Selling Used MP3s Found Legal In America

bs0d3 writes "After some litigation; ReDigi, a site where people can sell used MP3s has been found legal in America. One of the key decisions the judge had to make was whether MP3's were material objects or not. 'Material objects' are not subject to the distribution right stipulated in "17 USC 106(3)" which protects the sale of intellectual property copies. If MP3's are material objects than the resale of them is guaranteed legal under the first sale' exception in 17 USC 109. Capitol Records tried to argue that they were material objects under one law and not under the other. Today the judge has sided with the first-sale doctrine, which means he is seeing these as material objects."

Comments

If selling is legal..

[iONiUM]

Then why can't I also give them away? As in, transfer them, to friends, on P2P networks.

Re:If selling is legal..

[LordLimecat]

For the same reason you cannot go buy The Davinci Code and start mass producing copies for your friends.

For all the insanity there may be in copyright / IP legislation, you have to go way out on a limb to argue for complete removal of copy protections on recently produced works.

Re:If selling is legal..

[gman003]

You could. If you deleted all of your copies, and if only one person was able to download them.

The main reason for this ruling was that it obeyed the first law of economic thermodynamics - products were neither created nor destroyed, only transferred.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Anonymous Coward]

You can, give it to one person, but you can't keep it. If you follow the logic.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Hatta]

You can. You just have to use some sort of atomic transaction scheme like ReDigi does to ensure that no more than one copy is accessible at a time.

Re:If selling is legal..

[wolrahnaes]

IANAL of course, but I believe this ruling would permit exactly that, as long as the files were promptly deleted from your system immediately after they're transferred to someone else.

Re:If selling is legal..

[dmomo]

What you're missing here is that to "sell" the MP3, it is necessary that you give the MP3 to the other party. This is a "move" not a "copy", meaning, you must destroy your current copy. Yes, under the "material object" logic, you could "give" it away, as in "sell it for zero", but you give up any rights to it yourself.

With P2P, your copy stays on the machine when another downloads it from you. You now have an illegal copy (assuming you GAVE it to the first downloader).

Re:If selling is legal..

[Slotty]

You're not transferring over P2P networks. You're duplicating something and transmitting the duplicate without actually losing the utility of the object yourself.

Re:If selling is legal..

[SomePgmr]

I makes me wonder how this would apply to other digital media we buy.

* I'd think, say with DLC, the producer of the material wouldn't be obligated to assist in a content transfer so DRM keeps them safe for now. But are we now otherwise allowed to transfer that material to someone else? If so, do anti-circumvention exemptions now apply to the new owner?

* [requisite ianal, etc]

Re:If selling is legal..

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely wrong response. Following this judge's decision, you can indeed give them away, so long as you are only giving away the copies that you purchased.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Zaphod The 42nd]

You can give them away, but then you have to give up ownership of them. So you can only give it away once.

Re:If selling is legal..

[thetoadwarrior]

I agree but if I keep backups of all my music they're not going to be able to delete copies of music on a USB drive not even connected to the computer. I wonder if they'll monitor for people that are selling the same song over and over.

My concern would be as well is that someone decides to sell their low quality torrented music and you still have to worry about it being a quality version. Even if the 30 second preview is from the actual file it doesn't tell me if it cuts off too early.

Re:If selling is legal..

[sexconker]

ahh, but could one not argue that at one point, however short, existed two copies?

So RAID 1 is illegal.

Re:If selling is legal..

[dmomo]

Ownership and proof of ownership are two separate things. You don't need a receipt to own something.

I agree that "giving" an mp3 in a material sense is sort of silly. Digital media is a new thing. So far, we've been arguing over which old metaphor it most closely resembles and basing our rules around that.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I own lots of MP3s, millions of them including multiple copies of popular songs-

Could I sell one to you, then a few minutes later buy it back as I sell you the next MP3 on your playlist?

I can see having any song available on demand from a music service for a small monthly fee becoming a viable business model, where previously only radio-style playlists (you don't get to pick every song) have been available free or cheaply.

Re:If selling is legal..

[gman003]

<ianal>
You are correct, the producer wouldn't have any obligation to make transfers easy or even possible. And, while this ruling does not in any way rule on other digital products like DLC, it does provide some amount of precedence another judge may wish to use.
Most likely, DLC would be defined as an addition to another physical product - the game proper. So you would probably only be able to transfer DLC if you transferred ownership of the rest of the game as well. At least, that's the ruling I would make.
Anti-circumvention exemptions may or may not apply - depends too much on the judge, and how much he's been bribed by *IAA. My guess is that they'll rule that they still apply.
</ianal>

Re:If selling is legal..

[reverius]

Umm, Spotify?

Re:If selling is legal..

[v1]

this is just a case of them trying to have their cake and eat it too, when they'd really much rather HAVE their cake than EAT it, if given the choice. So the judge had to make a call, and it was called EAT it. So now they find themselves in pretty much the worst possible scenario. By their own involvements they've gotten MP3's judged as material objects.

And now have an almost impossible to police or defend position of having to identify and prove that you don't still have a copy after selling it. Serves them right for trying to double-dip. They would have been much better off to have claimed it was exclusively not a physical object - at least then they'd have more applicable laws to erm... abuse.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Anonymous Coward]

So, there are 5 links in the summary. One is a previous slashdot story, one is ReDigi's homepage, two are just links to law texts, and the last one is, I guess, TFA. So I followed it, and found a shady ass blog post hosted on some random site on port 82. It had links though, mostly the same links as TFS, but it added what seemed like a source hosted on a Yahoo blog. Better, but still not really reliable, and the facts were starting to change. So I followed that blogs source, and got to Ars. OK, now something vaguely reliable. But the facts were a lot murkier, and it sounded a lot like the same story from two days ago, linked in TFS. Ars has two relevant, recent links. One is to Wired, so now it really starts to sound legit, except the Wired article is from February 2nd, and says "a ruling could come any day now". The other Ars link is to a pdf ruling. Finally, the truth will be revealed. Here is the text of the brief, in it's entirety:

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge:
For the reasons stated on the record at today's conference, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is HEREBY DENIED.
As directed by the Court at today's conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, by Monday, February 20, 2012 at 4:00 p.m., the parties shall submit a proposed case management plan and scheduling to my chambers at the following email address: sullivannysdchambers@nysd.uscourts.gov. A template for the order is available at http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=judge_info&id=347. SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2012 New York, New York

Isn't Internet news great?

Re:If selling is legal..

[Zontar The Mindless]

ahh, but could one not argue that at one point, however short, existed two copies?

So RAID 1 is illegal.

How about your Web browser's cache? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Re:If selling is legal..

[Chris Burke]

You can't, remember copyright? I have to give a "right to copy" a permission or a license to distribute my digital goods. Software, recordings, photos etc. are all covered here and copyright makes any second-hand market or distribution illegal by default unless authorized by the copyright holders.

I heard there was a recent court ruling that found otherwise, saying that at least in the case of mp3s that they constitute 'material objects' and are thus subject to the First Sale Doctrine exception to the distribution right.

I can't remember where I heard this though.

Re:If selling is legal..

[ShieldW0lf]

They're countering stupidity with insanity. Eventually, all words will become noise, and the issue will go away.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Tanman]

Have you ever seen the headache that ensues when your raid controllers realize that only one of your drives has a file? Eee gads.

Let me tell you, RAID 1 just means that you are twice as likely to be fucked and files cost 2x as much to store.

Re:If selling is legal..

[icebraining]

Spotify pays royalties to the copyright holders for each song that's played. Parent's suggestion was that you could buy a song on e.g. iTunes for $1 and then "sell, wait for the song to play and buy it back" to each user without paying any royalties.

Re:If selling is legal..

[icebraining]

Depends on what MP3 files they accept. I believe some online stores watermark theirs with a specific ID for each user, so they could easily detect repeated sales of the same file.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Kjella]

If I recall correctly, the law distinguishes between those copies that are only a technical requirement of storing or playing the work, like RAID1 or copying it to RAM and the sound card buffer, and those that functionally create two copies. Perhaps you can with specialized software argue that this temporary duplication is an technical implementation detail in moving a file, but I doubt your average P2P software would apply. I would think you must show that the software will transfer the bits only once to one person and delete them upon confirmation, which is not the typical mode of operation.

Re:If selling is legal..

[icebraining]

Not if you zero out the file as you're copying it, I suppose. Well, there will still be multiple copies of a chunk of the file (at least in memory and in transit), but I assume those are fair use.

Re:If selling is legal..

