee to obtain it in any form that i see fit. I can fire up my favorite NNTP reader and download it. I can keep a copy of it on my ipod, on my work computer, on my friends computer, on my mt-daap server, in my car etc. Also, if at any point i decide that i don't want it any more, i can return the leased media storage device to the copyright holder, and have my license to use it revoked. For a full refund that is. It will become part of the cost of their business to provide us with the CDs/DVDs/Blue Ray Disks/Tapes/Mp3s/whateverthehellthemarketdemands.
k?
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
I am a libertarian socialist myself. I am completely unrepresented.
Yes, it's called a "library"; in fact, this is where I got 90% of my music collection, from borrowed CDs that I ripped.
That's why pawn shops take your name and your address (and your prints in some places) and have a list of serial numbers for when the cops come by - for that exact reason.
I'm not advocating the Florida law here, I think it's retarded, but I'm pointing out that there are already many restrictions on the sale of easily ripped-off used goods.
The levy on iPods was rescinded. And it was after CD's.....
But no matter. Many years ago my album and cassette collection was stolen. I tracked down the pawn shop they were sold to. Pawn Shops were I lived were required to hold items for 30 days before selling them - and to take ID. This led to the person who stole them being convicted.
I never got my albums or cassettes back though. The pawn shop claimed that I had no evidence that the ones they bought were mine and I, of course, not having individually labeled each item had no proof they were.
Don't really care either way. Everything's getting ripped and stuffed on a thumbdrive. So it's either draconian DRM that makes everyone a criminal or it's a new business model for the record companies. End of story. You can argue the merits of it either way. I don't care, the CD is nearly done and there's nothing the state of Florida or the RIAA can do about it.
I haven't bought a CD in four years, and I'm older than God. If I'm not buying them, I can't imagine who is. Actually the last one that came into the house was a DVD from my son, given as a birthday gift in November '05, and I wanted every single track that was on it plus the extras. It was a special exception. The only CD's I can envision buying now would be classical or rare, old jazz--but with the arrival on the scene of new turntables, the vinyl may yet emerge from the cellar.
My first question, anyway, is this: What is the difference between secondhand CD's and secondhand books? Should we be looking forward to having our reading controlled in the same way they want to control our music selections? Is it time to spend a paycheck at Thriftbooks just in case?
My second question is more technical: What does one need to know to intelligently purchase an "analog" tunes system these days? (I assume that would be turntable and some associated accoutrements. In the dark ages it would've involved pre-amps, amplifiers, speakers, etc.) If you have one, are there suggestions or references for ripping tracks off that treasured old vinyl to be played on something more portable like an ipod?
Taking the long view, this is just a symptom of how desperate the music mafia has become. It's another nail in their coffin. I'm not surprised that Utah is one of the states. You can apparently gull their legislature into enacting just about anything by playing on their paranoia.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
I used to manage a GameStop here in Florida, and there were certainly restrictions on used media, but it wasn't quite as obnoxious as the article made it sound--but it was still obnoxious.
We didn't give cash because of the extra hoops we would have to jump through. It was only if we gave cash that we would be required to go through some of the more painful steps, such as holding the items for 30 days. Giving store credit, we only had to record the name, address, and driver's license number... no fingerprints (I don't recall a fingerprint requirement at all... maybe the author was conflating the two states' laws).
And it was definitely a problem. We had guys who would come in with books of game DVDs from Blockbuster within a couple of days of their release. We couldn't do anything about it, though, because Blockbuster does sell games and we had no basis for accusing them beyond intuition. I'm not sure if it warrants that degree of meddling by the government, but they weren't inventing the problem.
I buy CDs, rip, and sell them again. I would personally rather do this than download, because downloading can be a pita sometimes. Especially for finding certain rare things. Of course, they definitely don't want me selling things again either, because they don't get a dime from that. When online vendors like amazon marketplace stop allowing resell, that is when I stop buying music all together.
As someone who worked in Florida local media (WTSP-TV in St. Pete), I can tell you that Florida media completely ignores stories of magnitude and focuses on the retarded, weird shit.
Have you heard about how Fox News WTVT (Ch 13) tried to squash news about the health risks Monsanto's BGH, bovine growth hormone, has? A husband and wife team of reporters spent months talking to ranchers, healthcare workers, and scientists about BGH. They were about to air the report when Monsanto called Fox and wanted to review and approve the story first. Seeing as how Monsanto's a big advertizer they got their way. But the reporters refused to let the company edit it so they were fired. Taking the firing to court they sued Fox and eventually won.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While it's not something I've been able to do with many artists, I've enjoyed physically handing money to bands that I liked. Saw Lesbians on Ecstasy last year at a bar/club on my university campus. I hadn't heard of them before, so I grabbed a bunch of mp3s from their debut CD off of IRC or eMule or such. They had an interesting sound in some of their songs so I figured I'd go check 'em out live. I REALLY enjoyed them a lot that way, and have very fond memories of the night. Went up to one of them after the show(they were selling CDs and other merch) and gave 'em some cash in gratitude for a really fun night of dancing, and for their mp3s.
Some of the bands I've been exposed to via mp3s don't exactly tour on this side of the pond, but for cases where it's feasible just handing over cash to an artist, and saying thanks works. You know they got all $X.00 dollars of it, and they also get some positive feedback.
If the brick and mortar establishments weren't an improvement in some regard over online selling (even if that improvement is simply consumer awareness), then they wouldn't be in business. So the answer is nothing, but that doesn't mean that the law doesn't still make the world (well... Florida and Utah at least) a worse place to live. Thanks again legislators!
Relax I just want some peanuts.
A couple of years ago my ex-spouse took my son's key and stole about 200 of my CD's. I was very lucky to find the store where they were sold to. They don't often get over a hundred punk and riot grrrl cd's with alot of artists from the Kill Rock Stars label. They stood out like a sore thumb and they photocopy ID's of everyone who sells them discs. I went down to the store, picked through the racks of what was mine although a significant portion were already sold. They were held for the police and were returned when the detective finished his investigation. About a year after the theft, my stupid ex spouse was arrested and ultimately plead guilty. Had to pay restitution and was placed on probation and freeway garbage detail.
In my town, we used to have a bookshop that rented audio CDs. They also rented videos which was really the main thing they rented. CDs were kind of a small sideline.
The store was owned, operated by and catered to a particular "ethnic" group. Nobody else ever shopped there. Ever. CD rental is totally common and legal back in the home country, which is where all the CDs and videos originated (and the books too but they didn't rent those). The record industry back home supported rentals and had no problems with it. It was a common way of doing business. While this store was in the US, it didn't sell or rent _anything_ made by US companies. Nothing from RIAA or MPAA. Hell, nothing in the store was even in the English language. Very very ethnic.
Renting CDs may sound nuts but this was back in the days before ripping tools, before MP3, before there were CD burners, so you couldn't exactly DO anything but listen to a CD or make a tape out of it. Lord knows I tried but there were no options.
Someone reported them -suspicion is a Muzak rep doing one of their "store inspections" was behind it -and the CD rentals went away. Apparently CD rental is illegal in the US? Not sure. If that is the case, then how are video games (a CD format) and DVD rentals legal?
So who was hurt when they stopped renting CDs? Only the customers because they lost access to the music from back home. The RIAA gained nothing because it wasn't their music anyway. These people don't understand or care about English-language music. They just wanted the music from home.
Eventually the store dried up and blew away. Rather sad really.
There's a store in Missoula, Montana that has quite a different view of the used CD business: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/10/31/ente rtainer/ent02.txt