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."
Backup copies, you're just trading files with moneys attached. Like reselling a physical CD after ripping it or copying it to tape or whatnot, same as we've done for years really, just quicker and easier. This kind of resale relies heavily on the honor system.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Now the RIAA has flip-flopped by acting as if these digital files are NOT equivalent to physical items...I guess their position will be where the money is, regardless of what's logical or their prior actions.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They've already been trying to do this.
In the PC games market, tying games to Steam - I bought Portal 2, and discovered it required me to install Steam to get the install and get the fucking software to run.
What does this mean? Well, I can make it run. But I can't, when done with it, give the copy (serial and all, uninstalled from my computer) to a family member or friend as a gift.
iTunes does much the same thing. You can't buy something and then send it to someone else, in a "deleted from your account, credited to theirs instead" transaction.
The cartels salivate at killing the used market because they think it means more sales.
I don't see how "used digital music" actually means anything. There's no way to stop a user from retaining a copy of the file without yet *another* level of some nasty DRM. Anyhow, the idea of "used data" is pretty ridiculous. I predict that the RIAA takes this company to court for enabling and encouraging "unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted IP" or some such. The pusher doesn't like it when you find another source...
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Lots of considerations should go into this. What happens when someone passes away, does their mutli-thousand dollar music collection somehow become magically worthless? What about someone going through a divorce or a bankruptcy? Can these be considered assets and taken from one person and granted to another?
The first sale doctrine needs to apply in common sense situations like this. If you buy something, including a license, it is only common sense that you would be able to resell it. That being said if a license is sold the original terms should also be accepted. I'm not advocating simply sharing it, I'm talking about removing it from one place putting it in another.
People would never tolerate the loss of first sale doctrine in any other aspect of their life as it would be absurd. Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?
I wish there were such a thing as used digital goods. If only someone would have thought of a way to make that work...I don't know maybe a major game retailer with their own digital distribution site/application. I don't get what the big deal is. DRM has made enough people sick of buying music, and when they do buy their "license" to the music, they can't do anything with it. People that pirate can do anything they want with their music. Wonder who's winning this fight. My solution to the problem is stop buying music. Listen to the radio, Pandora, iHeartRadio, Tunein, or whatever free service you can find. Don't buy their product and let them wallow in their own misery and try to win us back by providing a product that people actually want in a form they can use it in.
There is no cash income, so it is not SELLing. It is trading
So publishers are allowed to sell copies of CDs, but the people who bought them are not? Besides, I don't think there is much money lost here, people won't sell music they actually like.
Maybe we'll actually get it decided once and for all whether digital goods may be considered equivalent to physical goods. Then again, that'd actually straighten out all manner ambiguity related to digital property rights from ebooks, movies, musics, etc.. Since business must always prevail regardless of merit for that to happen we'd be stuck with a pro-business interpretation. So I suppose that means the judge will either punt or screw us over. God bless our plutocracy!
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I'm sure he'll be standing up to the RIAA any minute now....
gonna be soon.....
he's probably on his way....
just be patient.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Either intellectual property is a physical good that can be legally acquired, owned, and resold as a used item, or it is not, in which case stop fucking calling it theft.
The main issue is that people don't actually own the music they purchase, they own a licence to the music and the licence is flagged non transferrable. That is why I believe the first step is for a country to precisely describe in law what digital property is and also through some means encourage its adoption in a fair and universal fashion.
Not really. I don't think they've been too successful at stopping CD ripping software and hardware (and hell, the whole concept) from being legal.
No. The hint is in the name: copyright, i.e. the (exclusive) right to make copies of a work. The copyright owner has the right to make copies. When you buy a CD, you may get (either implicitly or explicitly, depending on your jurisdiction) the right to make a single backup copy and the right to copy portions of it into the memory of a playback device as required to listen to it, but you don't get the right to make arbitrary copies. Whether you sell the copy or give it away makes no difference. When you buy a track online, a copy is created, but by someone who is authorised by the copyright holder to make copies.
It's going to be an interesting legal case because (practically) every 'move' operation on a computer is really a copy-and-delete-the-original operation, so the idea of selling the original doesn't really make sense because the original was an ephemeral copy in your network stack - the version on your hard disk is a copy of that, the version on your media player or on a backup disk is a copy of the copy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why doesn't anyone challenge all copyrights and patents in court. Heck, why we don't all do this?
