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?
"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."
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.
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.
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