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."
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.
Not the honor system, but it relies on the idea that a CD is a license to listen to the music. The RIAA should put their whole inventory online, assign them uuid's hashed with the users uuid, and provide a clearing house so that it's the NUMBER on the cd case that entitles you to the music, not the CD itself. it's a thought... closer to reality then stomping out the practice of selling used music is.
Not that I want to help those asshole culture pimps along or anything.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
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'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.
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.
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
You're exchanging a use license. If the original user continues to use the data then they--so the theory goes--would be the violator and subject to litigation. I suspect this company is largely an attempt to test the laws regarding digital property rights. Along the way they probably hope to make some money to pay for the lawyers and with any luck continue the business model having won the recognition that digital and physical property rights may be considered one in the same.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
There's no way to stop a user from retaining a copy of the file without yet *another* level of some nasty DRM
How is this any different from used CDs? There's nothing stopping you from copying the CD and then selling it. In fact, there's nothing stopping you from just downloading the music and skipping the buying step altogether except the idea that you need to own a license to the music, and that license is what they are selling, the file itself is largely irrelevant.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
But how do they determine that I have not kept a copy? That's the crux of this. Who cares if I bought it legally. I still don't have the right to sell it to someone else unless I no longer have a copy. Who can prove this to be true?
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 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.
Except the fair use doctrine allowed for copies to be made. You were allowed to make a tape copy of an LP for your own use (this was challenged by the record companies of course).
Example? I looked at a few LPs on google images but couldn't see what you're talking about.
My God, I'm old.
I am not a crackpot.
I think the RIAA will argue that iTunes, CDs etc are the distribution mechanisms for licensed products. Just because a licensed product exists in physical form doesn't mean that you don't need a license to use it. So sure sell the CD/iTune file but the caveat is that the buyer doesn't have a right to use it since they haven't purchased a license.
yes, it wasn't difficult to copy an LP to tape, if you had an hour to spare. It could only be done in real time - and you still only had one copy. You screw up or if the tape gets munched in your player, you do it again. If you didn't want to listen to 25 minutes of silence on your C90, someone had to be there to flip the record over. And, unless you were one of those folks who played their record once to record it and never again so didn't have to worry about scratches or warps, you had to clean the record first - yes, I still have my Discwasher...
I think the RIAA will argue that iTunes, CDs etc are the distribution mechanisms for licensed products.
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. All are copies of copyrighted content whose ownership has been transferred to the purchaser. The only part of copyright law that concerns licensing is granting rights to material you have copyrighted to another entity (person, business, etc.). For that, I agree that an iTunes sale can also include licenses for things like making limited multiple copies, transcoding to a different format, etc., and those licenses can be explicitly declared as not transferable in the event of a resale of the actual original copy.
Just because a licensed product exists in physical form doesn't mean that you don't need a license to use it.
You have been tricked by the big media companies into believing a lie. Again, there is no license mentioned in copyright law other than the licensing of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Once you have a copy of copyrighted material in your possession, you are free to do with it as you wish, as long as you do not violate any of the exclusive rights listed in copyright law, and none of those rights concern simply your personal "using" (reading, listening to, watching, etc.) of the material.
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]
When dealing with the RIAA, bending over backwards isn't the position you have to assume...
a CD, a downloaded MP3, and a book are all identical as far as copyright law is concerned
Until the RIAA realize they can't get money this way and a new revision to the copyright is suddenly introduced in Congress.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
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.
And a digital file is a copy, even if it's your only one.
A book is a copy, even if it's your only one. Yet none of the anti-digital arguments work against print media. "You can't sell a book because nobody can prove you didn't photocopy the thing in its entirety before selling it." Nobody at the used book store cares, yet music sellers want selling music to be illegal because nobody can *prove* there wasn't a copy made.
Learn to love Alaska
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
To be fair, 118 is relatively close to 150. The song may have been copyrighted in 1935... but it was composed much earlier and children were spontaneously singing it for birthdays, even adding the lyrics "happy birthday to you"
The fact that you can actually copyright a song that is >ALMOST 50 years old, authored by someone else is actually even more apalling
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
Not quite... copyright grants the creator of a work the exclusive right to manufacture copies of it and to perform it in public. Copyright doesn't say anything about using a work. For example, if you buy a book, you don't need permission (license) from the copyright holder to read it, cut up the pages and remix it, lend it to your friends, etc, as long as you don't make any extra copies. The same thing applies to, for example, a music record - the copyright holder has no say over when, how or how often you play the music, or whatever else you wish to do with it, and long as you don't manufacture extra copies or perform it in public.
A shrink-wrap agreement can restrict what you can do with a product, but that has nothing to do with copyright. The shrink-wrap agreement is considered a part of the purchase agreement. It only applies to the purchaser, not to anyone he gifts or lends the product to. Even if the purchaser is required to apply the same terms to anyone she sells or gifts the product to, there's not much the producer can do if she forgets or ignores it. The producer can sue the first user, but the second and subsequent users are still not bound by the purchase agreement.
In the case of software, it's generally assumed that you need a license to use it. It's my understanding that this is because using software creates temporary copies of it in the computer's memory, and you need the copyright holders permission to create these temporary copies. To obtain this permission, you need to agree to a license agreement.
The courts don't seem to agree entirely that the temporary copies in the computer's memory should be considered copies in the context of copyright law, though, so I'm not sure how solid these license agreements are.