We don't need these monopolies.
Digital files aren't rival. If you copy a music file and give it to my, we both have it.
Disobey, download, share, pirate everything. It's getting ridiculous. Why are so many people just brainwashed fucking zombies applauding copyrights and patents, for what? for stomping on everyone's freedoms? for making us believe that sharing is bad?
Fuck them all!
But, bit for bit, isn't it the exact same item? Could 1 mp3 exist in more than 1 spot yet be exactly identical to the original? Who's to say which is the original and which is the copy? There's a sci fi Movie plot in there somewhere...
The problem being that you *can't* really even pretend to 'give away' digital content without DRM. In the event of death, I think you can easily say the previous owner will not likely use their copies again, so inheriting makes sense (though should not count in any way in terms of 'estate tax'). In a divorce, I think practically both get the 'property' (maybe a *smidge* unfair to the music industry, but I doubt this constitutes much 'loss'). For purposes of bankruptcy, I'd say it's fair to call the music library valueless (I've never gone through bankruptcy, but I was under the impression that things on the order of CDs didn't really count anyway except in extraordinary circumstances.
Now, reselling a license without any even vague enforcement, I could see the RIAA getting rightfully worried that they have no hope at all of reselling really being a transfer rather than copy. I can't really imagine a good way of resolving this without DRM. I'd rather have no 'secondary' market than one made possible through DRM,.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I want to know what happens if your collection is stolen? If it's a license, the RIAA should let you get it back. (for a nominal processing fee)
What happens when you tell your wife to give that box of CDs to charity, and she grabs the wrong box? Do you still have rights to that music that was given away by mistake?
Fire? Scratched DVD?
I can borrow a DVD from my public library for free, for 2 weeks. Much better than the Redbox. Should they be able to make a copy of a rare DVD, lend the copy, and if the copy is not returned, lend out another copy?
Copyright law needs a complete overhaul. We the People should find a few persons to go to Washington to present our needs to the Government, especially where they conflict with the needs of the corporations. We could call these persons, "Representatives".
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
"used digital music"
This is beyond newspeak. This is just fucking awesome on so many levels.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?
I'd be quite surprised if Toyota were to do that, since i own a Nissan.
----- "I'm still sane on three planets and two moons."
What happens when someone passes away, does their mutli-thousand dollar music collection somehow become magically worthless?
I always thought that it would be instructive for someone to stand in front of congress, hold up an MP3 player or phone and say, "There are 30,000 songs on this device. The Recording Industry insists that every one of those songs is worth at least a dollar. I have a great deal here for some lucky congressperson today - who wants to buy $30,000 worth of music for just five hunnert dollah?
"Do I have any takers?"
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
That is not my problem. If the business model they have set up is not technically and realistically workable then come up with another model. Part of that new model will ahve to accept that the value of a digitial music license for which I have no transfer rights is then much less than the value of a physical music license which i can transfer via selling the phsyical storage medium.
That is the real crux of this whole issue and one of the many reasons the ??AA like to play both sides of the fence. It prevents them having to address head on the loss of value inherent in a non-transferable license. The same goes for e-books BTW.
I have no trouble with non-transferable licenses, but don't try to charge me the same price for it.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
Spent? Certainly! But used? Never!
I haven't pondered this long enough to form a complete opinion, so I'll hold off on that a little. But what is clear and has been repeated numerous times is that the music and movie industries are late and reluctant to enter the digital age. Their knee-jerk reactions have been to block, restrict and limit all new media. By doing so, they are hurting themselves badly. Worse, they are hurting their customers and any other business that wants to participate in new and emerging markets.
They REALLY need to get their heads out of their asses, learn about and understand what the hell they are selling because at the moment, is seems pretty clear and obvious that they don't even know what they are selling since they can't decide for themselves what "the thing" actually is.
Don't forget just using digital music to reproduce non-digitally
- performing commercial music with a backing track from the original and charging for it
- charging to go on a camping trip, and during that time singing along wearing earbuds some commercial music.
- host a party, acting out in front of a movie screen showing a commercial movie, having charged for tickets to the party.
