ReDigi Defends Used Digital Music Market

Redigi? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 06:44 · Score: 0

Heh, for a second there, I thought they were talking about Redigit.

You know, for this to have marginally more support by gcnaddict · 2012-01-27 06:44 · Score: 1

it might be best to couple the modifications currently being done with a recompression of the mp3 itself.

It's like real life! No one's going to want an mp3 that's changed 20 hands at that point.

--
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/

Man that sounds like a lot of effort by Osgeld · 2012-01-27 06:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

For some bullshit I doubt anyone wants, seriously you can buy the best the world has to offer for 99 cents a track, what kind of horseshit DRM system to I have to infect windows with and dance around just to save what? 25 fucking cents in the end?

Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-01-27 06:56 · Score: 2

Just a couple of years ago lots of people were happy to infect their windows with all kinds of horseshit DRM systems in order to buy music for 99 cents.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 06:58 · Score: 0

You don't get it do you? What they are doing is arguing that they have a system in place for the exchange of second use sound files. The source of the files is not in question, just that they can sell, at a lower price, an exact and perfect dupe of the original.
This changes the entire game, why would you buy a $.99 copy (which is what you are buying) when you could buy a $.74 copy. Why would you buy a $.74 copy when I could sell you one for $.001? It would cost me next to nothing to serve it out to you and if they win this suit then there is no real need to provide bulletproof DRM.
BTW: My DRM system, (I call it Dummy Rights Management) works just as well for my customers. I sell you an unencrypted mp3 and you have the right to play it all you want on any device at any time and place, even in a friend's computer or player. That way I have protected my rights, i'm the dummy. For the price that I sell stuff, everyone wants to buy from me of course, and all that matters is that I have a fast lookup and download service.
I can sell 1,000,000 copies a week, a month or a day and still make buckets of money.
Oh yes, IF they win then the dam breaks, finally.
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by AmiMoJo · 2012-01-27 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The issue is the first sale right, the idea that something downloaded is still your property and you can do with it as you wish. It is very important that these guys win.
Besides, clearly there is a market for used MP3s and for that matter used CDs, even if they only fetch pennies. Particularly for teenagers without real jobs or people who are simply poor that kind of money actually matters to them.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by MrKevvy · 2012-01-27 07:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

You answered your own question: 99 cents a track. For what they're paying the artists, plus distribution costs, 10 cents a track would be fair. But they're still charging the same for a bunch of bits from a server that costs a fraction of a cent to deliver as they did when that music was pressed onto a big vinyl disc by a multi-ton press, packaged with a printed cardboard sleeve and trucked to the store.
And the artist still gets 5% of it if they're lucky.

--
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by tgd · 2012-01-27 07:48 · Score: 1

For some bullshit I doubt anyone wants, seriously you can buy the best the world has to offer for 99 cents a track, what kind of horseshit DRM system to I have to infect windows with and dance around just to save what? 25 fucking cents in the end?
Or go to a used CD store and buy the CD. You might pay 25 cents a song.
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 07:50 · Score: 0

99 cents is way too much. I have thousands of music tracks. They sure as hell aren't worth thousands of dollars.
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by Szechuan+Vanilla · 2012-01-27 08:07 · Score: 2

>They sure as hell aren't worth thousands of dollars.
Spoken like someone who has not crawled on their hands and knees for years to master a musical instrument (or voice) and create a unique sound...
Don't punish the artists because the music industry is stupid, hidebound, and greedy: give the artists their due, for Gods' sake!

--
This space intentionally left blank.
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-01-27 08:16 · Score: 3

The issue is the first sale right, the idea that something downloaded is still your property and you can do with it as you wish. It is very important that these guys win.
Yes it is.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-27 09:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

With all due respect, you're kind of thinking about this backwards.
Suppose a group of 100,000,000 people each have on average $500/year to spend on music. If tracks each cost $1, they each get 500 tracks and a collection of, say, 500,000 artists each gets on average $100,000.
Now suppose each track costs $0.10. Each buyer still has the same amount of money to spend, so now they can each buy on average 5000 tracks from the same 500,000 artists and each artist still makes on average the same $100,000.
Changing the price doesn't change the amount of disposable income people have, but it sure as heck changes the number of songs they can buy. And more volume means better network effects and more efficient markets (i.e. each artist gets heard by more customers, and so the ones with the best sound are the ones whose concerts get sold out, rather than the ones with the best marketing).
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by Rinikusu · 2012-01-28 05:48 · Score: 1

Not really. Having worked in the digital music industry for the past 6 years, I can assure you "500,00" artists are not making $100,000 each. Even with the giganticness of the digital library with artists from every genre, etc, the sales of tracks still follow closely with the Billboard top 100, with very, very few rare exceptions. So it's more like 1-2% of artists make 90% of the revenues (and profits), and the other 98% scrabble for the last 10%. The only company that seems to be doing something different, genuinely, is beatport and the majority of their sales, while diffrent from the mainstream, still concentrate amongst a "handful" of artists/producers and the great majority go generally ignored.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:Man that sounds like a lot of effort by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-28 06:09 · Score: 1

I didn't say that every artist made $100,000. I took that as the average. You can get that average by having everyone make $100,000, or by having 1% of artists make $10,000,000 and the rest make nothing. It doesn't really change the point. I also have no idea how close $100,000 is to the actual average, but that also doesn't matter to the point -- it's just a placeholder number so that you can see that the average artist makes the same amount of money when the average consumer spends the same amount of money, no matter what the price per song is, as long as consumers spend their music budget to buy as many songs as they can afford at the set price.
In addition to that, look what happens if you lower the price: If the price is low enough, you can't have a situation where there are only a few artists who each make millions, because there comes a point at which everybody has all the songs from the most popular artists and yet still has money left over. That money can then go to the less popular artists. By contrast, if the price is higher, consumers having bought the most popular songs have nothing left over for the little guys and so the little guys make nothing as happens now.

If the file has a real value by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 06:46 · Score: 0

Then what gives them the right to tell us we can't resell it?

And if it doesn't have a real value, why should we pay for it?