[tmach]

Going by this, you can. As long as you A) purchased the mp3 yourself, B) do not have a physical copy or the CD it came from, C) only give it to one person and D) erase any and all copies of that mp3 that you have as soon as the transfer is complete.

Or you could buy 50 different copies of a song, give it to 50 different people and immediately erase all 50 copies from your system. I'm guessing the record companies would dig that.

Re:If selling is legal..

[killsome]

What if half my 320kbps mp3 to two 160kbps mp3s? do I have two legal copies?

Re:If selling is legal..

[SomePgmr]

I suppose that would be the difference between you doing something illegal and ReDigi (or another service) operating an illegal service.

Presumably what mattered here is that ReDigi did their due diligence in the process of transferring an mp3 from one person to another, destroying the provided original. If you copied it before that, then you did something illegal, not them. They'd have done what they could to avoid facilitating such a scam.

not a lawyer.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Anonymous Coward]

You could. If you deleted all of your copies, and if only one person was able to download them.

So if one were found guilty of having uploaded 500 full copies of a song through P2P, the damages should at most equal the cost of the loss (at the "used" price).
The distributed nature of bittorrent logically yields another interesting conclusion. If you are the kind of person who seeds to a ratio of 1.5, then stops, then you have only caused 1.5sales worth of economic damage.
-shurg- I'd probably just pay it and move along if it became a legal issue...

Re:If selling is legal..

[Chewbacon]

I emailed my dad an album I bought. When I want to listen to it, he transfers ownership to me. Then I transfer it back to him. That works out, right?

Re:If selling is legal..

[mattack2]

If you could permanently get rid of your copy at the exact same time, so that only one copy is in existence at a time, I suspect you could.. (if you legally owned the original copy.)

Re:If selling is legal..

[chrismcb]

You can not give them to friendS. You can give the copy you have to ONE friend, as long as you don't keep a copy yourself.

Re:If selling is legal..

[mhelander]

Well, there are software licenses that work basically like that. Usually they involve some kind of shenanigans to make sure over the network that you don't use them simultaneously, but that only underlines that the principle of such sharing schemes as you suggest should be thinkable.

Re:If selling is legal..

[chrismcb]

I think your local city and state government would LOVE this. Think of the sales tax revenue they'll collect.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Darinbob]

Exactly, you can give away your copy as long as you keep no other copies or give copies to other people. Like the old Borland license.

Re:If selling is legal..

[mhelander]

AFAIK there is no completely watertight transaction protocol (?)

Couldn't it always be claimed that a technical error is responsible for resulting in two copies?

If the sender then finds the file still on their system, perhaps it could be argued they should remove rather than play the file. But could they not just as well assume that the transfer must have been unsuccessful (otherwise the file should be gone)? And so reasonably assuming they are in the in possession of the only copy, they should be able to play the file.

If they have sold the file to the receiver, perhaps they should then go on to return the money, and at that point it would be discovered, one might think, that both parties had the file. At this point the matter could be expected to be resolved, so that only one of them had access to the file (by the other deleting their copy). But what if the file was given away? The sender might not care to attempt to resend the file if it was of no high importance and would have no reason to believe that their file protocols had behaved such that they ended up with two copies.

What if someone decided they did not like some intellectual property they bought and wanted to give it away to first taker on the Internet, but some transaction protocol screwed up so that a thousand people were able to download it before it was removed from the server? Nobody realizes anything went wrong and the file now exists in thousands of copies. In the end, how can it be assumed anyone did not get their copy of any file by an anonymous stranger giving it away over the Internet because they did not want it themselves and could not be bothered to sell it?

Re:If selling is legal..

[jedidiah]

> And now have an almost impossible to police or defend position of having to identify and prove that you don't still have a copy after selling it.

You already had that problem.

Most people just chose to ignore the problem or deny that it existed.

"Proof of Purchase" remains a problem regardless of whether or not ReDigi is declared legal.

Re:If selling is legal..

[icebraining]

Digital Signature

A digital signature or digital signature scheme is a mathematical scheme for demonstrating the authenticity of a digital message or document. A valid digital signature gives a recipient reason to believe that the message was created by a known sender, and that it was not altered in transit. Digital signatures are commonly used for software distribution, financial transactions, and in other cases where it is important to detect forgery or tampering. (...)

Re:If selling is legal..

[wiedzmin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the judge has only refused a request for an immediate injunction against the service at this point. The case will now go to trial, where it will surely lose. The OP is misleading at best.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Tastecicles]

Possession is nine tenths of the Law. BTW, according to several people working as agents of the Performing Rights Society and the British Phonographic Institute, a receipt is not proof of ownership - the only proof they will accept is an original inlay (specifically the side with the barcode) - even if you don't have current possession of the media itself (I mean, how many DJs do you know carries original copies of commercial albums on CDDA? I know of precisely zero).

Disclaimer: my brother is a club DJ, I used to help out occasionally and met lots of other DJs who did the same: carried ready-to-go remixes and pissbreak tracks on a dozen or so CDR or a firewire drive, and several thousand CD back inlays in a couple lever arch files. With the diversity of floor requests, you couldn't possibly carry even a half decent collection of heavy rock or dubstep or whatever on CDDA, you'd need a frickin' truck! (200 CD albums in cases weighs over 28lb, plus the weight of the trunk). Hence, a 500GB drive packed with popular floorfillers (with the requisite accompanying two or three pounds of paper inlays) was an essential addition to his car load.

Re:If selling is legal..

[kyrio]

Wow, that almost sounds like a library.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Githaron]

Would you even have to sell it? You could let someone borrow your music just like you can let them borrow your car. I could see some business creating a website that facilitates this kind of exchange. They charge you a flat rate to access their catalog of users that want to borrow and lend music.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Githaron]

As I have previously posted on /., I don't see why there can't be a digital deeds to all digital products. There are registered authorities that facilitates the exchange of digital deeds for a small fee. All deeds will be signed with an authority's private key. All registered authorities are required to accept deeds signed by other authorities. If you are using a digital product without a digital deed to your name, you are infringing on the copyright. Obviously, this wouldn't keep people from pirating anyway but at least there would be a way to prove that you bought the product fair and square if ownership ever came into question.

Re:If selling is legal..

[psiclops]

Ys but first you would have to legally obtain the files which would cost you money.
Whenever you hire it out you would have to delete any of your own copies of the file.
When the hiree returns it to you(deleting their copy is up to them not up to you), you may hire it out to someone else. if they do not bother returning it(if you didn't know them why would they?) you would have to legally($$$) obtain another copy before hiring it out again.

Re:If selling is legal..

[qzjul]

Having lost 3 drives (two of which were seagate 7200.11's surprise surprise) over the last 5 years which were part of my RAID1 array (first 200GB of four different disks in RAID1 arrays for / and /home) I can definitely say that RAID1 was far far less headache than losing all my stuff - pictures, documents, thesis - and website & database, and having to reinstall.

RAID1 is so unbelievably "worth it" that I would never consider anything less.

As for raid controllers, I can't speak to that, I've always just used mdadm

Re:If selling is legal..

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything will be watermarked.......

Re:If selling is legal..

[currently_awake]

If i forget the combination to a safe i bought, I can hire a locksmith to break into it and set a new combination. So does that mean I can "break into" my DRM'd files and put them into another format (Ogg Vorbis?)

Re:If selling is legal..

[rtb61]

More than that you can share it on line with one person at a time as long as you do not access it at the same time. That person who streams it should not copy it but just listen to the stream.

Re:If selling is legal..

[AK Marc]

They could use licensing to outlaw "sending" a file such that you can't email it legally, but you could put it on a flash drive and snail-mail it. Whoever "owns' the USB drive gets the content. Nobody gets to save a copy past when they hand the USB drive to someone else.

Re:If selling is legal..

[AK Marc]

The judge's ruling as to why is an indication on his stance on the interpretation of the law. I have no idea if a judge is bound to follow his previous rulings, but courts generally do, so I wouldn't expect any changes in whether MP3s are considered "material goods." Though how an email attachment is a "material good" is beyond me. At least he didn't do what the RIAA requested and rule that it is a "material good" when considering copyright law, and not when considering consumer rights.

Re:If selling is legal..

[petman]

You probably read about it here.

Feel free to make a submission about it on Slashdot.

Re:If selling is legal..

[chromeronin]

Better be careful or you might find you are charged with recieving stolen goods if you download that song.

Re:If selling is legal..

[EdIII]

Isn't Internet news great?

That's not why we invented in the first place silly. We invented it for porn. When you consider that, the Internet kicks ass and is the most wildly successful invention in mankind's history.

Re:If selling is legal..