- paying to place my car in a parking lot, but playing a CD to others. someone records a video of it and sells it, with the audio included
Well, if the seller does not remove his copy and the buyer get's the copy, then the seller is actually pirating music and profiting from it. Secondary market can exist and it is way better then what we have now — a lot of filesharing networks. Allowing people to resell what they rightfully bought will be a step towards the end-users and might actually decrease the numbers of those people who don't buy digital music because there is no way of recouping the cost of buying it in the first place.
I've been waiting for a good name to describe the 3rd party that i've been kicking around, and i kind of like the connotations that the "Representative" party gives.
First, it doesn't suggest anything that differentiates the members from a 'normal' person, or that drives any kind of idealogical wedge between them...you can be a party member without having to toe any party line, because the only line to toe is that you actually, you know, represent.
Second, it strongly implies that the current "representatives" are not.
A+ idea. Someone will be in touch with you shortly to negotiate intellectual property transfer.
It's going to be an interesting legal case because (practically) every 'move' operation on a computer is really a copy-and-delete-the-original operation
So you're saying when I defragment my hard drive, I'm violating copyright for any music file that's partially (or wholly) moved during the defrag? And here I thought I was doing a pretty decent job of playing by the rules.
Just don't leave your MP3 player in the car
I see, so what we need is a "copyright bit" for each byte in memory. For each MOV operation, the copyright bit needs to be checked, then authorized by a copyright server. Performance might take a hit, but it's a small price to pay for making sure our computers are following the law!
Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?
I'd be quite surprised if Toyota were to do that, since i own a Nissan.
However, for the RIAA, that's just business as usual. They're quite happy to charge money for something they don't own.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
from: [ace37]
to: webmaster@google.com
date: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 13:38
subject: Digital media and IP Law
--
Dear Google,
Please buy the RIAA and reinvent digital media in a more sane, fair,
and rational fashion.
Thanks,
John
That doesn't mean the license is not transferable. You can put anything you want in fine print, that doesn't mean it's the law.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?
I'd be quite surprised if Toyota were to do that, since i own a Nissan.
To complete the analogy, Toyota in this case would be the RIAA, or UMG/whatever....can you honestly tell me that you would be surprised about the RIAA demanding a transfer fee on something they had no part of?
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
I hearby transfer all rights physical, digital, and ethereal for the term "The Representative Party", to a group that can get elected as "The Representative Party"
Here's how it would work. A figurehead would be nominated and if elected, would contractually agree to vote the way the People want. Electronic voting would be used to transmit the will of the people to the figurehead. Voting may or may not be secret ballot. (TBD)
Question. Would the "People" be defined as any voter, or just the registered members of the Representative Party? Would regular voting rules apply, or could someone underage register to be a member and be counted, agreeing to vote for the party when of age?
I like it.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I am not sure anyone would take it that far, but believe you me, the RIAA is trying.
So what if it's legal in your country to rip a CD? This is the Internet, legality is a matter of which country you and/or the buyer reside in at that moment, not what country the RIAA or the medium used to do the trade in is based in. Or is it? This is too hairy to give absolute answers on, because there are way too many situations in which exemptions to one or the other jurisdiction will apply.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
The problem being that you *can't* really even pretend to 'give away' digital content without DRM.
I agree. But given that I have already agreed to DRM in many cases (e.g. Steam), allowing resale/lending would at least give me some benefits to offset the costs of DRM.
Can you imagine toyota demanding a transfer fee or the right of first refusal when you want to sell your car?
Microsoft and Cisco do it. That used router you bought? Its firmware was fully licensed, but since it's non-transferable you have to buy it all over again. (And since the router is a brick without firmware, they have you over a barrel on pricing.) I always thought it was unfair that such practices are allowed when they only hurt businesses even though people would scream were they applied to consumer goods.
In Capital vs. Thomas, the verdict was for $2,250 per song. So your 30,000 MP3 player/phone would be worth $30,000 if the songs were legitimate and $67.5 million if they were pirated. That makes the $500 sale price even better. It'd be 99.999% off!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Latest entertainment industry power grab ... ... ...
Slashdot: "Down with the stupid evil corrupt entertainment industry!! Dirty lying evil bastards!!"