Re:If the file has a real value by 0123456 · 2012-01-27 06:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Then what gives them the right to tell us we can't resell it?"
The government does.
Re:If the file has a real value by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 07:11 · Score: 0

Not if they want to keep their jobs...
I can't think of too many things that I'm legally allowed to buy, but not sell. Prescription drugs is one category, but those are potentially lethal. Even gun sales are only restricted, but not illegal outright.
How can the courts can say someone has to pay thousands for an illegal song download, but if they buy the EXACT same item legally, they can't decide later they no longer want it and resell it.
When does what I own become mine?
Re:If the file has a real value by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 07:34 · Score: 0

We, the people...
Re:If the file has a real value by garyoa1 · 2012-01-27 09:46 · Score: 1

Become the buyers? Never, thanx to the record/film industry lawyers and lobbyists who've stuffed congressmens pockets with big bucks for years.

--
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com

Right... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-27 06:54 · Score: 1

Or people will just download their music, legally or illegally, from the most convenient source available to them.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Right... by cdrguru · 2012-01-27 07:18 · Score: 0

Really, I was under the impression that legal music sales on the Internet accounted for maybe 3% of total music downloads. Now I don't know where that figure comes from and I would think it would be a very slippery number to come by - after all, there is no real tracking and nobody is volunteering that they downloaded 1000 songs last month. However, it does sort of put iTunes propaganda in perspective. iTunes is irrelevent for music sales, is pretty much what it means even if the numbers are pretty far off.
Amazon is a joke and the rest of music sales isn't even worth a snicker.
However, once you get someone who believes they can build a business on top of something where we have proven over and over through the years that downloadable music has ZERO value, you better believe they are going to defend their right to make ZERO dollars over their new-found business model.
OK, for the rest of us living in the real world, this is irrelevant.

Issues such as fair use & first sale by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-01-27 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since 2005 people have been asking me all kinds of questions about what you can do with your digital music after purchasing it. Now along comes a case where I'm actually litigating, and the court will be deciding, those types of issues, and the comments seem to be all off topic. Oh well.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 07:15 · Score: 0

This defense doesn't have a chance. The courts view protecting IP rights in the long term interests of the US economy and aren't going to allow any exception. They will probably roll back existing case law as well.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by JustNilt · 2012-01-27 07:27 · Score: 2

Thanks for posting regarding this story, Mr. Beckerman. I've followed such stories with great interest since a friend of mine had a ridiculous situation where he licensed a movie for showing in his venue then received a C&D the date of the showing. Please be aware that some of us truly appreciate the work you do and your communication with us here.

--
You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by cdrguru · 2012-01-27 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

I would offer that the answer in well over 90% of the cases is that your digital music is worth exactly what you paid for it. Nothing.
Now, in the small fraction of cases where someone has spent $10,000 filling up their iPod and is wondering how to (a) insure this against loss and (b) if this can be considered a valuable asset which is appreciating in value I think the answers to most of the world are pretty clear: no and heck no.
Apple built a very successful business out of selling digital music players that could potentially cost tens of thousands of dollars to use if people were paying for digital music downloads. The number of people that could afford to do this is very small - but instead of being a rich person's toy the iPod has become a major facet of popular culture.
If people were really spending $1 per song (and they aren't), these would be important questions. However, what we have created is an environment where a huge percentage of the population is (a) using digital music and (b) downloading it for free in spite of laws and successful lawsuits. It isn't right, it isn't good but it is currently a fact of life. The legal sales of digital music occupies such a small piece of the pie of digital music downloads that it is nearly irrelevant. And so we have someone that believes they can build a business on the back of this. Unlikely. And sounds like it is going to require considerable litigation to even see light of day.
I think the question of reselling digital music is absurd in the face of reality. It would take someone deeply convinced that people are buying digital music and spending tens of thousands of dollars on it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Quite an ability to delude themselves it what it would take. It probably says something about a lawyer willing to take on such a client as well.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-27 07:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here's some questions the court or legislators should decide:

My parent/sibling/spouse has died and left me $20,000 worth of music I don't listen to. Can I sell it? (or should digital music evaporate when the "owner" dies)

I had a large collection of physical CDs stolen. Can I listen to my backups? Can I sell the backups when I'm done with the music? (or will the record companies help me get my collection back?)

I want to buy an digital copy of a song from a new website. How do I know it's legit?

I'm not really interested in what the answers might be today, as much as I'd like to know what the answers should be. Is it even possible to have strong protections for artists without the occasional incidence of stormtroopers kicking down grandma's door?

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 07:41 · Score: 0

This case poses a very interesting legal question for copyright holders -- what is fair use of digital media?
From a pragmatic view, it's all just binary and purchasing the rights to one DRM system should include the rights to others. It's beyond unfair that if i have 4 different devices they all have to use the same DRM system, or i can't play my purchased media on all of them.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-27 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

think the question of reselling digital music is absurd in the face of reality. It would take someone deeply convinced that people are buying digital music and spending tens of thousands of dollars on it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Quite an ability to delude themselves it what it would take. It probably says something about a lawyer willing to take on such a client as well.
It's not the government's job to prop up a dying business model. Aluminum used to be very expensive, even more so than silver. The top of the Washington monument is aluminum, at the time a precious metal. Should government have stepped in to guard the value of someone's aluminum store, when the Hall–Héroult process made it almost worthless?

The cost and value of creative works is being adjusted due to the Internet and cheap storage. Some businesses will thrive, and others die off.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-01-27 08:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Thanks for posting regarding this story, Mr. Beckerman. I've followed such stories with great interest since a friend of mine had a ridiculous situation where he licensed a movie for showing in his venue then received a C&D the date of the showing. Please be aware that some of us truly appreciate the work you do and your communication with us here.
Thank you. The support of the Slashdot community means a great deal to me. We are living in an interesting time, where 10 large, politically connected corporations -- 4 record companies and 6 motion picture companies -- are on a rampage to save their dying business models and to deflect blame from their management for allowing their businesses to die. Instead of investing in the future, and building better technology, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on nonsensical litigation. Very sad. I look forward to the day when they have been beaten back.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-01-27 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not the government's job to prop up a dying business model. Aluminum used to be very expensive, even more so than silver. The top of the Washington monument is aluminum, at the time a precious metal. Should government have stepped in to guard the value of someone's aluminum store, when the Hallâ"HÃ©roult process made it almost worthless? The cost and value of creative works is being adjusted due to the Internet and cheap storage. Some businesses will thrive, and others die off.
And I can think of a record company that is dying off, but not before it wastes even more of its money on frivolous litigation.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by rpresser · 2012-01-27 08:23 · Score: 1