[chromeronin]

Cool I can sell my mp3s, now what about .aac and mp4, or even my .ogg and .flac files? Can I also confirm iTunes deleted their copy when they sold the file to me?

Re:If selling is legal..

[Xeno man]

You can sell what ever the hell you want if you can find a buyer. The thing is ITunes doesn't need to delete a thing because it it a licensed distribute or manufacturer. They can create as many copies as they want to sell because for every sale a cut goes back to the recording studio or who ever controls the rights as per their agreement.

What this ruling confirms is that I can buy an mp3 file from you for any cost we agree on, (could be free or $0.01, $0.99, $10,000) and I get the copy from you AND you delete the original file. Nothing new, just transferred and my copy is 100% legal and so is the transaction.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Xeno man]

Two (2) points.

1. Arguments have been made about multiple copies on a computer, such as RAID 1 or loading the data to memory but the arguments don't stand up because it is a function of the device. The is how computers work and you can't change that. Transferring a file requires multiple copies to created to facilitate the copying but the end result is a single copy.

2. The number of copies doesn't matter so much as usage. For example, my small high school had some research software (i can't remember exactly what it was) but only 10 license keys. The software was installed on every single computer as part of the image but only 10 copies could be used at once. If you wanted to load the software, the computer checked with the server for the total number of copies running. If it was less than 10 it would load, if not then it would not load. The software was as close as the nearest computer but at any time there were never more than 10 copies running at once.

It doesn't mater if the original copy existed for a few seconds or a month after the sale, as long as the original file was never played again and there was some sort of record kept to indicate the file is no longer legal which could be as simple as moving the file to a folder label "Sold Files"

Frankly you could keep the files forever and claim them as a back up, just don't play them or try to sell them again.

Re:If selling is legal..

[sixsixtysix]

would you also need the inlays while using an mp3 player?

Re:If selling is legal..

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't borrow a car...

Re:If selling is legal..

[sixsixtysix]

of course it should be solely up to the rights holder to determine this. they should pay any and all costs to investigate. do used cd stores make sure that the discs they're buying weren't copied beforehand? kind of the same thing.

Re:If selling is legal..

[sixsixtysix]

you should have to prove it as much as you proved you did not copy that cd before selling it.

Re:If selling is legal..

[CanEHdian]

I agree but if I keep backups of all my music they're not going to be able to delete copies of music on a USB drive not even connected to the computer

I can buy a CD, create an image with EAC, then take the CD to any 2nd hand store and sell it to them, no question asked. Nobody makes you sign a document where you state that you have destroyed any backups you might have made. Heck, nobody even asks. Is it legal? Probably not. But that's not the point. Just because I can do this, I am not prohibited from selling said CD. So "possibly having backup copies left" is NOT an argument that can be used prohibiting someone from selling music files they bought from a legal source, e.g. iTMS. I can use my scanner to scan a BOOK. So with that reasoning, you can't sell books anymore because you might have kept a copy.

My concern would be as well is that someone decides to sell their low quality torrented music and you still have to worry about it being a quality version. Even if the 30 second preview is from the actual file it doesn't tell me if it cuts off too early.

Yes, that would be a problem. You never know if it might have been taken from the 2010 remastered edition where MC Master DJ Shitforface decided to master it really "hot" i.e. compressed to death and brickwalled. Perhaps these services should give you the option to listen to the first 5 seconds and the last 5 second, as well as supply all relevant information (including DR analysis, etc. which can all be automated).

Re:If selling is legal..

[voidphoenix]

I'd like to buy a vowel...

Re:If selling is legal..

[hobarrera]

You can; as long as you don't keep any copies.

Re:If selling is legal..

[bondsbw]

MP3 is compressed, so the two extracted 160kbps mp3s can't just be added together to exactly recreate the original. WAV is easier for this question, separating every other sample into its own file and halving the sample rate of each.

I would think that this would be the same as splitting an image of copyrighted text, such that every other pixel goes into another file (filling with white or a copy of the adjacent pixel).

In the image case, it would be easy to put one of the copies through various filters and OCR the result, producing the original text in its entirety. I'm pretty sure this is illegal since the text is the material under copyright, not the representation of the text. The same could be said about sound media. The record of the performance is copyrighted, and any work produced from that performance is protected (subject to fair use).

There are a lot of people on here smarter than I am, so please debunk or clarify where needed.

Re:If selling is legal..

[hobarrera]

There is a somewhat valid point to this though. What keeps me from claiming I bought pirated mp3s from someone else?
There's usually not a receipt for used goods.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Tastecicles]

in a public performance (ie nightclub, or (bizarrely) a shop where a radio can be heard playing LIVE BROADCAST MATERIAL from the public counter), you need a PRS certificate for which they'll gouge you £400, yes. If you're playing anything on a loudspeaker that's not Public Domain (think KLF, which has been Public Domain since 1991), you need both the PRS certificate and the inlays. If you're using headphones rather than speakers and nobody else can hear it, it's not public performance hence no need for cert or inlays.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Aryden]

You would do it as a purchase / refund not a buy / buy back. That way, the "purchaser" pays for the mp3, including tax. When done, they "return" the mp3 and get a "refund" thus no tax collected.

Re:If selling is legal..

[AVee]

The transcript of the case is also available. Basically the judge said nothing but, 'there's no irreparable harm, so there won't be a preliminary injunction. Nothing was found legal or illegal, there will be a full case before anything can be said about that. Although the Judge hinted he expects ReDigi to loose the case, he explicitly stated the sole reason for denying the preliminary injunction was the absence of irreparable harm.

Re:If selling is legal..

[semi-extrinsic]

Well, there are software licenses that work basically like that.

Such systems are annoying as hell. If the network is down, you are down. And about once a week, I have to email our license server admin and have him kick out the guy who somehow manages to be using all our five licenses for $commercial_3D_plotting_software.

Re:If selling is legal..

[thetoadwarrior]

You still generally lose something if you rip a CD and and then sell it on. Of course that only matters if, for example, it's got decent album art and all that so it does only matter if you care about those things. But you also don't take a CD into a shop and get the same price you paid for it. The economics of buying CDs, ripping and then selling just don't work in your favour. Selling something where duplication is free works in your favour even if you get a penny in return.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own MP3s and even be able to sell them. I do view it as your property. I just hope the company is doing this wisely so it doesn't lead to the RIAA from getting the government to take even more of our rights away. If they did just blindly accept any MP3 and don't really care how you obtained it then I would have some issues with that but if they're making a decent effort to stop con-artists then I have no problem with it and yes if they're making the effort then it quite rightly becomes the supposed MP3 owner's responsibility if they find a way around their system.

Re:If selling is legal..

[olliM]

At least in Finland you can make a few copies of any cd you own. You can even check out the cd from a library and make a copy. I can't make a copy for you, though. You're also not allowed to circumvent any effective copy protection to make your copy. Crazy laws...

Re:If selling is legal..

[wall0645]

Except it doesn't prove anything, because you can rip CDs. Unless you are suggesting that we are to go to this authority for the "digital deeds" for our songs ripped from CDs. And how do you prove you have the CD? How do you prove you bought it? What if you lost it? What if you ripped it, scratched it, and threw it away, since you have digital copies? Only way I seeing this "digital deeds" idea work is some serious Big Brother shit.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Maximum Prophet]

You could do that with books. Buy books and loan them to each of your friends, a few at a time. You could even call yourself a "Library".

So, yes.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Defenestrar]

Or sales tax evasion...

Re:If selling is legal..

[Defenestrar]

You'd avoid shutdown by sales tax if you merely loan.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Maximum Prophet]

Another thing that scares the record companies with this, is that you could set up a closed P2P system with your friends so that the music is being traded around. There'd never be more than N paid for copies at a time, and it would be legal, but your group would have to purchase many fewer copies that if you all bought all the CDs that represented your library.

Now, imagine that the "Group" was most of the world. Your system would purchase several thousand copies of a given song, then no more, ever. As long as the song didn't exist on more than that many devices at once, it would be legal. If you could show that a given device had died, you could even restore the song it had to the rotation. It's a grand vision, song immortality, no song even need die every again.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Defenestrar]

I think chromeronin is talking about the server side of iTunes - which I believe allows a user to redownload previously purchased music. (e.g. they keep a list of licenses for you). The trick is that iTunes probably doesn't have any system for user notification of license transfer built in. DRM music will likely be impossible to sell without violating the DMCA.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Defenestrar]

The problems will come with the violation digital goods make of the second law - devaluation through use.