They're making a "Dr. Who" feature film
Slashdot: "Oooooh - shiny!!"
[Insert pithy quote here]
Why couldn't we treat music like we do cars. Car ownership doesn't official change until the deed changes hands. Digital content could be sold with a second file that is signed by a digital deed authority. It is also possible that the deed data could be tacked onto the last N bytes of the digital file. The digital content could be played, cut, mixed, or otherwise legally used without DRM. If you want to legally sell your collection, you transfer the deed through a digital deed authority to another user. The digital deed authority could take a few cents to a nickel per digital content in order to cover costs. The best part about this is that if you wanted to get your digital content in another physical format, you already paid for the license and businesses could just charge a conversion cost. For example, if you purchase a game on your computer, why should you have to pay the full retail cost to get it on the Xbox 360 when you already paid for a vast majority of the cost. I would much rather pay $5.00 to get my game on a different platform than $60.00.
Alex? Can I get "NO SHIT!" for a thousand?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Part of the reason you might not look at a used computer game or digital music/films and I think "I should sell that" may in fact be because there's no widely functioning marketplace in which to sell the items. You want to sell some used physical stuff, you put it on your lawn and have a yard sale, or use Craigslist or eBay. I've sold old computer parts for $5 and $10 on Craigslist... You want to sell used digital stuff, and unless you have an attached physical copy, there is no easy, widely-accepted, and clearly legal way to do so.
Another thing to consider is that not everyone is selling games. For physical books, I almost always buy used if I can - prices are significantly cheaper, especially for expensive academic texts (but also sometimes for mass market paperback - Amazon usually has a copy for $5 including shipping, and a new copy may be $10). As publishers push digital texts and the prices for academic texts stay high, I am sure people will wish they had a way to resell that $150 econometrics text.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
The copyright owner has the right to make copies.
This is correct, but it's about the last place you are.
When you buy a CD, you may get (either implicitly or explicitly, depending on your jurisdiction) the right to make a single backup copy and the right to copy portions of it into the memory of a playback device as required to listen to it, but you don't get the right to make arbitrary copies.
First, I'm speaking about the US unless otherwise stated, as I know that law best.
That said, there is nothing in copyright law that says you are allowed to make backup copies of audio recordings...only software has this right. But, you do have the right to make as many copies as you want of any copyrighted material as long as you don't distribute them. So, like you could make 1000 copies of the latest Harry Potter book and store them in your basement, you can also make as many copies of a song or video as you want, as long as there is no distribution of those copies (this is not true in the UK, where format-shifting is not legal). These copies are not "backups" in the legal sense. A backup for software can be used as a replacement for the original media if the original media is destroyed, but if you lose possession (either through destruction or transfer) of the original of a book or CD, technically you have to destroy all the copies. For software backup, you only have to destroy it if you transfer possession of the original copy to another entity.
Second, most of the "copies" you speak of (on the network, in the player memory) are not copies according to copyright law. Copies must be "fixed in a medium". For downloaded songs, it's pretty easy to see that the medium is the original destination hard drive, but it really doesn't matter, as all of these are "private", anyway.
So, you can make arbitrary copies of a song purchased from ITMS...you just can't distribute them. Now, ITMS does offer an extra feature of helping you make some of those copies, but they limit that help to 4 other devices under your control. Just because they chose the arbitrary limit of 4 copies beyond the original does not mean that has any force in copyright law..
Why don't they just offer to take 10% of the transaction value whenever the media changes hands? If it's going to happen anyway, the choice between making a profit from it and not making a profit from it should be pretty obvious.
It'd be 99.999% off!
I'll make you a special deal!
(promise you won't tell the RIAA)
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
"(I laugh at anyone who pays money for digital music.)"
What the fuck is the difference between paying for digital music or paying for cable or paying for a concert ticket?
They are all paying for entertainment in some form and if you actually had the guts to laugh to people's face, I can promise you that someone less forgiving than myself would laugh as they punched you in your face.
They have a workable business model in which they do not allow you to resell your music. You are trying to get them to come up with a business model that suits your purposes and asking them to find ways to cater to your whims. You are the one who needs to come up with a workable business model. As far as we can see, allowing people to resell music violates copyright, because you do not have the right to create new copies to sell. Reselling digital music necessarily involves creating new copies of the media. So you need to first find a way around that for your business model to begin to be workable.
