Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules That Resale of MP3s Violates Copyright Law
Redigi runs a service that lets you resell your digitally purchased music. Naturally, they were sued by major labels soon after going live, with heavyweights like Google weighing in with support and an initial victory against pre-trial injunctions. But the first actual court ruling is against them. Pikoro writes "A judge has sided with Capitol Records in the lawsuit between the record company and ReDigi — ruling that MP3s can only be resold if granted permission by copyright owners. From the article: 'The Order is surprising in light of last month's United States Supreme Court decision in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons, which reaffirmed the importance and applicability of the First Sale Doctrine in the United States of America.'"
Redigi vows to appeal, and claims that the current version of their service is not affected by the lawsuit.
Frist Sale!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Clearly the judge is a firm believer in piracy, else he wouldn't have made that ruling. Seriously though, people are trying to sell "used" mp3's?
bio->bi_end_io(bio, error);
Redigi's business model relies upon making copies. The Thai bloke was importing copies. He wasn't making copies.
This will be an interesting case to follow, with possible consequences for reselling other digital goods like games.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
What about Flac and the other variety of formats that could be sold? This is a huge can of worms that no one will be able to bolt the lid on no matter what the judicial rulings are.
"Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce," Judge Sullivan wrote. "However, courts have not previously addressed whether the unauthorized transfer of a digital music file over the Internet -- where only one file exists before and after the transfer -- constitutes reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The court holds that it does."
Someone needs to audit the bank records for this judge. From his statement it is clear that the judge understands, at least to some extent, the implications of the decision that he is making. That he would issue a summary judgement on such an issue is bordering on misconduct.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
In fairness, it does actually say "Pikoro writes" in TFS.
Sure, I can say that I deleted the Mp3, but how can I prove it?
I might have copies of it elsewhere, on memory sticks.
Personally, I think a fair price for mp3's is under 10 cents these days.
And I think when you actually go to the trouble of "buying" one, then you should be able to redownload it in the future.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
At one time artists
I stopped reading there. Anyone that brings "artists" into this discussion is bringing a record company-sponsored fallacy into the argument.
The discussions about copyright at this level have NOTHING to do with artists. Zero.
You might be right on the rest of the points, but you're conflating record companies and artists. It's exactly what the RIAA wants you to do and it's one of the things that has prevented smart discussion on music copyrights since the DAY that mp3 was invented.
It's easy to understand the judiciary. Whichever party has the most money wins.
Now where's my law degree?
I don't understand why 1st sale doctrine can't be applied to digital content. The easily copied argument applies to CDs which only take a few minutes to copy. 1st sale doctrine applies to CDs. It seems that now that Capitol Records is on the digital media bandwagon, they want to change the rules. When will the insanity stop. Is the US going to take a step back into prosecuting people for witchcraft again?
I think the conclusion here is that "first sale doctrine" does not apply because the content in question was never sold, but licensed.
Customary car analog: It could be equated to selling a car. The new owner must pay to register their new car with the state. Oddly in this case however you'd be legally required to contact Ford and ask permission prior to being able legally to sell the car.
Idk, maybe you could photocopy a book, then sell it. Sounds like we need to ban the sale of books as well.
This will be an interesting case to follow, with possible consequences for reselling other digital goods like games.
One of the key points seemed to be that no physical good was exchanged; so a DVD version of the game would be re-salable under TDoFS but a digital version such as from Steam or iTunes would not be. the judge said that because the transfer involved copying a file it was infringing; whereas a physical version form teh copyright owner would not.
Interestingly, a strong DRM system that ensured only 1 person could use the item might not infringe since you could transfer the key w/o copying the file. A service such as Steam could then provide a new licensed copy of the file and prevent the original key holder form using the game.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Didn't the supreme court just rule that the "first sale doctrine" stands?
In other words, if I buy a book, I can sell it to somebody else.
If I sell the mp3 and delete it off my computer / mp3 player, what is the difference between a book and an mp3 of a book?