We've already seen examples of publishers changing license agreements with libraries, forcing them to only loan a book 20 some odd times before required deletion. If a publisher only sells digital goods with DRM, then you must abide by their terms because circumvention of DRM is still illegal.

For example, you buy a book (electronic) from Amazon or Barnes and Noble and it's linked to your account/device. You can't get it off of your device without breaking DRM (not in a useful format for sale anyway) and they are under no obligation to remove the DRM for you. In fact they are likely under obligation (from the publishers) to not allow ownership transfer, more than a single loan (for the life of the book), and etc...

This court case will not solve the vendor/publisher lock in via DRM. It will instead take a separate court case (perhaps class action) in which a judge forces ownership transfer to be built into DRM schemes (if ruling in favor of the content purchaser even occurs at all). If this ever happens you can count on the publishers at least (maybe not the distributors) to be poor losers, likely opting for a difficult method (perhaps online-active-at-all-times only). The best way to combat this is if license transfer/management gets built into international standard (e.g. part of epub, or a general ISO or IEEE standard license transfer scheme). It may take followup lawsuits to force a poor loser into the standard method, but if they aren't there to start with we'll get stuck with the other.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Muad'Dave]

...digital deeds for a small fee...

Maybe we could call it "Digital Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap".

Re:If selling is legal..

[LordLimecat]

Um, i said "mass producing", not "selling your copy"-- and mass-producing The Davinci Code is most certainly illegal if you do not have an agreement with the author.

Either you replied to the wrong comment, or stopped reading my comment a quarter of the way through.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Creepy]

Only if you owe sales tax on the purchase - If you sold it for a penny, for instance, you wouldn't owe sales tax since the sales tax rounds to 0. Also you aren't required to collect sales tax for states you don't live in - it is the responsibility of the user to pay their use (sales) tax. You are required to keep extensive records, however, and provide them to the other states if requested. I think most states require a license, as well.

Anyhow, I would have been amazed if this was illegal. When you buy music, you are buying a license to listen to the music and (sometimes) the media it is written on, not the music itself, which the recording studio likely owns (sometimes the artist does). This is why ripping to mp3 is legal (you can legally own an archival copy), but file sharing is not (you are not supposed to create copies for your friends - fair use applies more for your friends listening to it rather than making a copy, but if you made a copy for yourself and your friends listen to it, that is OK, so it is a bit of a gray area). In fact, technically you aren't supposed to share a recording with someone in the same room (again, fair use). If you have a ripped mp3 and sold it, you would need to include or destroy the original media if it exists (would be interesting if they buy one song from a CD...).

Re:If selling is legal..

[Cederic]

Interesting question, but is the danger of being prosecuted for fencing/receiving stolen goods/conspiracy to pirate/etc higher than the danger of being fined for downloading illicit copies of someone else's IP?

I guess there's a "But I thought it was legal" defence, where you pay for the MP3 and accept that you have to delete it if someone informs you that it's not a legal copy - much as you have to return an accidentally purchased stolen car.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Cederic]

So DJs I know (in the UK) that buy their music online get the inlays how exactly?

(Personally I'd sack everyone that works for the PRS and let people play music for free, but that's a separate discussion)

Re:If selling is legal..

[Githaron]

I am talking about future purchases. CDs would start coming with the digital deeds. It could simply have a registration code so that you can link it to your name online. Format wouldn't matter. The great thing about the whole thing is that you could go and get the content in another format and only pay a conversion fee instead of the full retail price. If you want to convert the content on your own, you are free to do that too. Of course, I don't see anyone converting their xbox 360 games to PC games and vice-versa. As far as "Big Brother" goes, these days, what digital products can you purchases or "rent" without some company knowing. What does matter if in this case, an authority is a second company. The authorities don't need to share databases. There just needs to be a validation interface so that a second authority can validate an uploaded digital deed from the original authority is valid and current. If a second authority needs to transfer ownership, they report to the original authority that the original deed is no longer valid and the new authority issues the new deed and becomes the point of contact for future validation.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Githaron]

People borrow cars all the time.

Re:If selling is legal..

[PaladinAlpha]

RAIDs are not substitutes for backups -- only modifications of uptime.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Tastecicles]

I don't know of any (good) DJs that use lossy compression, not least because it sounds shit on large speakers. My bro uses FLAC or PCM WAV exclusively when it comes to digital content, apart from the CCDA/DVDA (man, that looks dodgy) on the opticals. I would imagine that a DJ that uses lossy compression isn't that good to begin with (no offence meant, what I'm saying is he can't know much about acoustics or the nuances of the genres he's playing with), and thoroughly deserves to have the PRS breathe down his neck for not carrying inlays because he's bringing the collective quality and esteem of the industry down.

Sorry for the mini rant, but I'm an acoustics freak and get pretty upset when newbs drop behind the mixing desk and whip out their Windows netbook and brag about the number of tracks they crammed on there - at 32kbps. Start at the source: if the source cuts at 500Hz and 14kHz, no amount of Monster Cable or number of AR monitors is going to make it sound any good at all. If the source runs the gamut of human hearing and beyond, you could use a Bose tinpot and it would sound fantastic in a church hall.

Re:If selling is legal..

[Cederic]

Misplaced rant, who said they werent buying CD quality audio online?

Anyway, the music is there to be danced to. There are dance teachers that will play the music for a class from their iPod. Sure, that's not audiophile quality but it's perfextly adequate for dancing and we enjoy ourselves.

Re:If selling is legal..

[tjhart85]

You lend your car, the other person borrows the car.

Either the AC is trying to be funny or he couldn't think of anything intelligent to say, but still wanted to be a part of the conversation. It's a stupid point to make since a rather large percent of the population uses the word borrow in that way. Language changes, get over it.

Re:If selling is legal..

[wall0645]

What I'm saying is that if it's just for future purchases, the system loses all of its power. You can only use the "they don't have a digital deed, therefore they stole it" if there's no way they could have gotten the file otherwise. Which they can, since tons of CDs exist that can be ripped. Or digital files around now without deeds.

Auction time

[chuckfirment]

All your base belongs to the highest bidder.

I'm fine with this but...

[thetoadwarrior]

I agree with him but I can also see why people would be against it. What's stopping me from selling numerous copies of my MP3s and retaining my original copies?

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[stanjo74]

counterfeiting laws?

It can be argued that if you retained the "original" MP3, what you sold must have been a "copy", and selling a "copy" of copyrighted work is counterfeiting.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Whats stopping you from xeroxing your favorite new book and mailing it to your friends? Nothing. Except the law.

Most of piracy is a problem in how companies treat customers, availability, restrictions (the pirated version has more features, is more usable) and cost.
If books started to cost more money, people would start xeroxing them to each other. Its how it goes. This is all a reaction to the RIAA thinking they can dictate terms to the masses and rake in money. You have to respect your customer and provide value.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[phliar]

What's stopping me from selling numerous copies of my MP3s and retaining my original copies?

• 1. Your conscience.
• 2. It's illegal.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[thetoadwarrior]

Yes but sharing an inferior copy is different than selling a 100% exact copy numerous times. It says it deletes the song from your drive but given that it has not access to my portable USB drive I could copy that music onto my main drive numerous times and sell it.

I also agree for the most part about convenience but Amazon sells high quality mp3s for $.99 and they're DRM free. You can hardly call that too expensive or inconvenient.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Beardo the Bearded]

It's easier to pirate than it is to download paid copies.

If it was the other way around piracy would drop off like a brick.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[thetoadwarrior]

1 is pretty easy to get over and 2 is obvious but it would be interesting to see how they actually monitor it. If they do monitor what you sell, what happens if I open two accounts on two computers? I think sharing the music for free with people is a bit more ethical than allowing them to sell it. But if they are vigilant about monitor stuff then fair enough. At least they're trying.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[istartedi]

What's stopping me from selling numerous copies of my MP3s and retaining my original copies?

The increasing odds with each transaction that you will be observed conducting illegal activity.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Zaphod The 42nd]

The particular service in question, ReDigi, works with iTunes. Once the song is removed from your iTunes account transactionally, you cannot use it anymore.

You're free to copy a pirated version back into iTunes, but iTunes won't recognize it officially and you won't be able to download the song elsewhere from iTunes servers. So it is, in some ways, an inferior product. And its illegal, and once you make the cost and the penalties fair, people will understand. There will always be a few who pirate, but that isn't the issue here; THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY PIRATING MUSIC, and will continue to do so. Furthermore, those people are not lost sales, but that is an argument for another day.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Exactly. The first person in Hollywood to realize it is going to make trillions. All market evidence shows this, but they seem to be too entitled to admit it.