I had a large collection of physical CDs stolen. Can I listen to my backups? Can I sell the backups when I'm done with the music? (or will the record companies help me get my collection back?)
More interesting than the possibility of theft, is the fact that physical CDs have a finite lifespan. But backups are immortal, as long you copy them to fresh digital storage periodically.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-27 08:25 · Score: 1

Welcome to Slashdot :) The story doesn't matter, it's just an excuse to spout your opinion. Everyone here is an expert on everything.
Fortunately, the people who aren't posting inane gibberish are reading and learning. The silent majority appreciates the effort, be assured of that.
And yes, I know you've been here before, but if you hadn't gotten a sense of the place before, sounds like you have now.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-27 08:31 · Score: 1

You could still sell someone the now-dead CD and liner notes, along with a backup. Should that be legal? If so, what guarantees that the seller didn't retain a copy?
I buy used CDs at yardsales, what guarantees that the seller didn't retain a copy? Do I care? Should I?

If I shouldn't care, why should ReDigi be on the hook for determining if a seller kept a copy?

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-01-27 08:36 · Score: 2

Welcome to Slashdot :) The story doesn't matter, it's just an excuse to spout your opinion. Everyone here is an expert on everything. Fortunately, the people who aren't posting inane gibberish are reading and learning. The silent majority appreciates the effort, be assured of that. And yes, I know you've been here before, but if you hadn't gotten a sense of the place before, sounds like you have now.
I've been here a lot, since 2005, so I know how it goes. I just wanted to call folks' attention to the fact that some of the questions Slashdotters have been asking me since 2005 -- which I was either unable to answer or not at liberty to answer -- are now being played out in court, finally :)

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Hatta · 2012-01-27 09:25 · Score: 1

Does ReDigi bear any responsibility to ensure that the copies they sell are legally made? It would be trivial for me to make as many copies as I want and sell them on ReDigi. Even if the ReDigi transaction is atomic, that doesn't stop me from reproducing my own MP3s. Does ReDigi attempt to prevent this, or are they claiming they're not responsible if I violate copyright?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Hatta · 2012-01-27 09:27 · Score: 2

Is it even possible to have strong protections for artists without the occasional incidence of stormtroopers kicking down grandma's door?
No, this is impossible. You can have copyright or you can have general purpose computers, but you can't have both.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by AK+Marc · 2012-01-27 09:53 · Score: 2

I had a large collection of physical CDs stolen. Can I listen to my backups? Can I sell the backups when I'm done with the music? (or will the record companies help me get my collection back?)
Theft ends possession, but not ownership. As such, you have all the same rights as if you owned it and put it in off-site storage.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by vakuona · 2012-01-27 10:46 · Score: 1

But that is how Redigi will be defeated, because like it or not, retailers are responsible for what they sell. So the courts and the rightsholders could ask Redigi to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the resold tracks are now unavailable to the original buyer.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by vakuona · 2012-01-27 10:47 · Score: 2

They are only on a "rampage to save their business models" because people think it is kosher to download music without paying for it. Why do you want to distribute _their_ music or _their_ movies? Why not make your own and defeat their business model that way?
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 10:48 · Score: 1

Apple built a very successful business out of selling digital music players that could potentially cost tens of thousands of dollars to use if people were paying for digital music downloads.
So did Sony, Panasonic, and every other successful audio electronics manufacturer since the mid-1980s.

The number of people that could afford to do this is very small - but instead of being a rich person's toy the iPod has become a major facet of popular culture.
So in other words, it's just like the CD player that came 15-20 years before it.

we have someone that believes they can build a business on the back of this. Unlikely. And sounds like it is going to require considerable litigation to even see light of day.
I don't know if it'll work either (I'm no entrepreneur) but it's not crazy on the face of it. Maybe they saw that the same business model was used successfully, for about 20 years, where the only difference was selling CDs rather than files. And it's a difference that works in the new medium's favor, since storing, sorting and transporting files is a lot cheaper. That earlier business model also faced litigation.

reselling digital music is absurd in the face of reality. It would take someone deeply convinced that people are buying digital music and spending tens of thousands of dollars on it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Again, I've no idea if this would be a successful business, but the "overwhelming evidence" favors that a lot of people really are spending money on music, but the sales volume to date is somewhere in the Billions of dollars range, with most of it recently (it's been going up rather than down), for downloads from Apple alone (what fraction of music sales Apple has, I don't know, but since this particular business limits itself to only reselling music that was originally sold by Apple, we can blow off the fraction question, assuming they consider getting a small piece of a merely ten billion dollar pie to be enough).
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by vakuona · 2012-01-27 10:51 · Score: 1

Lest move the questions to the physical realm. Do HMV or Amazon have a responsibility to ensure that the physical CDs they sell are legal. Of course they do! A retailer cannot avoid liability for products they sell.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Hatta · 2012-01-27 12:09 · Score: 1

Great. Now how do they do that?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by sixsixtysix · 2012-01-27 13:46 · Score: 1

i am keenly interested in this. a year or so ago, amazon offered like 10 albums from a certain artist for free. if they are no longer free from amazon, i SHOULD be able to undercut them (i would obviously delete the originals), much like you could if they had given out free cds. i was gonna put them on a flash drive and ebay it, but with all these bullshit laws, many of them untested, i'd rather not risk it.

--
...
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by sixsixtysix · 2012-01-27 13:57 · Score: 1

if that is the case, then the secondary market should have to do that with everything else that can be copied.
also, the ease of replication should always be irrelevant.

--
...
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by Bradmont · 2012-01-27 13:57 · Score: 1

But in this case, is it not the original buyer who is responsible, not redigi? After all, they are the one that sold their right to a recording and held on to a copy. So they should be taken to task, not the company. By following this standard of proof, all used music stores will be forced out of business. For that matter, used book stores will be too -- how can they prove the original owner didn't photocopy or scan the book before selling it?
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by sixsixtysix · 2012-01-27 14:00 · Score: 1

should there be any difference in fair use rights regardless of medium? would 'digital media' include cds, dvds, etc?