The issue appears to be one of qualitative vs. numerical identity: If you buy a book, you have the right to resell that book. If you buy an mp3, you have the right to resell that mp3. The ruling here is that what is being sold isn't 'that mp3', it is a bit-for-bit copy(but nevertheless, a copy) of the mp3 that you actually had a right to sell.
Given the number of times that things get copied during the routine operations of a computer system, this would seem to totally gut any first sale of digital files in practice, and possibly even leave users requiring explicit authorization to do totally normal things(eg. If you play an mp3, your decoder software produces a 'derivative work' and stores it in system RAM, when it uncompresses the mp3, possibly with one or more additional links in the playback chain, software equalizers etc. producing further unauthorized derivative works in RAM; before the result is copied over a system bus to your sound card. If you defragment your HDD, chunks of the mp3 could easily end up being copied elsewhere and erased in the first location one or more times, possibly leaving you with no 'original' mp3 at all after a few fragmentation/defragmentation cycles.); but that seems to be the logic.
Anyone that brings "artists" into this discussion is bringing a record company-sponsored fallacy into the argument.
Bullshit. I get sick and tired of slashdot zealots who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a fucking paid shill.
I couldn't care less about record companies or artists owning private jets and stately homes. All I know is that artists need to get money from somewhere, and a lot of us aren't particularly interested in going to live concerts now that we're over 18. I don't see why the people paying to see the artist live should subsidise me by letting me pay nothing to listen to the music at home.
But yeah, obviously I must work for the RIAA to think that, because everyone either believes exactly the same things you do or they're wrong.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Reselling media is only evil and wrong this week. It'll be absolutely fine, 'innovative' and mainstream as soon as Amazon, Apple or Google starts doing it:
http://www.zdnet.com/amazon-lands-patent-on-marketplace-for-selling-on-used-digital-content-7000010917/
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/07/apples-digital-content-resale-and-loan-system-could-allow-drm-transfers-between-end-users
The object of copyright is referred to a 'work'. I have not been able to find a coherent definition of a 'work'.
Is it a physical thing? Is it an immaterial form? Is it a sequence of bits?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
It's not like anyone forces an artist to sign a recording contract.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So it does. Didn't see it cause it was formatted at the end of the sentence instead of where it normally goes. I stand corrected.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Where did I call anyone a paid shill? I said it was pushing forward a RIAA-centered version of the argument.
I also don't care if record executives get paid... as LONG as the artist gets paid in a fair way. And that's the rub. The RIAA is pushing forward ideas that take care of the artists when they *don't*. They've spend around 100 years of the recording industry making sure they screw their artists.
I am all for the artist getting paid. I care about it a lot MORE than an RIAA middle man getting paid and I'm smart enough to know that the whine that the RIAA pushes forward about the artist are disingenuous.
Ah.. I must of hit a nerve.
Do artists who've been dead for three+ decades still need to get money from somewhere as well?
The problem is that you never had physical posession of the work. As its digital, you can make a perfect copy. What is to stop someone from downloading a ton of MP3s from some file-sharing site, then trying to sell them on a place like this? What is to stop you from buying music on amazon or itunes or having a streaming subscription to Rhapsody, taking the files, using the analogue hole, saving as an mp3, selling on the site, and still keeping your original files?
The only way that you could resale digital media is if it was DRMed, and in that case, the company would have to allow you to deauthorize your machine and pass it on to someone else, but even still, you can convert to another DRM free format in many cases, which, once again, allows you to keep a copy.
I can't see how the First Sale Doctorine would apply to this case. You HAVE to have some type of physical media for first sales doctorine to be able to apply, otherwise there is no way to really track if something is pirated or not.
Although I guess you could argue that I could make a copy of a DVD or CD or something, but its not in the original case with the original cover with the original pressing, so the copy really has no value.