See all of Valve's latest experiments, where for instance everybody told them "you cant' sell in Russia, its full of pirates." When they started doing proper, good localizations to Russian, and started releasing games there at the same time as the States, piracy completely fell off the map. They're still making 3x as much money in Russia as any analyst expects them to.

Or the steam sales, where offering a product at a fair price to market perception caused UNBELIEVABLE number of purchases. Valve's minds are literally blown by how much more games sell when you slash the price in half. I mean, a sale traditionally increases how much people buy, but we're talking over a hundred-fold more. Thats why you've seen sale after sale after sale on Steam; by charging LESS, they actually make MORE.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[silas_moeckel]

Copyright law, if your doing that on a large scale it's a criminal offence. The point is were not to assume everybody is a criminal by default.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[robot256]

The whole "inferior versus perfect" copy thing is a bit of straw man argument. You can only charge extra (read: more than free) if you provide some extra value in your product. Previously, the only added value they provided was a bit of extra quality in the recording. But 99% of the time the inferior copy served the needs of the user, so people copied things whenever they thought price was too high or didn't have the money.

Now that lossless copies are free, the sold products have lost their added value (and with DRM, actually negated it). So the sellers are complaining that they have to find some new way to add value to their products and they don't like it. Big whoop.

And yes I like Amazon, they are very convenient and I love the DRM-free aspect, but if I want to fill up my iPod I'm not going to shell out $1000 in one sitting. I'm going to put down the $50 of disposable income I have for the week (for however many songs it buys me) and download the rest. That's the market at work, such as it is.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Chris Burke]

The same thing that kept you from making copies of all your physical media before reselling it. That little voice in your head.

It's true. The little voice in my head keeps me far too busy killing the demons that look like people to bother making illegal copies of my media, physical or digital.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[vakuona]

Not easier, cheaper.

How the heck is pirating easier than opening iTunes, or searching in Amazon, and searching for the song you want, and clicking on the buy button.

The lengths people go to to justify themselves!

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[thetoadwarrior]

It's been ages since I've used iTunes because I think Amazon is infinitely better and DRM free but aren't at least some of the songs on iTunes DRM free now so how can I can be locked out of using them?

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Zaphod The 42nd]

See my second point about how people are already pirating, so this isn't exactly going to change anything there. If anything, trying to somehow game or exploit this system in order to make illegal copies is pointless because YOU CAN ALREADY MAKE ILLEGAL COPIES. This is for people who want to transfer things legally, and they should have a way. They shouldn't be forced to make illegal copies. This is how you cut down on piracy, which is very much already a thing.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[White Flame]

What's stopping you from speeding? Or from running over puppies & children for sport? There's nothing physically preventing you from committing 99% of crimes; it's purely the legal implication that generally keeps things in line.

Nobody should be "against" laws & judgements solely because they are not preventative. Preventative measures are counterproductive to any semblance of freedom.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[earls]

Even if it impossible to distinguish the original from the copy? Which one would be considered the counterfeit?

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Beardo the Bearded]

I don't want to use iTunes ever. I have not supported any of Apple's crap over the last 20 years and I don't plan on starting now.

Amazon won't sell you MP3s if you're not in the US. Try and finalize that purchase with a non-US credit card.

Paid movies have a ridiculous amount of unskippable prologue, intro, outro, ads, etc. Pirated movies go on the player and start up in two seconds. My Blu-Ray supports MKV over USB and DNLA and I can play when I want. If I wanted PPV, I could get a recorder from my cable company -- that only works about 90% the time, erases your recordings at random, and doesn't get the start and end most of the time -- or I could just get the latest episode online. (Hulu is US only as well.) I get a fair number of BDs and DVDs from the local library. I don't rip them.

Any other suggestions?

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[QuasiSteve]

How the heck is pirating easier than opening iTunes, or searching in Amazon, and searching for the song you want, and clicking on the buy button.

Yes, easier.

The days of opening a desktop app or TPB to find a single song and instead end up with viruses or a full album download of 200MB are well behind.

1. Open html5.grooveshark.com .
2. Search
3. Click the result of interest

No buy button, no having to fill in any additional information, no having to set up an account, works in your browser (although right now it's failing in firefox, their non-HTML5 interface works, though) and mobile (have been using it on my Android device).

And yes, in many ways this is 'pirating' because Grooveshark does not have agreements with every artist/label whose material is on there; the way they work is that they respect take-down requests, knowing that users will just upload the material again anyway, and offering the artist/label a contract as an alternative where that artist/label gets a few pennies (still more than $0.00 and no expensive legal costs in having to file DMCA/or similar complaints).

It hasn't displaced Spotify (similar to Pandora) here, though, as it doesn't do any of the recommendation / user stations stuff - so for discovering new music there's still better services that shy away from 'piracy'.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[savuporo]

I have not bothered to pirate music in a long time, thanks to Pandora and Spotify mostly. But with that said, iTunes and Amazon do not have a LOT of the stuff that i want to listen to. Whereas my "underground trader" friends do.
One of the things available to pie rats are various mixtapes from good DJs, that are often so well put together that they are better than the sum of their parts. Try finding these on Amazon.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[squiggleslash]

I haven't used iTunes for a long time (and don't even have a Mac any more), but I can say even then it sounded somewhat simpler than what you're implying.

I use Google Music, Amazon MP3, and Rhapsody. What all three do (and I assume iTunes does too to the same extent these days) is combine MP3 purchasing with music management (even back then, the iTunes Store did, it's just its management centered around a single computer.) You don't download an MP3 file via your browser, move it to the right directory, and move on to the next one until you've downloaded your playlist, the systems, to varying degrees, automate the entire process, and do so especially well with devices like Android phones.

From reading your description, and the Wikipedia description of GrooveShark, there are at least two problems with an unlicensed service trying to do the same thing. The first is DMCA complaints have lead to their apps being pulled from iPhones and Android app stores, and the other is that the system pretty much encourages DMCA complaints against its library, which means that any playlist management services they may provide are inherently unreliable.

The only extent to which unlicensed services are "easier", to my mind, is the lack of necessary registration. However, while Rhapsody might suffer from this, almost everyone has an Amazon account already, virtually all Android phone users have an Android Market (eg. Google shopping) account, and virtually all iOS users have an iTunes account.

Let's explain using an example.

From my phone, I can start up Android Market, click Music, and either browse for music or search for it. Once I select the one I want, I click "Buy". I may have to re-enter my password, but that's about it.

At this point:

1. The music is automatically listed in the Music app. I can stream it immediately, or pin it so it downloads onto the phone or tablet
2. The music is being downloaded on my computer at home (even if I'm not at home) and imported into Rhythmbox without me lifting a finger
3. I can pull up a web browser at work, go to music.google.com, and the music is right there, and I can listen to it using streaming.
4. I can build playlists including the music on both the Android app and music.google.com, and they'll also be synced across one another.
5. I can, with one click, share the music with friends who can at least sample the music for free
6. If there are any special exceptions for which the above are not good enough - ie I want to put my music on a Victorian-era iPod like my 10G touchwheel thing, or burn a CD, or whatever, I still get the MP3, and can download it from anywhere at any time.

Virtually every scenario I'm likely to run into is covered by the first set of points above. Also there's Rhapsody, which requires only a subscription, and which all but the second and last points are valid.

Are there negatives? I guess if I were a teenager, I'd gripe about the costs, but on the other hand, if you (or your parents) can afford to get you a smartphone, you can at least afford a Rhapsody subscription.

I think the legal services have, contrary to what you think, done a stunning job of making legal music purchases, or subscriptions, compelling and much easier than the alternatives. "Downloading" an "MP3" may seem "simpler" in a nerdy way, but only if all you do is throw MP3s into a directory on a single hard drive. Getting music is not just about obtaining a binary package, it's about using it afterwards. That's what Google Music, Rhapsody, etc, do very, very, well indeed.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[DarthVain]

Two things:

1) Its a pain in the ass.
2) Its not worth it.

The law never really enters into it.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Tons of people xerox books to .pdf and then pirate them that way. It happens. (especially in the case of Textbooks, which are massively overpriced... Hey, its our friends value and piracy again!)

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Also, if you'd bother reading my argument fully, you'd see I said that IF BOOKS STARTED TO COST MORE then you'd see lots of piracy. At the moment, they're priced fairly, so copying them IS seen as an unnecessary pain in the ass. THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT. GOOD JOB. It ISNT worth it. IT IS a pain in the ass.

Thats how you fight piracy. Not by making piracy the better product, but by making it the worse product. If you're lazy, its easier to buy something off steam and auto-download and auto-patch it and you can re-download it anywhere without the CD, so tons of people buy things on steam, even things they ALREADY OWN.

