Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Doesn't Like the "Used Digital Music" Business
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica reports on the developing story between the RIAA and music reseller ReDigi, 'the world's first online marketplace for used digital music,' who first came online with a beta offering on October 11th, 'allowing users to sell "legally acquired digital music files" and buy them from others "at a fraction of the price currently available on iTunes.'' If the notion of selling 'used' digital content is challenged in court, we may finally receive a judicial ruling on the legality of EULAs that will overturn the previous Vernor v. Autodesk decision."
Ever look at the fine print on an old LP? Same thing applies. You have never "owned" the music, you just have a limited playback license tied to the physical object.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Like reselling a physical CD after ripping it...
Actually, ReDigi is quite proud of their "forensic" software which authenticates tracks and rejects ones that are ripped.
From the ARS article:
"ReDigi says that it does this via its "forensic Verification Engine," which the service says analyzes each upload to make sure it is a legally acquired track—songs ripped from CDs are excluded. "
In other words, ReDigi is bending over backwards to satisfy the RIAA, but of course, it's not enough.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
That language is illegal under The Clayton Act of 1914. The Clayton Act was an anti trust act that prevents restrictions on reselling and rentals. Trying to control market of used items with an nda is illegal price fixing.
The fact that you personally don't want to sell it (or trade it) is irrelevant. The fact that other people do want to do that affects the market and ultimately the price.
Also, even if you may not want to sell your games used, you can certainly *buy* your games used. If you want a 10 year old game that's pretty much going to be the only way to get one.
The law doesn't work the way you want it to, I fear.
They can argue that all they want, but a CD, a downloaded MP3, and a book are all identical as far as copyright law is concerned
Wrong. "Phonorecords" are different in copyright. For example, you don't need any special licence to rent out DVDs, but you do for CDs.
and none of those rights concern simply your personal "using" (reading, listening to, watching, etc.) of the material
If you cannot consume the media without a copy of it being made (e.g., in the memory of the player), there's plenty of room for weasels in copyright law.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Transitory "copies" do not violate copyright. There's case law behind that. See here, for a bit of info.
Beyond that, I'd argue that any "copying" necessary to reproduce the work as it is obviously intended to be rendered (i.e. audio and/or video playback) would be "fair use," as the work would be useless otherwise.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law