Yes, you get a rock star treatment with empty promises and end up owing the record company. Do some research and find out how Record companies screw artists badly each and every time,
Musicians are not the smartest business men.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Aside of the strict legal blablabla, the future will be limited by the increase of the cost of controlling and hunting the copy. Because the privacy will always be a sensitive subject, there is no way for a simple system to control any possible copy. The situation will be more and more complex, and so will be the tools that try to search something. And complex tools cots a lot. Who will pay for it ? Yes, the customer. At one point at one point of cost, others business models will be more profitable for the artists than obliterate a lot of money in making potential customers angry.
*Must have. Must of doesn't make any sense.
Bullshit. I get sick and tired of slashdot zealots who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a fucking paid shill.
Wait what? The record companies have a long record of on the one hand whining about how the piracy is hurting the artists and on the other hand fucking the artists as hard as they can.
Many of us on slashdot are sick and tired of the lies and hipocracy spewed forth by the abhorrent organisations.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Not sure about three+ decades, but 2Pac seems to keep producing new stuff.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I couldn't care less about record companies or artists owning private jets and stately homes. All I know is that artists need to get money from somewhere...
And how much do artists* take in from the sales of their albums? If the labels are here to help the artists, then it's certainly a big share. But all I hear/read points in some other direction.
* When I say "artists, I'm not talking about U2, Britney Spears, Linkin' Park or any other big name, who basically have made all the money they'd ever need if they weren't wasting it in Ferraris, coke, or whatever. I'm talking about small bands who are starting their careers and make their first albums through a label. Those with basically no power to negotiate the terms with the label.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Forming a union to prevent competition is wrong - at this point you (the union member) are the aggressor. This issue (selling digital media) will go through the court system many, many times before becoming settled law. I, as with most here, think that reselling digital media is normal and acceptable behavior and no different than selling "used" books.
I cannot see the "license" argument winning the day. It didn't apply to intellectual property pre-digital age (books, music) and there isn't anything "new" about digital media except for the ability to easily make copies.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
They just passed a law that allows everything to be resold. Music, DLC, Online Games, Operating Systems that come "tied" to systems. They are all allowed to be resold. Licensed or not, they are allowed to be resold. This guy should just move his business there and be protected under EU law.
They don't have to negotiate with the labels.
There are more and more successful independent bands these days, thanks to a computer & software that does most of what the labels used to subsidize.
Now, they get to hit the road and just play & sell their own music.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I don't see why the people paying to see the artist live should subsidise me by letting me pay nothing to listen to the music at home.
Then is it against your morals to listen to the radio? Or perhaps you consider radio paid because you have to listen to ads. You never surf to another station when an ad break comes, is that right?
Why do you talk as if the only way for artists to make money is live concerts or sales of copies of recordings? There are other ways, and they do work. The industry should have been working more on them in the 20 years since it became obvious that the ability to make copies was very democratic and both impossible and harmful to attempt to keep from the public. Instead, they have opted for this idiotic dead end of trying to deny copying to the public, and they've not been at all scrupulous about it. They've made idiots of themselves, again. This time, they've pushed this lost cause so hard and so long they've also made themselves into public enemies. Recall that they fought cassettes, VCRs, AM radio, and even player pianos. 100 years ago, they were actually opposed to copyright, fearing the cost and administrative overhead of securing rights to use various artists' work. Hollywood was set up on the west coast to get as far away as possible from the rights holders of Broadway, who were abusing their "rights" to make it difficult to employ the then new technology of film. Those rights were meant to ensure that artists receive compensation, not stop progress. Now the RIAA and MPAA are the crotchety, moralizing, hypocritical, senile, negative deniers of reality, sense, and progress. They're so afraid of losing what they never really had that they won't reach out and embrace a far richer world. That's okay. But they're also greedy, trying to prevent us from embracing it, and that's not okay. They want easy copying for themselves, and think they have a natural right to keep easy copying from the rest of us. They've done a good job of confusing the issues and the public, convincing many that if we don't stamp out piracy, the world of music will end. They're dinosaurs trying to pretend that the meteor never struck.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Then maybe they should stop using the word "purchase" and instead use the word "license".