Meanwhile, games that only have a short single-player campaign, no multiplayer, and no mod support, try to cost $60 and compete with full AAA experiences, and we're not going to have it. People perceive the value of the product as less than the cost, so they're willing to go through the pain in the ass in order to pirate it. Because DRM and misplaced cost MAKE it worth it.

This is all a result of the west's hatred of haggling. If we let people haggle, if you could call up a game studio and say "listen, I'm a college student, I don't have $60 but I can give you $30" it would be in the studio's interest to say "sure!". It costs them next to nothing to distribute the software, so it is almost PURE profit to make ANY sale at ANY cost. Thats why Valve has gone BONKERS with sale after sale after sale, putting games up for as little as 5-10% of their original cost.

You charge $60 for a so-so game with DRM, piracy is worth it.
You charge $10 for that same game, suddenly piracy isn't worth it.

If a new book cost $60, people would pirate it all OVER the place. Things have to be priced according to market value, or your customers won't buy it.

Re:I'm fine with this but...

[DarthVain]

I agree.

Currently they seem to think it is easier to legislate a new laws limiting personal freedoms to protect their profits rather than trying to produce a better product for a cheaper cost.

To even make your argument better for you take the simply example of books.

Why is no one pirating (at least at any grand scale) Hubbert's Battlefield Earth? Sure one could argue it isn't worth reading. However I could certainly argue than scanning 1200 pages so I can get a 10$ book for free seems like a lot of work. Also when the scan is likely to be crappy, reading said book is likely (even more) painful to read. Now compare that for example to the whole textbooks scam. I recall buying a survey book for 150$ in 1999. It was a new addition. We used one chapter. Nothing has changed in surveying more less for a very long time (not including GPS). Now there is a book worth pirating. Why? Because A) it is too expensive, B) you likely only read part of it anyway, and C) its not a good product to begin with.

I believe Apple was going to try and get a piece of that action soon. Here is a business model. Find an industry ripping people off. Now make an improved service that doesn't rip people off quite so much. Profit. Music. Textbooks. Movies. Common theme. IP and copyright.

Anyway it is a sure way to totally kill piracy. Make a better product cheaper.

The ONLY complication that I see that would NOT be addressed by that, is selling to a global economy where their is a HUGH disparity in income from one country to another. Regions don't work. Selling a copy for 120$ in one, and 0.12 cents in another doesn't really work either. Then again, until they make real money, your not losing any REAL money anyway, as they can't afford it in the first place. That is, if 100 Million copies are pirated in China, you didn't just lose 120 Billion in profit. You MAY have lost 12 million, which in the grand scheme of things isn't a big deal (particularity if you now have an established user base of 100 million in China). Anyway they are on their own to figure that out, I'm not here to provide everyone with answers dammit! :)

Right of First Sale

[The Raven]

This decision is going to be challenged, directly or via changing of law, because it's a huge loss for the RIAA. I suspect it will be an important legal precedent, if it is not overturned.

Re:Right of First Sale

[WalkingBear]

Not necessarily. If the ruling that MP3's are, legally, the same as a material object, then the RIAA can argue that putting an mp3 up on bit torrent for X-thousand people to download is the equivalent of manufacturing X-thousand counterfeit copies and distributing them.

That's actually what you're doing, but currently the legal status of MP3's vis a vis material objects is up in the air.

I'm not sure I want this ruling to go in ReDigi's favor. At least not yet.

Re:Right of First Sale

[L4t3r4lu5]

This decision hasn't even happened. This is a factually inaccurate account of this story posted yesterday by NewYorkCountryLawyer. By way of synopsis: The judge denied Capitol Records' motion to enjoin ReDigi (stop them selling Capitol Records licensed media). Nothing more. The case continues in two weeks.

Nothing to see here, please move along.

Ha-buh-wha?

[American AC in Paris]

After some litigation; ReDigi, a site where people can sell used MP3's has been found legal in America.

Punctuation it: can go, pretty; much? Anywhere,

Re:Ha-buh-wha?

[serviscope_minor]

Try, reading it, in the style, of, William Shatner. Let the, punctuation, guide the, pauses.

Material object?

[Hatta]

What is the mass of an MP3?

Re:Material object?

[rubycodez]

A service right before Friday Night MP3 Bingo.

Re:Material object?

[SecurityGuy]

Just like a book, it depends on the medium on which it's written. If it's on a hard drive, I'd say it's the mass of all the sectors containing the bits comprising the MP3. I'm sure you'll object that you could erase it, or write something else there and it would weigh about the same. Very true. Likewise, you could painstakingly pick the ink out of the paper fibers, stick them to different paper fibers, and make an entirely different book that would weigh about the same.

In short, it has a mass even if it's hard to measure, and pointless to bother trying.

Re:Material object?

[Hatta]

If you were being serious, "Material" at this point has its own legal definition, and they do not just mean "physical".

What is that definition? The only one I'm aware of is "Of, relating to, or composed of matter."

Re:Material object?

[Digicrat]

Simple, it's roughly e*x*s, where e=the mass of an electron, s=the size of the file in bits, and x is the average number of electrons needed to store each bit on the chosen storage medium. In this case, mass may appear to vary based on the density of the chosen storage medium.

Alternatively, mass approaches infinity as the file is moved across fiber optic links at the speed of light. WARNING: Attempting to duplicate a file in this state may create a rift in the profit-time continuum.

Re:Material object?

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Are you a lawyer? There's probably a whole lot in law you aren't aware of. Lots of words have contextual definitions, especially within an expert craft.

Re:Material object?

[treeves]

What if I write down the mp3's bits (maybe in hexadecimal...to save time) on college-ruled notebook using a medium Bic ballpoint pen? Then how much does it weigh? And can I sell that?

Re:Material object?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What is the mass of an MP3?

How do you differentiate between a file with random bits in it and an MP3 file?

Re:Material object?

[Hatta]

No, I'm not a lawyer. Yes, I know there is a lot in law I am not aware of. That's why I asked. What is the actual definition of "material object" in law? Where in the law is it defined?

Re:Material object?

[icebraining]

Actually, since electrons have mass, you could make such a calculation.

Nope. You could calculate the mass of a particular representation of the MP3, but not of the MP3 itself, since different storage mediums have different weights.

Your solution is similar to calculating my mass by counting the number of bytes on my /. profile.

Re:Material object?

[Zaphod The 42nd]

You can sell it, if you give up your right to the licence over it as soon as you do. How much does it weigh? I have no clue :)

Re:Material object?

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Sorry, IANAL either :(

Re:Material object?

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Hm, unless you're talking about a zipped representation, you're going to need all the same bits regardless. A differently encoded MP3 would be different, but then that isn't the same MP3. I guess different architectures would use different voltages though, so you could have drastically more electrons per bit...

I was being silly from the get-go though, obviously this isn't serious.

Re:Material object?

[icebraining]

I was thinking more in the ballpark of storing an MP3 in a bunch of QRCodes ;)

Re:Material object?

[mdenham]

You try loading it into your media player of choice and see what it sounds like.

If it sounds like static, it's random bits. If it sounds like music, it's an MP3.

If it sounds like godawful screeching noises, it's also an MP3 (of popular music).

Re:Material object?

[Tastecicles]

From Black's Law Dictionary:
Important; more or less necessary; having influence or effect; going to t[h]e merits; having to do with matter, as distinguished from form. An allegation is said to be material when it forms a substantive part of the case presented by the pleading. Evidence offered in a cause, or a question propounded, is material when it is relevant and goes to the substantial matters in dispute, or has a legitimate and effective influence or bearing on the decision of the case.
Related Legal Terms
IMPERTINENCE, QUiERE, POINT, PRIMA FACIE, PERTINENT, IRRELEVANCY, RELEVANT, LEGIT VEL NON?, DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, ALLEGATION
-

So in Law it refers to the substantive (as in evidence whether oral or written) - matter takes on a more meta meaning than a physically substantive one.

Re:Material object?

[iris-n]

Well, as it is information, it certainly has entropy; let's assume that the best possible encoding of an mp3 is the mp3 itself (not a terrible assumption, since a mp3 is a compressed file, and as such highly entropic). By Landauer's principle, to write a bit irreversibly one spends kTlog(2) Joules. This corresponds to an increase of m = E/c^2 = kTlog(2)/c^2 kg per bit. If one assumes a 8 MB mp3 (One more time @ 256 VBR) at room temperature (300 K), that's 2.55E-31 kg for you.

Re:Material object?