--
...
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-01-28 02:41 · Score: 1

Why do you want to distribute _their_ music or _their_ movies? Why not make your own and defeat their business model that way?
Or more precisely... why not just boycott the big record label/big film studio business altogether, and feast upon the fabulous, creative, much better stuff coming out every day from indie musicians and indie filmmakers?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by rizole · 2012-01-28 05:56 · Score: 1

...and the comments seem to be all off topic. Oh well.
You must be new here.
Re:Issues such as fair use & first sale by evilviper · 2012-01-28 13:14 · Score: 1

Apple built a very successful business out of selling digital music players that could potentially cost tens of thousands of dollars to use if people were paying for digital music downloads. The number of people that could afford to do this is very small

Your statement is utterly idiotic, seeemingly an attempt to justify your own copyright infringment by insisting that everyone else MUST be doing it.
Your numbers seem intentional bullshit, using the completely wrong metric for everything. You can't say how many songs an iPod can store, because a song isn't a given length or data size. Now MINUTES is a much better metric... you can say how many MINUTES of music at 192kbps can fit on an iPod. And as for buying it, $1/song is the WORST CASE SCENARIO. Buying full albums on iTunes for $10 will give you more than 10 songs. None of this is relevant, though, because again, "song" isn't a measure of anything, it's just more nonsensical bullshit. If you want to measure something, $X per CD is something to go on... CDs are up to 80 minutes, and rarely under half that length for a commercial album.
So now we have something to work with...
If you consider someone encoding at 192kbps, buying full albums for $5 (whether old albums at bargain prices, used CDs, or overstock CDs from amazon marketplace and whatnot) with nearly 80 minutes of music on each one (some artists do exactly that) you've filled up your 20GByte iPod with just a couple thousand dollars of music. The music is much, much cheaper still if you consider people who insist on lossless formats, whether for sane or insane reasons. And it's considerably cheaper still if you have a penchant for (public domain) clasical or operatic music, unknown (garage) bands, or similar. Lots of other ways you can get up to 20GBytes, too, like using if for file storage, or hey, perhaps you're not insane and you only have enough music to get it half-full, but want room for expansion... Now we're down to $1K.
And what's worse is your implication that people just up and buy all their music one days with a big check. In fact I've been buying $10 CDs every couple months (on average) since I was a young kid. Yeah, after a lot of years of that, it can most certainly total several thousand dollars, but you can do it on minimum wage, or an allowance with no hardship... no interest payments, no forced buying schedule, etc.
Your implication that everyone is illegally aquiring all their music is nonsense. Just because the internet hasn't been popular very long, and not everyone has had high-speed connections for much of that time, I'd bet the MAJORITY of music going onto iPods is physical CDs ripped to MP3s. Let's go a bit further, and ask, if everyone is downloading their music for free, why is iTMS making tons of money? Why does Amazon have a competing service? Why have them if nobody's using them, and if everyone is breaking the law, there's no reason for anyone to pay to use either service...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:As usual, key points are missing from the story by Adaeniel · 2012-01-27 07:06 · Score: 0

You're commenting in the wrong story.

Re:As usual, key points are missing from the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 07:06 · Score: 1

This comment was NOT posted in the right discussion.

Re:As usual, key points are missing from the story by Kwirl · 2012-01-27 07:06 · Score: 0

lol - wrong thread, bro

"First sale" doesn't really apply. by windcask · 2012-01-27 07:10 · Score: 1

When an mp3 is sold, it is not being transferred from the provider's server to the buyer's computer...it is being copied.

Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by MozeeToby · 2012-01-27 07:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

So? If I started a bookstore with a single copy of each book and printed a new copy for each customer on demand I'd still be bound by first sale wouldn't I? Who cares when the copy is made.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by Xtifr · 2012-01-27 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Doesn't matter--they have the rights to copy and they're selling that copy. Therefore, under first sale doctrine, you should have the right to resell that copy. The fact that your copy was made on-demand should be completely irrelevant. If it were an on-demand printing press or CD burner, you'd have the right to resell the book or (physical) CD, even though it was generated on-the-spot. Why would it be different for a file?
In fact, a DVD or BluRay is simply a set of files that have been copied to an intermediate storage medium. What possible reason can you offer for suggesting that the rules are different simply because the storage mechanism is different?
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by Decameron81 · 2012-01-27 07:25 · Score: 1

When an mp3 is sold, it is not being transferred from the provider's server to the buyer's computer...it is being copied.
It goes both way... it isn't stealing either then, as the media corps would like to make us believe.

--
diegoT
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-01-27 07:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

What possible reason can you offer for suggesting that the rules are different simply because the storage mechanism is different?
It's the same reason that pro-piracy advocates use: IP goods are not the same as physical goods. If IP can't be stolen (it's merely being copied), then there's no way to enforce sale of a "used" IP either. There's absolutely no way to enforce that when you sell your copy of the IP, that you are selling the your original copy and not merely a copy of your copy.
All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.
Pick one: artifical, government-enforced/DRM-managed scarcity + first-sale doctrine, or IP-should-be-free + no used sales. Those are your logically consistent options.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by dgatwood · 2012-01-27 07:56 · Score: 1

There's no way to enforce it for a physical good, either, which is why there are so many pirated DVDs out there for sale on used DVD sites.
Further, even if you have someone examining the DVD looking for special seals of authenticity and other such silliness, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from making a copy, then selling the original.
In other words, digital sales are digital sales, and in terms of the potential for abuse, there is no significant difference between reselling a purchased MP3 or AAC file and reselling a purchased DVD or CD other than possibly the need for additional centralized policing to ensure that you can't sell the same track more than once unless you can prove that you paid for it more than once.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by rpresser · 2012-01-27 08:26 · Score: 1

There absolutely is a way to enforce it for a physical good. However, a DVD is not a physical good. Its value is not the few ounces of plastic, but the bytes stored on them. And since bytes stored and readable can be re-stored, etc., etc. and now it's your argument, and I agree with you.
My point was just that your initial statement is false. Your conclusion is true nonetheless.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by StikyPad · 2012-01-27 08:47 · Score: 2

All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.
Yes, but it's the proper fallback position when your primary argument against artificial scarcity falls on deaf ears. You made the case yourself. IF artificial, government-enforced, DRM-managed scarcity exists (and it does), THEN I assert my right of first sale. Whether or not I agree that the initial condition *should* be true doesn't negate the consequence of it being true.
And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of IP as actual property, though for disambiguation it would be useful if we had a better term for IP that didn't actually include the word property.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by ka-klick · 2012-01-27 08:50 · Score: 1