Ditto for digital game "sales"
If I can't sell them, can I just give them away when I am done with them?
Not sure about three+ decades, but 2Pac seems to keep producing new stuff.
That is because 2Pac isn't dead.
This is just another example of the disconnect between the studios and their customers. Studios believe that they are selling a license but customers believe that they are buying a product. The studios don't want to be explicit about this because they know that customers would revolt. That is why they work behind the scenes (a court case is behind the scenes for most people) to impose their view of the world without making an announcement. Customers won't like it at first, but eventually people will learn to adjust. However, as part of that new paradigm, studios should provide a free backup service so that the media travels with the person and not a particular downloaded copy.
This being said, I have no idea how someone can generally sell an mp3 in the traditional sense absent some sort of registry system. In theory, if I delete my copy of an mp3 before "selling" it to someone else that has the same character as selling a CD. However, there is no way to know if I actually deleted my copy absent some sort of ownership registry. Selling a CD has that same problem because there is no way to know if someone made a digital copy before selling the physical media. However, that is an enforcement problem and not necessarily a copyright problem assuming that everyone follows the rules.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
So, do you think the work was intended to be re-sold? If not, then by your own argument the copyright holder does have the right to deny copying for that purpose.
You're thinking of 17 U.S.C. 117(a), which I already mentioned. It's limited to computer programs. And I don't see how making a copy to sell to other people is "required for the use of the work."
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
And was it one of these independent artists that sued this company?
When you were a kid, your parents made the rules and you just had to live by them.
That is not the case in a democracy. Stop thinking about it in a "government knows best", "the rules are the rules", and "I must always obey authorities" way.
If you think you SHOULD be able to sell, or let your kids inherit, your digital music files, and current laws will not allow it, GET THE LAW CHANGED. It's really as simple as that. Rules aren't really there to be broken, but rules are there to be changed with changing circumstances. The circumstances need not change based on the rules if a large majority considers the new circumstances more desirable than the previous ones.
The only PROBLEM is how to get this done. Current legislative and political environments favour Big Business... but a grassroots campaign supported by alternate (I should say: re-purposed) large-scale media can still work, see SOPA/PIPA.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that the original seller is not entitled to any special consideration once the sale completes.
So whether something was "intended to be resold" is irrelevant - you sold it to me, so I can resell it without your permission.
I also see arguments based around "copying" as being what copyright is about; it's not - distribution is what it is about.
Reselling is about transfer of ownership, not distribution. That on the technical level this transfer of ownership consists of a copy followed by a delete, should not matter - when the operation completes, there is only 1 file, so there no "copy" took place.
When all other methods of communication fail, try words.
Thanks for following the conversation.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Quit buying shit from these bastards. I don't.
One thing that I haven't seen discussed is if the lawyers for the music industry have overstepped purchasers' legal rights. Just because iTunes, Amazon or Capitol Records' legally drafted EULAs say a person can't do this doesn't mean that's all there is to it. Remember the EULAs that used to be included in software boxes that said once you open the box, you can't return it. In this case, even though it was a legally drafted contract, it took away the purchasers' rights because it was hidden from the user. In this case, it's going to be up to the judges (assuming there will be appeals) to try and find if/how the contracts adhere to the law.
This is why people steal music and movies instead of purchasing them. Screw Me, No Screw You!
I thought this was a case of people not purchasing music since they're not sold music despite it being labeled as "buy now", "buy on blablastore" "available for purchase on shittunes"... the judge should have gone the case by the way of how it is advertised since it's a consumer case and not by the small print comicbook joke eulas.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
A copy of the work was made to allow the purchaser to download it in the first place, hence the reason it is required for the use of the work. The copyright owner can copy it as many times as they want perfectly legally but as soon as it changes hands and the copy of the work is authorized for the use of the purchaser. If that copy is not able to be resold as a standard good under the doctrine of First Sale, technically nothing that anyone purchases should be allowed to be resold as the original design was copied and replicated en masse for resale in the same way as an MP3 is, albeit with much more work involved and typically a much lower profit margin.