[voidphoenix]

If we take a small leap of thought and apply Landauer's principle, assuming an initially random storage medium that happened to be the perfect inverse of the data you're storing (worst possible case, you have to flip every bit): 1 MB (8×2^20==2^23 bits, 1 MiB for pedants) would take 2.393×10^-14 joules at room temperature, 25 C/298.15 K/77 F(SATP/standard ambient). Converting that with E=mC^2, you get 2.663×10^-28 grams per MB. If we assume a typical mp3 is about 5 MB, it would mass 1.332×10^-27 grams. That's 7.508×10^29 songs per kilogram. 750 octillion. 750 billion billion billion. </intellectual masturbation> :p

Edit: gave up on the degree symbols. alt-0176, &deg; and &#176; all don't work.

Re:Material object?

[Terrasque]

And if the speakers sound broken, it's dubstep.

This makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I have to side with the record companies on this one. When you sell a second hand album you are giving away a unique physical item. Selling a digital item provides no guarantee that you have "given" the original item, or that you don't have a million copies of it, or that you had an original item in the first place.

I'm sorry, but the only way to make this viable is to use DRM, and we all have pretty strong opinions on that.

Re:This makes no sense

[bubkus_jones]

ReDigi apparently uses software that is supposed to transmit the file to the buyer while simultaneously deleting the copy on the seller's system.

No, there's no guarantee that you won't have other copies, but you run into the same problem (effectively) with selling a used CD. I can buy a new CD, rip it (say, in FLAC or other lossless format) and sell the physical copy while keeping the digital copy.

Re:This makes no sense

[Todd Knarr]

True, but then if I sell my copy of a book there's no guarantee I haven't photocopied it and kept the copy either.

Bear in mind that it's not so much an argument over whether MP3s should be treated as material objects or not. It's that the record companies want them treated as material objects for purposes of one section of copyright law (Section 106 covering distribution of copies) but treated as not being material objects for purposes of a different section (Section 109 covering sale of copies). The counterargument is that the record company can't have it both ways, and the judge agreed that if the record companies want it to be considered a copy then defendants are entitled to treat it as a copy even when the record companies would rather they didn't.

Re:This makes no sense

[CanHasDIY]

When you sell a second hand album you are giving away a unique physical item. Selling a digital item provides no guarantee that you have "given" the original item, or that you don't have a million copies of it, or that you had an original item in the first place.

Selling a physical item, say a used CD, provides no guarantee that you have "given" the original item, or that you don't have a million copies of it, or that you had a[ legally acquired] original item in the first place.

So... what's your point?

Re:This makes no sense

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Selling a digital item provides no guarantee that you have "given" the original item, or that you don't have a million copies of it, or that you had an original item in the first place.

Yeah, you can't steal a music CD, make a million copies of it, and sell those. That can only happen in the real world.

Re:This makes no sense

[cheekyjohnson]

Why ban something entirely because of the actions of certain people? I don't think that's fair or sensible.

Re:This makes no sense

[arbiter1]

They want MP3 to have a double standard, they are treated as material for 1 law but not when it comes to another law. Hate to say that is pretty dumb way to try to get things. But it figures only music industry and movie industries could come up with such a moron argument. I am glad judge didn't side with such non-sense, if its material under 1 law then its material on all law's.

Not true...

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge simply denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendant which means the case will go to trial.

Actual source of information: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/judge-denies-record-labels-request-to-shutter-used-mp3-store.ars

In short selling of used mp3's hasn't been answered yet (the summary is wrong).

Huzzah!

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Three cheers! Score one for the right of first sale!

Not True

[ZombieBraintrust]

The title of this article is wrong. Everything I read shows no decision has been made yet. The Judge ruled that there is no need for a prelimenary injunction.

Re:Not True

[gnasher719]

The title of this article is wrong. Everything I read shows no decision has been made yet. The Judge ruled that there is no need for a prelimenary injunction.

I followed the link in the meaningless drivel that claims to be a submission. The link points to a blog full of meaningless drivel with another link. That link points to another blog full of meaningless drivel which contains a link to an Ars Technica article. And if you follow that link, you find that a submitter has quoted a clueless twat who copied an article from a clueless twat who read an Ars Technica article and didn't understand a word of it.

Quote from Ars Technica here http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/judge-denies-record-labels-request-to-shutter-used-mp3-store.ars : "Sullivanâ(TM)s decision means that the case is still headed to trial, where Capitol will attempt to prove its allegations that ReDigi facilitates wanton copyright infringement and is not protected by the first-sale doctrine."

African or European?

[perpenso]

What is the mass of an MP3?

An African or European MP3?

Re:For crying out loud, think.

[ticker47]

than /= then

The computer didn't underline it red so it must be right!

Steam

[spyder-implee]

I wonder if this would set a precedent for those who wanted to sell games they owned on digital distribution services like Steam?

Re:Steam

[bhcompy]

Indeed. This is highly important

Wonderful

[_0x783czar]

This is important, the precedent this creates will be important in the future of digital media. The implications could be ground-breaking. If it is a material object, it becomes subject to the laws which govern the purchase and use of a chair, or hammer. (as far as I can understand). I really wonder what effect it will have in the long run. If it will change things, or be forgotten.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:For crying out loud, think.

[CanHasDIY]

Ya, but I still get an error when I try to compile...

Re:For crying out loud, think.

[SecurityGuy]

I parsed that last bit as "then == ale", and realized it was time to go home. Then does in face equal ale.

What's really going on?

[gnasher719]

Just a few hours ago Slashdot reported that a judge had refused an injunction against ReDigi, and now they are supposed to have won their case? I'd say there are two possibilities: One, that we have a judge who can run at speeds exceeding the speed of light, because that's the only way a case could have finished so quick. Or second, that the submitter is a clueless twat you didn't understand a word of what he is actually submitting. Since there is no link to any real information, I assume the latter.

Re:What's really going on?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Just a few hours ago Slashdot reported that a judge had refused an injunction against ReDigi, and now they are supposed to have won their case? I'd say there are two possibilities: One, that we have a judge who can run at speeds exceeding the speed of light, because that's the only way a case could have finished so quick. Or second, that the submitter is a clueless twat you didn't understand a word of what he is actually submitting. Since there is no link to any real information, I assume the latter.

Haven't you heard of a 'rocket docket'?

Re:For crying out loud, think.

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Did you mean to use both the assignment operator and the conditional test?
"=" != "=="

Article Bogus

[ZombieBraintrust]

This story is bogus. It looks like yahoo news misquoted a arstechnica acticle. Then some blog sourced the yahoo new article. There was no ruling on First Sale. The ruling only states there is no need for an injunction. The judge is going to rule on First Sale in a few weeks.

Fake Story

[ZombieBraintrust]

Score is still 0 to 0. This article is bogus.

Re:Fake Story

[SteveTheNewbie]

You could actually read the summary and then follow the various twisty passages to the actual article source..

To be honest, that would be a lot more persuasive, than him just saying 'the article refers to a yahoo news story, which refers to an arstechnica story which talks about an entirely different thing that was reported on slashdot a few days ago already' because chances are, you'll STILL require him to somehow prove it while doing no research yourself.

Re:Fake Story

[Zaphod The 42nd]

... What? I'm really confused about what you're trying to say.
I read the summary and the article. Nothing about it was self-contradictory. Active politic detailed what happened. There was a yahoo page that described it.

Since then, Activepolitic has themselves posted that it was incorrect, and they took the time to post a quotation of a District Judge saying the injuction was denied. THAT is what I was looking for. If he could have provided a website, or even just paste a quote, then I'd know his reasoning. If he noticed the page got updated, he should have said "check the page, yahoo was wrong, they updated it." Instead of just "article is bogus" and then I'd know.

I don't know what the hell you're on about for not doing research and requiring proof. The Correction wasn't yet posted when I commented about this article this morning.

Re:Fake Story

[ZombieBraintrust]

I felt it was redundant. There were like 10 posts saying the above by the time I read your reply.

Judge only denied a motion for summary judgement.

[VidEdit]

No, selling used mp3s has not been found legal. If you trace the link's back to the original source you get this article at Ars:

**Judge denies record label's request to shutter "used" MP3 store**

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/judge-denies-record-labels-request-to-shutter-used-mp3-store.ars

The judge still thinks ReDigi's arguments are likely to fail and that Capitol Records will prevail. The only thing that is significant is that ReDigi's case isn't over yet at the motion stage.

Re:For crying out loud, think.

[Beardo the Bearded]

I parsed that last bit as "then == ale", and realized it was time to go home. Then does in face equal ale.