Actually have mod points for once, but I'd rather expand on this point than mod it up (though I think it deserves a bump).
I'm kind of surprised that Ray's representing them. This really seems like it has lots of problems from the get go. The precedents don't look good to me. It seems like another "brilliant" idea in the vein of Psystar (and we all saw where that lead).
Here's a similar process, see if passes the smell test:
1. Buy used book
2. Scan used Book
3. Destroy book, sell DRM loaded PDF
After reading through the statement describing the process it appears that it has to start out as a digital file, but it still breaks down to:
Upload the (digitally purchased) item to a "locker"
Destroy all the copies that are currently on attached media (at least that they can find)
Sell the key to that part of the locker to someone else.
I still see some big holes here:
It appears this relies on the file being iTunes PLUS (not DRMed, but stamped). This is likely to bring back DRM. Not your client's problem (until it happens) but brings back the bad old days. It's also unlikely to work on anything that already had DRM not replaced by "upgrading" since that has ties into iTunes for authorization. Also they seem to rely on the hashed version Apple is now using to stamp these files, but they claim they don't decrypt this info, but rely on the hash as unique, but at the same time they say that they determine that it is actually owned by THAT user. How can they know it's owned by that user but leave the stamp encrypted?
It assumes that the user has no backups or other computers which could contain copies of the original iTunes purchases. Apple has been very persistent in reminding people to back up their iTMS purchases. Also, I've never done it, but isn't there a method that you can contact Apple to re-download purchases in the event of a disaster. What's to prevent me from "selling" all my iTMS purchases through this service, then un-installing and either restoring from backup or requesting new copies from Apple?
I also believe that under iTMS terms of service they explicitly state that the files provided are licensed, not sold. I'm sure you plan to try some attack on that tack, but that still leads me to this heading the way of Psystar. If the end-user never really bought anything but a license, then they don't really have a first sale argument.
Full disclosure: I'm a singer/songwriter (rights holder), and not a laywer, but I do follow these sorts of cases. I don't see how this is going to go your way (ultimately). First sale is an important right, but it's crap like this that will get legislation to override it. I think you're kicking the hornets nest (and for the wrong people).

--
MSRP - Tax, Title & Licence Extra Your Milage May Vary
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by dgatwood · 2012-01-27 09:12 · Score: 1

Other than patent lawsuits, there's no way to prevent duplication and counterfeiting of physical goods, either. Don't believe me? Check out the Chinese microphone manufacturers that slavishly copied the patented Royer offset ribbon design just a few years back. Check out all the fake iPod look-alikes. All the fake Prada bags. And so on.
Sure, most of the fakes aren't remotely exact, but that's not because they can't be made exact. Many cases of counterfeit products actually involve manufacturing plants making extra units past the end of the manufacturing run, and selling them as legitimate products. In those cases, they are in every way actual instances of that physical product, but not legally produced instances of that physical product. There is no feasible way for such fakes to be detected once they get out on the market. Or individuals buy up refurbished repair parts and assemble a counterfeit unit from parts that is indistinguishable or nearly indistinguishable from the real thing.
So again, I reiterate, it is not possible to absolutely verify that a physical good is a legally manufactured copy, either.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 09:44 · Score: 0

It's the industry that's trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it's "we didn't sell you a physical good, we licensed you to listen to its contents", but then the moment you try to move it to a different device, it's "hey, you can't do that, because we sold you a particular manifestation of the content on a particular device".
So really, this is about the industry being forced to decide once and for all what it is that they're really selling us, and accepting the consequences of that decisions, including its implications on first sale doctrine.
Personally, I think of music sales as more like a service. It's basically, "here, let me arrange some bits on your drive so you can listen to the music". This means first sale doctrine does not apply, but at the same time, if I want to make a backup copy, put the songs on every device I own, and/or download MP3s to save myself the trouble of ripping them myself or to replace a lost copy, then I can.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-01-27 09:52 · Score: 2

Yes, but it's the proper fallback position when your primary argument against artificial scarcity falls on deaf ears. You made the case yourself. IF artificial, government-enforced, DRM-managed scarcity exists (and it does), THEN I assert my right of first sale. Whether or not I agree that the initial condition *should* be true doesn't negate the consequence of it being true.
Alright, I agree. Try getting a pro-piracy advocate to admit to this though, and I'll give you a cookie. They want to be able to freely copy IP to their local drive, and then sell the original used and keep their copy. That's obviously the best of both worlds for them (IP-is-free for copying, IP-is-property for selling), but it's terribly inconsistent in terms of philosophy.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-01-27 10:05 · Score: 1

Agree.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 10:11 · Score: 0

Did you compensate the people who worked on the file in any way? If not, that is stealing then
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 10:18 · Score: 0

No, it isn't stealing. It may be wrong, but it isn't and cannot be stealing.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by AK+Marc · 2012-01-27 12:32 · Score: 1

IP does fine, as long as you clarify - Imaginary Property.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 13:36 · Score: 0

Wow! What a false dichotomy!!! I pick *either*!
How stupid do you have to be to not notice that you are currently being screwed?
Why are you making it hard on the only people who have your back?
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by cpt+kangarooski · 2012-01-27 14:36 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter--they have the rights to copy and they're selling that copy. Therefore, under first sale doctrine, you should have the right to resell that copy. The fact that your copy was made on-demand should be completely irrelevant. If it were an on-demand printing press or CD burner, you'd have the right to resell the book or (physical) CD, even though it was generated on-the-spot. Why would it be different for a file?
Well, be careful with your definitions. In the Copyright Act, a copy (or in this case, a phonorecord) is basically defined as a material object in which a work is fixed long and well enough to be perceptible by some means. So a mere file can't be a copy, and copies can't be uploaded or downloaded via the Internet. A copy of an mp3 is really an entire hard drive, optical disc, flash drive, etc. containing the file. (And probably other files too) To engage in first sale, you'd have to sell the material object. So I guess it's no different than reselling a book, so long as you mean the paper object, and not merely the words by themselves.
ReDigi is apparently arguing that the distribution right of copyright isn't implicated since it governs the distribution of copies (i.e. material objects) and not the copying of files. They're right, actually, though courts have in practice seemed to ignore this distinction (not that I've heard of anyone making the argument before).
Of course, it isn't of much help. To 'move' a file from one material object to another, such as a user's hard drive to a server's hard drive (via plenty of RAM, cache memory, NICs, and who knows what else) involves a hell of a lot of copying, and the reproduction right of copyright governs this.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by cpt+kangarooski · 2012-01-27 14:57 · Score: 2