Technically you can argue that the physical structure at the molecular level is different in each of the physical products, but if the molecular structure of the product is the key, then I can replicate and resell anything on the market without fear of repercussions. Ultimately just because MP3s are more easy to copy doesn't make them ineligible for First Sale protections. It is not the onus of the purchaser to ensure the product can't be easily copied, it is their responsibility only to legally purchase the product for personal use and, in the event that they wish to resell said product, transer ownership to the new purchaser legally under First Sale. With regard to digital sales, as long as the product is no longer usable or copyable by the original purchaser, I don't see a single bit of difference.
The copyright owner cannot be the owner of the files in question unless it is designated as a rental and sold as such. If they do not own the copy of the original that they sold, the purchaser owns that file or files and can therefore transfer that ownership to whomever they want.
I know you may say that CD prices are expensive based on what new CDs sell for.
But go back to say 2004 and earlier, and you will find for the most part the cost of CDs is practically nothing. You can buy 90% of CDs for $2 or less (plus shipping).
Most of the time, you can buy a CD for $1 or less.
For most part, prices of old CDs are still cheaper than mp3s of these albums.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
You can edit/modify their idtags, change pictures, etc. it won't be like the original. :O
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
technically nothing that anyone purchases should be allowed to be resold as the original design was copied and replicated en masse for resale in the same way as an MP3 is, albeit with much more work involved and typically a much lower profit margin.
All of those copies were authorized by the copyright holder. Once a copy is delivered to you, you are not authorized to make additional copies.
Technically you can argue that the physical structure at the molecular level is different in each of the physical products, but if the molecular structure of the product is the key, then I can replicate and resell anything on the market without fear of repercussions. Ultimately just because MP3s are more easy to copy doesn't make them ineligible for First Sale protections.
Sure, if you sell the physical disk that the MP3 was originally delivered to. But if you make a copy from that disk to another disk, you have copied without authorization. It's the same as if I buy sheet music. I can sell that sheet music if I want, but I'm not entitled to photocopy it and deliver the photocopy to another person, even if I destroy the original. There are some exceptions like fair use, which is why libraries have copiers, but the baseline rule of copyright is that you cannot make any copies without authorization.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I spent some time yesterday reading the findings in full, and the courts ruling is compliant with copyright law. The issue is that copyright law is out of date, but that's not the courts responsibility, necessarily. Take that to the Supreme Court. You're allowed to make a copy to use it (fair use) such as loading into memory, putting onto your MP3 player, etc. In fact, Capitol Records didn't even contest that a user is allowed to upload a copy to a third party service in order to access it for personal use (ie, a cloud storage locker). What they contested was that if you then try to sell that reproduced version of the file (which, under copyright law, it is - it's a reproduced version even if the original doesn't remain anymore), then that copy falls outside the bounds of fair use and becomes an illegal copy at which stage it can't be sold. In other words, it's the act of trying to sell it which makes it an illegal copy.
This is clearly a case where copyright law needs to be updated. Under the ruling, the only way to sell an MP3 is to sell the computer you first downloaded it on, and include the MP3 with it. According to the ruling, technically, even putting it onto a disk and selling the disk is a breach, although it'd be very difficult for anyone to prove you didn't first download it to the disk - although if they had reason to believe you didn't (ie, sitting in a stall selling CDs with MP3s that you say you purchased legally) a warrant would quickly sort that out.
It feels like what's needed is an open, distributed form of DRM which doesn't rely on static servers, and where the rights assigned to the file can be changed at the whim of the user, not a third party. And copyright law updated to reflect the nature of our digital world.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
Or we could embrace the coming stuffpocalypse in which all physical goods can be reproduced at home (essentially) for free and start thinking bigger as a species. Consumerism is fun, don't get me wrong, but it's just a blip and we have a lot of work to do.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
If we can't resell MP3s, simply change the file extension, or convert it to another format. Then it's not an MP3 anymore! Why hasn't anyone thought of this?