I'm pretty sure that was already covered by RFC 3514.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That wasn't the value for the music, that was the lost sales due to uploading. Physically stealing something, you have to pay restitution for not buying it. Uploading, you have to pay restitution for everyone else for not buying it.
The original example would probably draw questions such as, how did you acquire $30,000 worth of music legally? If you ripped it from CDs then it's not yours to sell, without supplying the original discs. If you downloaded them individually and paid 0.99 per track, then you spent about $30,000 and I would like the IRS to check where you got that money from.
There does appear to be some moves on the law in the uk and ireland (don't know about malta the other country where format shifting is not legal yet).
for an Irish view point and also a European view this page might be informative on the subject.
Least it seems that the Hargreaves Report created for the UK may well be used as the basis of Irish legislation.
http://www.lindascales.com/category/copyright/
while fairly dry it is still just about readable and shouldn't induce sleep within the first paragraph.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I've actually talked to a copyright lawyer who said with a straight face that every router between me and someone I send a copyright-laden file to is guilty of violating the "mechanical copyright" of the rights owner. The settled case law on the matter revolves around radio stations making mix tapes in preparation for broadcast; the stations pay for a license to do so, and the idea of a transient mechanical copy needed for replay is held to be identical to the copying of a .mp3 file into memory as part of replay on a computer. The RIAA has decided that they're not going to try to prosecute any listener for the copy made in RAM or on the processor, although those are violations by the letter of the law as well.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
First I don't have to do anything, I'm the customer. In fact I can choose to do nothing, like not pay money for content. In my case I have not spent money on a quantized product (downloadable music or CDs) for so long I can't even remember. I do make fairly prodigious use of other business models like those provided by radio and Pandora. To top it off I haven't even pirated music in probably 5 years.
Second, I absolutely have the right to sell something which I have purchased (first sale doctrine) AND I am presumed innocent until proven guilty. So what does that mean?
It means I have the right to sell my license regardless of the format it is delivered in (electrons or physical)
It means I am presumed innocent of copyright infringement (i.e. not deleting my copy) until proven otherwise.
If they want to sell a license that is not resellable then they better start pricing it accordingly. Otherwise people will just obtain it for free elsewhere and DRM won't do a damn thing to stop it.
Finally, coming full circle, they better cater to my purposes and whims if they want my money. Neither artists nor the industry has an inherent right to my money and if they have forgotten that they do it at their peril. I don't need to find a way around anything, they do.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
And yet, people do accept that they have to pay a transfer fee when they sell their home: This happens all the time with home owner associations.
That's easily avoidable. I've been a member of two homeowner associations in my life (one a condo association) and the issues there is that you are buying a service. Much like if you bought a car with XM radio, and the subscription went with the "owner" not the "driver" such that the seller kept his account, and you had to pay a new "install fee" for an account setup when you already have a functioning device in your possession. That's just how it works, and if you don't like it, don't buy a house with an association. They are usually in bad neighborhoods anyway, with neighbors who actually care what the color of your front door is. And the Homeowner association dues are rarely (if ever) paid to the creator (though the newer ones may require the management company be associated with the builder for some period of time).
Learn to love Alaska
It is an interesting topic. I was thinking about this distinction between reselling physical and non-physical media, but I realised that it was significantly flawed. The same problems exist with a CD. You can easily copy a CD to your hard drive and sell it afterwards, like how you can copy non-physical copies before selling one of them. Either way, it comes down to trust that the seller is legitimate. The only real difference is in the ease of dispossessing yourself of the copy.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The contract is called a "purchase" by the store. I agreed to no license prior to that "purchase". That the maker redefines the purchase after it's done doesn't affect me. I don't agree. I click "yes" as part of the install process and that is no more legally binding that clicking "next". It's a condition of use applied after the purchase, much like Ford stealing the tires off your car after purchase and demanding another $10000 before they let you drive it.
Learn to love Alaska
Their "workable business model" relies upon violation of the first sale doctrine. Now how workable is it?
Social Credit would solve everything...
First, I'm speaking about the US unless otherwise stated, as I know that law best.
[...] you do have the right to make as many copies as you want of any copyrighted material as long as you don't distribute them.