Pick one: artifical, government-enforced/DRM-managed scarcity + first-sale doctrine, or IP-should-be-free + no used sales. Those are your logically consistent options.
Ignoring the fact that copyright is a wholly artificial construct anyway, and be written to behave however the hell people like, regardless of logical consistency, if we abandoned copyright, why would anyone care about selling used copies of creative works with regard to the works contained within?
For example, suppose that it was legal to make copies of the Mona Lisa. (Which it is, but we'll set that aside for now) Why would anyone pay for a copy?
Well, they might pay for the convenience of getting an already-made copy, rather than having to make their own. But that's no different than the usual price difference between ready-made things and doing it yourself. The work isn't the source of value here.
They might pay for a particular copy due to some special thing about the tangible object, but that's unrelated to the work itself, which could be reproduced flawlessly in numerous copies. The original painted by DaVinci is likely worth something due to its provenance. Even if you had an atom-by-atom identical copy, the original would be more valuable for historical reasons. Likewise a copy that had been given to you by a friend or relative might mean more to you than a generic identical copy. Again, the work isn't where the value is coming from.
So the used market would probably dry up if we abolished copyright, but it would be of little importance, for an inherent property of information (such as creative works) is that it is sharable. As Jefferson noted (in reference to inventions, but it applies here), sharing knowledge is like using one person's fire to light another's -- in the end, both people have fire, and no one's fire is lessened by doing it. Copyright operates, among other ways, by trying to reign this in for a limited time. But if we abolished this check on the natural tendency of information to become widespread, you'd see sharing all over the place that was functionally identical to or superior to the used market, except that there wouldn't be so much money involved.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-01-27 17:46 · Score: 1

Alright, I agree. Try getting a pro-piracy advocate to admit to this though, and I'll give you a cookie. They want to be able to freely copy IP to their local drive, and then sell the original used and keep their copy. That's obviously the best of both worlds for them (IP-is-free for copying, IP-is-property for selling), but it's terribly inconsistent in terms of philosophy.
Such scenario is a non-issue. Before the internet it was practical to copy an album to a tape and then resell the original, but now it's just wasted work. If I can infringe copyright now easily and for free by visiting The PirateBay, why would I go through the trouble of buying something, then copying and then reselling for part of my money back? It's much more work for the exact same result: copyright infringement. If you are concerned that someone would buy the original digital file and then sell a plethora of digital copies, it's a self-defeating distortion of the market. Again, why would I buy an illegal product when I can get it just as illegally for free?
Now, while I've seen a lot of pirated DVDs being sold on the streets, what's actually being bought is the service of finding, downloading and burning the file (and subtitles, if applicable) on a media for use in DVD players. It would be a lot better for the pirate if he could charge you for loading an usb key of yours with a movie, but this would never fly. People are not buying the exact same product they can get for free, they're buying convenience. Which is something you could very well do if you could resell IP. I buy a bunch, make my own collection, burn it, create a cool cover and resell it. For a physical analogy, it'd be no different than buying leather and selling pants. Yes, I'm reselling the leather, but with added value.
Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. by rpresser · 2012-01-28 11:00 · Score: 1

Interesting; thanks for the food for thought. I have always held a bright line division between counterfeiting and digital "piracy" in my mind, and thus did not really understand why they were frequently linked in legislation. Now I understand a bit better.

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by Rosy+At+Random · 2012-01-27 07:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every time products get deliberately borked in order to sell non-borked versions at a higher price, a part of me gets very angry. I can see the commercial sense in it, but it does not stop the anger.

--
Would you like a slice of toast?

Re:a case where NYCL is actually litigating! by TaoPhoenix · 2012-01-27 07:17 · Score: 1

Welcome back! (Sorta).

I for one had wondered what you had been up to on these matters. With the explosion of wins for the Copyright enforcement brigade, I had entertained the thought that you were threatened into submission!

Onward.

How are you handling the "Almost-Unique" file situation? Besides simple physical file mods, I'll include stuff like "chopping off the dumb trailing gratuitous horn finale" etc. I suppose it would be a Derivative work, except my question centers around it being a trivial change for the sake of changing the file, rather than claiming real creativity.

Otherwise, is the concept that if the first person buys the music, then it can float around for free forever on first sale logic ever after? (Like stuff that can go to endless flea markets.)

So suppose a service buys X copies of each song, as a "repository", then sells them used? Then once they're second hand, they stay that way right?

YAAL. Hooray!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

This is extremely laughable. by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-01-27 07:34 · Score: 0

I find it hilarious that the people arguing for allowing resale are probably the same people that bitch about DRM.

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period. If you sell someone something that can be easily obtained for free then what value are you selling back? Selling back a non-DRM protected song sounds more like a Con rather then a legitimate business practice.

But, if digital content is protected by DRM that allows only one user to access it, then I would agree users should be able to sell the license for the digital content so another person can take ownership of that license. It means the original owner can no longer access the content.

If you support the concept of reselling digital content, they you are embracing DRM. But you can't have it both ways, DRM-Free content that you can sell to other people, that is called PIRACY!

There is no freaken way in hell that the government is going to allow you to profit off of someone else's intellectual property, period. Get over it and move along.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

Re:This is extremely laughable. by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-27 07:48 · Score: 1