Wherever you are, it's well past time to go home. ;)

Follow the links.

[ZombieBraintrust]

The activepolitic link sources yahoo news. yahoo news sources arstechnica. The arstechnica does not state a decision was made. It state the judge refused the injuction. Yahoo news screwed up and the activepolitic reposted it.

Norm Abram is a pirate!

[Khopesh]

So if an MP3 is a material object and can thus be resold, what does this say about copying it?

In The New Yankee Workshop, host Norm Abram buys a piece of furniture and then brings it back to his shop. He then makes a very near exact replica of it and often donates or sells the replica. We have just concluded that an MP3 is a similar material object. What does this say about piracy? Is Norm a furniture pirate?

What does this say about software license agreements? Ignoring software patents, is it still illegal for me to reverse compile a piece of software to see how it works and then implement a piece of it in another project? Or is it not so material?

Re:Norm Abram is a pirate!

[camperdave]

Norm would be violating copyright if the furniture he was copying was of recent design. I'm guessing, though, that he copies "heritage" (aka really old) pieces, and not modern ones. I've only seen two or three episodes.

So, if they aren't material objects, what then?

[Omnifarious]

Why did the RIAA need them to be material objects under one law and not the other? What are the consequences if they are not considered 'material objects' under either law?

Re:So, if they aren't material objects, what then?

[JeanCroix]

And furthermore, if it's a license, then the seller is responsible for providing backup copies if the original is damaged or lost, no?

Re:So, if they aren't material objects, what then?

[cpghost]

Each MP3 is simply one (huge) number.

Supreme Court Will Smack that Down

[Kagato]

Mind you, this has to get past the same Supreme Court that said Costco was Violating Rolex's trademark by importing watches from other (cheaper) markets for sale in the US. Right of First Sale is not their forte.

Re:Supreme Court Will Smack that Down

[91degrees]

They probably were. Not sure about US copyright law, but a lot of countries have explicit language covering licenses offering exclusive rights to a territory. Typically this only covers import for reasons of resale.

You may have an issue with the law itself, but the interpretation is valid.

And a Dupe

[pavon]

Yeah, and informed account of that decision by the actual lawyer for ReDigi was
posted on slashdot just this morning.

Re:And a Dupe

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yeah, an informed account of that decision by the actual lawyer for ReDigi was posted on slashdot just this morning.

You telling me NewYorkCountryLawyer is a real lawyer? Damn, I preferred the fictional version --> "6 most badass lawyers ever"

The "Source" link in the Summary is Bogus

[NotSanguine]

There has been no definitive ruling by the courts in this litigation. The judge only denied Capitol Records request for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi to force them to cease operations while the litigation proceeds. That, most likely would have forced ReDigi out of business, which may well have been what the judge was thinking about. We won't have any real answers about this until after a trial and, presumably, the inevitable appeals.

More Info here and here

Sensationalist Headline

[curunir]

The linked story is from some fly-by-night news site that cites a Yahoo! news posting that totally misinterprets an ArsTechnica posting that actually analyzes the actual decision (which is hosted on Wired.) Somehow in this online news game of telephone, it went from the actual story, posted accurately earlier in the day by NewYorkCountryLawyer, that the judge denied the plaintiff's motion for an injunction to the sensationalist story that the judge had ruled in favor of the defendant and ruled that their business is legal. Denying the injunction means that ReDigi gets to keep doing business during the trial. That's it, nothing more. They could still lose at trial. The trial hasn't even started, let alone been decided in a way that would mean that reselling mp3s is legal.

In short, this is a misinformed dupe of the story posted by NewYorkCountryLawyer earlier in the day. Read and comment on that one because this is sensationalist garbage. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Sensationalist Headline

[idontgno]

Agreed.

This should have been story-modded "-1 Dupe" and "-1 Troll" and probably "-15 Irrational Wish Fulfillment".

Apparently, the illustrious Slashdot Story Pipeline works as well as the rest of the "editorial" system.

I find myself wishing someone had just posted a pointer to a (hypothetical) Florian Mueller blog-dropping about the case instead of this tripe.

Seriously. Please stop reading this story and read NYCL's submission instead. It has the virtue of being grounded in reality and based on fact.

Re:Sensationalist Headline

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Please stop reading this story and read NYCL's submission [slashdot.org] instead. It has the virtue of being grounded in reality and based on fact.

Yeah, but reality can be so dreary some times.

Physical or Intellectual Property?

[InsertCleverUsername]

I am loving the irony. For decades these jerks made us buy vinyl, then 8-tracks, then cassettes, then DAT, then CDs (maybe even fancy gold ones) of the same songs each time a new format became available --and if the player ate my tape, I had to shell out another $8.50. They told us we were purchasing physical objects. Now they claim music is intellectual property and you can't resell it?

How long before music comes with a EULA?

Re:Physical or Intellectual Property?

[JeanCroix]

If I recall, it already did. There was fine print on a lot of CDs regarding rights, redistribution, etc.

Going back up the chain...

[JeanCroix]

In terms of the licensing between the media companies and their sellers (i.e. iTunes), it's no longer a distributor model, but a publisher model, since iTunes itself makes and sells you a copy of a song. Unless their servers contain thousands of copies of the same song and they delete one every time they sell one, they are now publishers in the sense that they make the copies, rather than distributors (like record stores) who just sell the copies shipped to them.

So, does this even matter in the long run?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The last time I bought used MP3s....

[Radical Moderate]

....they were all scratched.

Re:The last time I bought used MP3s....

[JeanCroix]

Worse yet, my hovercraft was full of eels!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Video Games

[rjhubs]

So the same logic should apply to video games correct? I should be able to resell a copy I purchased off Steam?

Re:Video Games

[the eric conspiracy]

Software is more problematic because of claims by the copyright owner that it is licensed rather than sold.

Re:For crying out loud, think.

[Bucc5062]

in this case it would be blue...linux users...meh...Real users use Microsoft Word then cut and paste to /. ;-)

Some Lame /. Editor

[Fnord666]

Some lame, lazy ass slashdot editor needs to be fired over this article. Something that would be of interest to a majority of the /. readership and he can't be bothered to check a link or verify the story? It's a wonder anyone subscribes any more.

FTFS: if MP3s are material objects...

[Tastecicles]

...then isn't copying them (downloading/distribution) counterfeiting? Could serial copyright infringers find themselves at the blunt end of a racketeering charge?

Re:deh

[gearloos]

Because those minute..err mp3s are new! Once they have been listened to, they are used. Eww, the tarnish alone should be an obvious clue that there is a difference. Can't you see the yellow bits there as it goes down the pipe?

Not to nitpick (but I will)...

[Dogbertius]

Don't you mean RAID 0 in this case (ie: striping; performance boost at the cost of increased probability of data loss assuming drive failure rate P is independent from drive to drive)?

Or, are you referring to a faulty RAID 1 (mirroring) configuration where two disks are cloned (for the most part, say, 99.999%), but there is somehow a file on one of the two disks that is not on the other? That must be a pretty shoddy RAID controller if that is the case. I've only ever seen such an outcome with the cheap Dell NAS units that did RAID 0, 1, 1+0, 5, and X-RAID. They don't do real hardware RAID, just Linux LVM partitioning to accomplish software RAID. When I found this out, I was kind of choked considering how expensive they were, but I figured so long as I have redundant data, who cares about performance for a device that isn't used much.

Then it loses information on the LVM partition setup and I have to manually recover over the course of two days with a Slackware Linux machine built for tech tasks. What a nightmare. Although this is not the same error you encountered, I can sympathize with someone who has had to deal with cut-rate RAID controllers.

star trek

[DSS11Q13]

So the whole transfer thing is kind of like being beamed somewhere in star trek...

are you really being transferred, or just disintegrated and rebuilt someplace else? does the second James Brown mp3 have the same soul?

Used MP3s

[aglider]

Are just like "used" HTML pages. They are just files, copies or "original" files.
They are mine.

doesn't matter, article is wrong

[poetmatt]

the judge only refused an injunction, not actually made any kind of ruling.

Re:For crying out loud, think.

[fibonacci8]

I parsed that last bit as "then == ale", and realized it was time to go home. Then does in face equal ale.

This is known as quaffing.

Damn, we all gonna be rich

[Sinn3d]

Don't these people know that you can make copies of files/mp3's.

Don't tell them yet, we can make a killing here.

true

[192939495969798999]

Mp3's and other digital media actually do exist in the form of 0's and 1's that are present in some sort of electrical charge or optical divot. rabbits are easy to duplicate and you can sell those, so the ease of duplication does not preclude something which exists from being sellable.