Interesting, do you have any good reference for this? I often find myself in discussions about American copyright law, and it would be nice to have definite proof.
In my country (Sweden), you may only create a limited number of copies of music or films for private use, and only if you copy from a licensed copy. But the law also allows the creation of "temporary versions of copies of a work" if they're "an integrated and vital part of a technical process, and if the copies are transient or have a subordinate role in the process." This allows you to run computer programs, store websites in your browser's cache, store IP packets in a router, etc, without needing licenses from the copyright holders.
Plot: When the captain of the Enterprise beams aboard carrying a holocrystal with the very last copy of his favourite opera, a malfunction occurs and TWO versions of the holocrystal appear on the ship: one missing the beginning, and one missing the end. When the captain tries to reconstruct the opera on a third holocrystal, he's stopped by the ship's lawyer, who explains that this would create a new copy and violate copyright law. Now the captain is in a race against time: Will he find a way to reconstruct his beloved opera before the Federation lawyers forces him to destroy one of the imperfect duplicates?
The first sale doctrine needs to apply in common sense situations like this. If you buy something, including a license, it is only common sense that you would be able to resell it.
Or we make it even simpler and legalise copying for private use. Then online music stores will simply sell a download service for the user's convenience, and what the user does with the copy they obtained is up to them.
Copyright law needs a complete overhaul. We the People should find a few persons to go to Washington to present our needs to the Government, especially where they conflict with the needs of the corporations. We could call these persons, "Representatives".
An excellent idea. I just hope these "Representatives", as you call them, don't forget who elected them, and become errand boys for the corporations in exchange for economic favours.
THIS is exactly what they want. If you ask the RIAA, they will COME IN THEIR PANTS.
Fixed that for ya'.
(I laugh at anyone who pays money for digital music.)
I agree. You should only pay for the convenience of downloading it. If the music store can't provide convenient downloads, there's always Pirate Bay.
Musicians can still earn money even if people pirate their music. In fact, a lot of musicians have realised it's better if they offer their music as a free download, and earn their money on merchandise and concerts.
TV companies have been able to earn money by giving away their programmes for free for half a century, using advertising.
The RIAA doesn't like the music industry in general.
Copyrighted works are a special case. That is why there is a copyright law.
You are guilty of copyright infringement if you create copies to sell without the permission of the copyright owner. So, unless your digital download comes with an agreement allowing you to do so from the copyright holder, or their representative, you cannot create copies to sell, even if you would then immediately delete all copies you previously had.
The copyright infringement does not occur because you fail to delete your copy. The copyright infringement happens when you create a copy to distribute without the permission of the policyholder. The fact that you only want to sell one copy is irrelevant.
Cisco was one of the first things I thought of when I read the blurb. I'd love to see it go through and be brought up as a challenge against them. I suspect that's one of the reasons you don't see Cisco chasing down folks who bought used gear and didn't ante up for the inspection and SmartNet - it's a legally murky area right now, and the Head Lawyer In Charge over at Cisco didn't really want to be the first to see how it would pan out. Better to keep the companies with that fairly certain revenue than to open the door to those "good enough" couple of year old units.
Copyright law a bit tortured here. In the case where copyright material came on a physical good, it worked fine as the container was meaningfully transferable. In a case where the material *never* comes as a good, it's a non-trivial problem to ascertain what is fair. We can't pretend the CD (rather than the music) was the thing of intrinsic value when sold to a used music store, but then on the other hand we say the music cannot retain value without being on an 'original' CD.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
There's nothing new here, the RIAA doesn't like any used music sales, even the sale of used and out of print music because they don't get a cut.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Interesting, do you have any good reference for this?
All US copyright law is under section 17 of the United States Code (USC), and is available online.
Chapter 1 of 17 USC is pretty clear that private copying isn't covered, since it fits the definition of "fair use".
But the law also allows the creation of "temporary versions of copies of a work"
There are similar references to "ephemeral copies" in US law, but it has never been updated to take into account things like computers and the Internet.
Chapter 1 of 17 USC is pretty clear that private copying isn't covered, since it fits the definition of "fair use".
How do you mean? Fair use only covers "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".
If private copying was fair use, wouldn't it be legal to download anything off the Internet?