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM
The problem is that Physics and Computer Science show that there can be no cheap and effective DRM.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:This is extremely laughable. by wierd_w · 2012-01-27 07:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is not explicitly true. Many products are routinely sold that can be obtained for free, given the labor of obtaining is a sufficiently arduous task. The person is really buying the convenience of a harvested product.
Take for instance, oxygen, or nitrogen gas. (Especially nitrogen). You gan collect copious quantities of it for free. However, the task of harvesting and refining it is nontrivial, and possibly expensive in both time and invested infrastructure. As such, somebody that basically just pumps and superchills ordinary air, and in so doing fractionally distills out the nitrogen and bottles it (the nitrogen itself is still free), they can sell it as long as there is a demand.
Another example is dirt. You can scoop up dirt for free too, but people still buy it routinely.
See also: manure, compost, etc.
The value of the files, which can be easily sourced, is in the increased convenience of the service, and any implied goods accompanying that service, such as legal indemnification for posession. (Eg, you won't get sued by the riaa for downloading it.)
This value is set by what peope are willing to pay for it. Profitability can only occur if the price people are willing to pay is greater than the costs of offering it for sale.
You could argue that it could never be profitable... that's a reasonable argument. But you can't argue that it can't be sold. (One can sell at a loss.)
The real problem here is that this operation sets real limits on what the ACTUAL market value for the recording industry's digital products really are, instead of the artifically insisted upon values presented in court during infringement cases, and also the cumulative effects that such a service would produce.
Specifically, the recording industry relies on continually reselling copy from its back catalog. (60s and 70s classic rock, 80s music, 90s music, etc...) there is a demand for this because the old storage mediums break down with age, and require replacement. A digital resale locker like redigi permits the new sales of theroetically unaging copies (mp3s don't wear out....) to change hands potentially unlimited numbers of times. Coupled with continued first hand sales, an increasing supply of second hand files can theoretically end up in redigi's possession, saturating the market.
This will greatly impact the ability of the riaa and member labels to continue to snack on replacement/redundant copy sales, which accounts for the vast majority of their revinue stream.
That's why they hate redigi, and also why we should embrace redigi.
Re:This is extremely laughable. by yotto · 2012-01-27 08:00 · Score: 1

I think I fall into the realm you find so laughable. Here are my two feelings. They do not conflict in my mind.
1) You should, legally, be able to do it.
2) It's not technically feasible without DRM so I'd never do it.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's smart. It's legal to dance the Macarena. I feel fairly strongly that it should remain legal. However, I have no plans to ever do it.

--
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Re:This is extremely laughable. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 08:06 · Score: 0

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period.
That's precisely why you can't resell CDs, paper books, analog photos, etc.
Actually, this battle was already fought for paper books, and the good guys won.
Once you sell something, it's not yours anymore. That's a separate issue from copyright.
Re:This is extremely laughable. by dgatwood · 2012-01-27 08:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period.
Sure you can. It's actually quite easy. You're missing a fairly fundamental concept, which is this: what is necessary to prevent playback of copies is not required to merely prevent sale of those copies. To do the former, it must be impossible to get a decryption key without proving that you are the current owner. This is fundamentally impossible to do in an unbreakable way, and the harder you try, the worse the customer experience is. By contrast, to do the latter, you need only the ability to uniquely identify each sold copy of a file. This requires nothing more than a guarantee from the companies that sell the original tracks that there will never be two identical copies of the track, plus a verifiable, ideally signed marker of some sort to determine authenticity.
In other words, to support resale of commercially-sold tracks, you need only take advantage of the watermarks that most or all of those services put in the tracks to begin with. Tracks are usually sold with additional info in the track's metadata that ties it to a particular user's account so that if it gets pirated, it can be traced back to the person who illegally distributed it.
This means that every digital download is unique and trivially verifiable as authentic or inauthentic without the need for actual DRM that would limit your ability to play the file. Thus, all that is necessary is a central database that every reseller talks to, in which the current ownership of every track that gets sold is tracked based on which account purchased it originally.
At least I'm assuming this is how they're doing it. It's certainly the most straightforward and obvious way to do it.
What this does not do, of course, is prevent you from making a copy before you sell the track. However, resale of physical CDs and DVDs has exactly the same problem, making this argument largely irrelevant as far as drawing a legal distinction between the two types of resale.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:This is extremely laughable. by jedidiah · 2012-01-27 09:55 · Score: 2

This addresses a problem with media-free content in general. How do you establish that you have the right to the files you have? What's to keep the government or Apple coming in and claiming all of a sudden that all of your stuff is pirated?
The "ownership" problem exists regardless of whether or not anyone wants to transfer that ownership.
Physical media is a nice token of exchange and proof of ownership in that regard.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:This is extremely laughable. by Sloppy · 2012-01-27 11:04 · Score: 1

You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period
Uh oh, a lot of antique shops and used car dealers are in for a big surprise. ;-)
(Let's assume you meant your comment specifically within the context of copyrighted content.) Are you saying used bookstores and used CDs stores don't work?
Beyond that, I wonder what "adequately protected through DRM" means. Has anything ever been adequately protected through DRM, or is this a purely hypothetical discussion?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:This is extremely laughable. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 11:04 · Score: 0

This requires nothing more than a guarantee from the companies that sell the original tracks that there will never be two identical copies of the track, plus a verifiable, ideally signed marker of some sort to determine authenticity.
I've got two words for you: Analog hole.
Re:This is extremely laughable. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 14:03 · Score: 0

You don't seem to get what is being discussed here.
Sure, you can copy a watermarked file via analog hole -- but you can't "sell" that re-recorded file through ReDigi, even if you compress it with equivalent settings and all, because it doesn't have a valid (i.e. signed) watermark.
And as GP said, the fact that you can copy it (don't even need the a-hole for this), then sell the original to ReDigi, who then sells it used to a customer, is exactly analogous to copying a CD, then selling the original to a record store, who resells the used CD to another customer -- in both cases, the reseller is in the clear, because they didn't buy and sell a pirate copy, and didn't illegally copy it on their own. The only one violating copyright is the original owner.
All that said, if I had some iTunes watermarked tracks, I would not sell them to ReDigi -- if the person who eventually buys them were to distribute them widely without removing the watermark, Apple could check the watermark and associate them with my account, causing trouble for me. And even if I could win a copyright infringement case (since I sold them, and would presumably have receipts/account info from ReDigi to show this was before they showed up on P2P), that doesn't help me against any actions Apple might take, e.g. canceling my iTunes account.
Re:This is extremely laughable. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-01-28 19:39 · Score: 1

If you support the concept of reselling digital content, they you are embracing DRM.

No. I'm saying that I think that DRM is awful and that I think the fact that some people may be dishonest in some people's eyes shouldn't prevent someone from reselling a digital good.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by thereitis · 2012-01-27 08:06 · Score: 1

Add an inaudible (to the human ear) digital watermark?

It would be nice... by razorh · 2012-01-27 08:11 · Score: 1

To see this won and applied to e-books as well. In many cases books for kindle are more expensive than paper books yet you can turn around and sell a physical book after you've read it and you (currently) can't do the same with an e-book.

Re:It would be nice... by sixsixtysix · 2012-01-27 14:11 · Score: 1

don't forget about videogames. i don't play many of my steam purchases...