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
No, Apple is selling tracks after negotiating a license with the labels. Allofmp3 was selling tracks under a loophole in Russian law that was intended for radio. Apple tries to make sure that you can't use a store outside of a jurisdiction where they have licensed the music (e.g. using the US store from the UK). It is possible to buy iTunes gift vouchers online from third parties to bypass this, but Apple can at least claim that they are attempting to try avoid it. In contrast, allofmp3 had a site in English, even though that wasn't the official language anywhere where they had a license to distribute music, and took credit cards from anywhere.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What about all the books found in used book stores? Sounds like a double standard to me. Sounds like the typical bullshit we have to put up with in the "free" country.
This decision is in no way surprising to anyone who knows copyright law. US Copyright law *explicitly* states that you do not have a right to resell digital copies, and if those guys had a lawyer advising them on their business when they set it up, they should be suing him for malpractice now. Look up "First Sale Doctrine" if you're having trouble sleeping.
If you're a cynic (as I am) this is evidence of the ridiculous influence of copyright owners on Washington.
However, there is *some* rational for this - if you buy a CD and then sell it to someone else, no new copies have been made. But, if you buy an MP3, and then sell it to someone else, to do so, you must make a copy. Which means you're now in copyright territory, since you're selling a copy of the work without the author's permission.
Now, personally speaking, I think if you're going to certify your copy has been destroyed, this shouldn't be a problem - but that's the law, now, and has been for more than a decade (maybe longer, I started paying attention when I was at EMusic ca. 1998).
You're right about Apple, but FWIW there are a number of US companies who do things that are legal in the US, but illegal in Europe and for some reason get away with it.
It's usually to do with privacy, and whilst some companies who are victims of millions of pounds of Microsoft lobbying for punishment in the EP like Google get rapped for it, others like Facebook who have very clearly broken the Data Protection Act in the UK (and equivalent in many European countries) continue to get away with it. For example, Facebook opted my account in to allowing friends to allow 3rd parties to access friends data (hence my data). This is a clear breach of the DPA as the only person who can authorise these 3rd parties to access my data is me, no one else can do it on my behalf.
I contacted the ICO over it and they simply didn't care, yet when I contacted them about a fairly large European recruitment agency illegaly selling on my CV they dealt with it within days - there's clearly a disparity between how they treat European companies and US companies in this area at least.
No, you are allowed to record it on any media for the purpose of playback. If that recording is on a USB stick, then you sell that USB stick, then that is a legal transfer. The work is intended to be re-sold, as it was called a "sale" not a "rental" so it's obvious it was intended to be sold, or at least the lie of "resale" was passed to convince us that it was a sale, so that we wouldn't revolt over the revolting offering. But, now that they call it a "sale" they are legally arguing in court that it wasn't a "sale".
Learn to love Alaska
And I don't see how making a copy to sell to other people is "required for the use of the work."
They owned it. They offered it up for trade. If I give then $0.99, they "sell" me an MP3. If it's a sale, they lose all claim to it once they take my money. If it's a limited rental of a limited license, then they committed fraud. They argue both in court, depending on the opposition claims. The "issue" is that they are claiming it is both a sale and a license, but the license wasn't sold so it can't be transferred, but it was a "sale" in that they have no responsibility for the upkeep of the license rental.
If it's "sold" then re-selling it is a required feature of using it (otherwise it wasn't a sale), so copying it to sell is necessary for the work to be used as sold.
Learn to love Alaska
All of those copies were authorized by the copyright holder. Once a copy is delivered to you, you are not authorized to make additional copies.
So you are asserting it is illegal to download an MP3 from Amazon, then copy it onto their MP3 player to listen to it.
That seems to be the opposite of every ruling I've read, even those where the copier loses. I'm not sure how serious to take the rest of your comments, when you hold that makeing a copy on a portable device for personal use is illegal.
the baseline rule of copyright is that you cannot make any copies without authorization.