--
...

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-27 08:25 · Score: 1

Aah, planned obsolescence; she is a bitch, no?

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Do you own it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 08:39 · Score: 0

If I buy a hammer, I can give it away, I can loan to a friend, I can rent it out, or I can sell it. If you can't do all of these things you don't actually own something.

What a twisted bunch of BS is this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 08:53 · Score: 0

Totally laughable. The concept is so ridiculous it defies comprehension. It defies hyperbole. It goes past hyperbole returns at the other end and becomes an understatemen. I am a designer I demand payment from people sitting on chairs.

Re:What a twisted bunch of BS is this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 10:05 · Score: 0

First sale doctrine, once someone buys your designed chair from you he can resell it to someone else, second person to third, and so on ...

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by Rosy+At+Random · 2012-01-27 08:56 · Score: 1

Not only that, but chips with features deliberately disabled in order to have budget and premium versions :O

I know that some of that partly comes down to the manufacturing processes naturally making sub-standard chips, but still, /angry face/

--
Would you like a slice of toast?

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-27 08:58 · Score: 2

Such things tend to be pretty useless because they're exactly the sort of thing that lossy compression algorithms strip out to save space -- and if every anyone invented a way to insert one that existing compression algorithms didn't remove, the algorithms people would be very interested in it so that they could improve the algorithm (which would then go back to stripping it out).

Don't punish the Artist by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-27 09:04 · Score: 1

As an experiment, ReDigi could put a "Send $.05 to the artists" button on each track. The money would be collected and divided among the singers, writers, performers and producers of each track.

The trick is to identify who they all are. Would an artist get 3 shares if they were the singer/songwriter + 1/5th of the band?

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)

Re:Don't punish the Artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 09:33 · Score: 0

There is already an industry standards for calculating total shares for involved parties.

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-27 09:20 · Score: 1

Yea, I hate that too.

The silver lining, however, is that with enough perseverance and knowhow, one can get the "premium" features at the budget price.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by Rosy+At+Random · 2012-01-27 09:44 · Score: 1

Yes, sometimes I feel that just being smart and informed enough to cheat gives me a right to :D (Especially when it feels we've been cheated out of the stuff we're clawing back in the first place)

--
Would you like a slice of toast?

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by Synerg1y · 2012-01-27 09:54 · Score: 1

The owner had a good idea and the RIAA got jealous.

I hate to bring this up, but... by graikor · 2012-01-27 11:34 · Score: 1

I know we all want to retain the right to resell what we have purchased, even at a loss, but this system seems to have a DRM that isn't terribly effective. It looks like an obvious flaw, and no one's pointing it out, so I guess we're supposed to pretend we don't see it?

It appears I can make a back up of my iTunes music, install the files on a secondary computer which is running the ReDigi DRM software, and sell them from there. This would not impact my files on my iOS devices, nor would it affect the files on my primary computer which does not have ReDigi installed.

The only way I could see this meeting a bulletproof Rights Management standard would be for the only non-ephemeral copies to be stored in the locker in the first place: in other words, you'd have to download directly from iTunes to the cloud, so that no copy of the song would ever reside on your computer. Once you have the file on your system, there will always be a way to copy it, and the DRM agent isn't omniscient.

Re:I hate to bring this up, but... by ka-klick · 2012-01-28 05:08 · Score: 1

Yup, I brought that up a while back, under the "First Sale doesn't Apply" thread. So far it seems ignored. Some other holes:
It appears this relies on the file being iTunes PLUS (not DRMed, but stamped). This is likely to bring back DRM.
It's also unlikely to work on anything that already had DRM not replaced by "upgrading" since that has ties into iTunes for authorization. (Free Songs, Old purchases you never upgraded).
Also they seem to rely on the hashed version Apple is now using to stamp these files, but they claim they don't decrypt this info, but rely on the hash as unique, but at the same time they say that they determine that it is actually owned by THAT user. How can they know it's owned by that user but leave the stamp encrypted?
Also, once someone "buys" a used copy of a file through this, if it's not just a "cloud copy" what prevents the new "owner" from simply copying the file to another machine (not running the ReDigi system) and putting it up on a file sharing service - complete with the original owner's details stamped on it?
Anyway seems like there's holes in this that you could drive a mac truck through.

--
MSRP - Tax, Title & Licence Extra Your Milage May Vary
Re:I hate to bring this up, but... by Xacid · 2012-01-28 07:11 · Score: 1

I think it'd be interesting to have something like a digital broker who doesnt deal directly with consumers but holds all the licensing for itunes, amazon, and other digital services. Would it be my ideal solution? Not a chance. But it could be more effective than litigating ourselves to death. However, the only way I think it could be worth a damn is if the consumer could rely on that service lasting "forever" (a lifetime at a minimum) and would thus have to become attached to a government somehow and that opens up another crazy can of worms. Sometimes I think the world is just too big and too small all at the same time these days with the introduction of the internet in all of these aspects of our lives.
Re:I hate to bring this up, but... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-01-28 19:44 · Score: 1

so that no copy of the song would ever reside on your computer
So basically, you couldn't even listen to it...
They have to send you the data at some point.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:You know, for this to have marginally more supp by Bradmont · 2012-01-27 13:48 · Score: 1

The real problem is that trying to work around such artificial restrictions is even considered cheating...

Re:owner had a good idea and the RIAA got jealous by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2012-01-28 02:32 · Score: 2

The owner had a good idea and the RIAA got jealous.

Yeah, one of the funniest things in the record company's papers is the statement that

ReDigi promises that its âoeVerification Engineâ analyzes each file to ensure that it was âoelegally downloadedâ by the user in the first instance and thus âoeeligible for sale.â Given the widespread piracy of sound recordings on the Internet â" an issue with which we have been struggling for more than a decade â" it is questionable whether ReDigi can effectively determine whether files were lawfully obtained in the first instance.

To this I responded:

I.e., because plaintiff is inept and has been wasting its money on frivolous litigation instead of the development of useful technology which protects copyright, therefore it is âoequestionableâ whether ReDigi can have accomplished what plaintiff never could. Well it may be âoequestionableâ to Mr. McMullan, but it is the fact. And he offers not a shred of evidence to the contrary.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Slashdot Mirror

ReDigi Defends Used Digital Music Market

111 comments