"Copyright" was the name assigned to exclusive distribution. The fact it includes "copy" in the name seems to trip up lots of people. Copying is only covered because it's considered a precursor to distribution.
Learn to love Alaska
Copyright is based on the principle that the copy sold to you (hereafter "the original") is legally different from copies you make yourself (under fair use or whatever the country you are in calls similar provisions). AIUI in most places you can resell the original but you can't resell your copies of it and depending on your country you may be required to destroy your copies of it before reselling the original.
What is "new" is that they are no longer making a copy and selling it to you*. They are transmitting the information to you on request and then you are making a copy based on that transmitted information. Laws neeed to be updated to handle this case but until they are courts will have to try and interpret the letter and/or spirit of an old law in a case it doesn't really fit..
* This isn't strictly related to it being digitial. CDs, DVDs etc are digitial and yet are physical media and one could concieve of a system where media was sold over an analog phone network for users to record.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
So you are asserting it is illegal to download an MP3 from Amazon, then copy it onto their MP3 player to listen to it.
Yes, unless an exception applies. Moving it to a portable device is now a pretty well-established exception, but it wasn't always so.
"Copyright" was the name assigned to exclusive distribution.
No, "Copyright" was the name assigned to the exclusive right to copy. Please read 17 U.S.C. 106. The very first exclusive right enumerated is the exclusive right to make copies. Distribution is third. At its core, copyright is about copying. I'm not sure how serious to take the rest of your comments when you have this fundamental misunderstanding of the underpinnings of copyright law.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
If it's "sold" then re-selling it is a required feature of using it (otherwise it wasn't a sale), so copying it to sell is necessary for the work to be used as sold.
If it's "sold," then certainly you can sell the physical disk on which the authorized copy you received resides. The right to make an additional copy is not necessary to re-sell. It just makes re-selling more convenient to you, and unless and until there is a copyright exception for this, it's a violation. Maybe the law would be better if it permitted copying to re-sell, but that's not the way it is now, and I'm not sure it would be better that way anyway. A primary feature of "reselling" is that the original owner gives up the goods he is reselling. That's hard to police without very strong DRM, which I'm pretty sure Slashdotters adamantly oppose. As Slashdotters are fond of parroting, digital is a new world that needs new rules. If you want DRM-free media, giving up resell rights may be the cost. I personally think it's a fair tradeoff. Give me inexpensive, easily-accessible and unencumbered media that I can use without hassle (like plain MP3s at 256k for $0.99 to $1.29), and I'm willing to give up the right to resell them. On the other hand, I don't buy digital books because I want a physical thing on my shelf that I can pass on to my children if I choose. So for me at least, the tradeoff isn't worth it for books.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Moving it to a portable device is now a pretty well-established exception, but it wasn't always so.
Can you point me to the "exemption" that proves that right? If it isn't coded in law, it isn't an "exception" that makes it legal. It's a ruling that could be overturned tomorrow. Especially if it's a an opinion of an interpretation of a vague law like "fair use" that's getting smaller and weaker every ruling.
Learn to love Alaska
You make an interesting points re the fair use and that one cannot legally sell copies. As with most problems digital I think there needs to be a digital solution. One purchases a copy (hereafter "the original") which comes with a digital signature and an impediment to replicating. I say impediment as there is no way (that I know of) to absolutely prevent copying. This impediment is a legal barrier. The act of circumventing the barrier is the criminal act.
The average person can buy a piece of music, an ebook, etc... and sell it or loan it to another as he would a vinyl record or paper book; that action remains the same as with the pre-digital world. The act of circumventing the legal barrier to copying and especially the act of removing/altering the digital signature from copies would be illegal and punishable by listening to the Barney theme song 16 hours a day for 20 years, or some otherwise deemed suitable punishment.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
The problem is short of doing really screwy things to the users computer there is no real way to let users easilly move something arround without letting them easilly copy it.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register