Judge Rules That Resale of MP3s Violates Copyright Law 294
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.
Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, they're as good as new!
Re: (Score:2)
The lesson -- you can't buy am MP3. I would think people would understand that. Buy the CD instead, you CAN resell physical media.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it as buy mp3's and then share them far and wide to everyone you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Informative)
Except CD's are drastically overpriced. Also, you have to deal with purchasing an entire disc for maybe only two songs you actually want to listen to. No, don't buy the CD if it isn't what you really want, because then you're supporting the mediocrity of the artists and the overpowered corporations behind them.
Amazon's top 3 in music today:
The 20/20 Experience - MP3: $10.99, CD : 11.47
Delta Machine: MP3: $14.99 CD $16.79
Based on a True Story: MP3: $9.49 CD: $9.99
Considering that the CD costs include shipping (super saver or prime), the CD doesn't seem overpriced considering that you get a physical object that you actually own and can resell.
If you don't have to have the latest albums when they come out, then you can buy used CD's, which typically cost less than the MP3, even with delivery costs included.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The only circumstance in which CD sales make more sense than song by song sales anymore is if I am able to select the music I want to include on the album so that I am paying for what I want. In the case of digital downlo
used CD prices are VERY low! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not an either/or.. BOTH MP3 and CD can be overpriced.
The last time I bought significant numbers of CD's (hundreds) was in the late 1980's, early 90's. Back then a CD cost around $10 - $15. $10 in 1990 dollars is around $20 in today's dollars, so CD's cost about half what they used to.
What is your definition of "overpriced"?
But back then it was easy to buy and sell used CD's in places we used to call "record shops". I don't think many of those places still survive.
I was surprised to find that mainstream titles are still sold on Vinyl -- the vinyl release of Th
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't read the decision, but I can see a clear distinction between an MP3 and a CD. Copyright law is all about the act of copying something. Under copyright law, even loading a program into RAM from a disk constitutes "copying" (there is a special statutory exception that explicitly allows this if you are the legitimate owner of a copy of a program). The problem with MP3s is that you can't re-sell them without copying them, unless you purchased a physical disk of MP3s or something, in which case you could resell that disk.
In other words, whether or not you agree with current copyright laws, I believe the judge made the right decision under the laws as they exist. First sale applies to a physical object, but can't apply to digital stuff because reselling digital stuff necessarily requires making a copy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Informative)
In case you have forgotten, RIAA v Diamond is the lawsuit that declared MP3 players legal, (format shifting and space shifting) and Betamax enabled time shifting.
The judge makes this logic, which is flawed:
Whenever a digital file is transferred, it moves from one 'material object' to another 'material object'. Title 17 has mixed definitions about what that means, but one interpretation is that when a different 'material object' has the content placed upon it, that constitutes creating a copy, which is a protected right. He rules that it does not matter if the original data is destroyed or not, it is considered a new instance of the work and is a protected right.
In RIAA v Diamond, the court declared that logic unreasonable, saying: “any recording device could evade regulation simply by passing the music through a computer and ensuring that the MP3 file resided momentarily on the hard drive.”
According to this judge's interpretation, ANY transfer of data to a new 'material object' requires the blessing of the copyright holder. That means we cannot legally transfer our files to a second hard drive, since it is a new material object. We cannot legally transfer the files from a PC to a laptop, since it is a new material object. We cannot transfer files to a smart phone or tablet or other device, because they are different material objects. We cannot transfer data "to the cloud", because it is one or more new material objects.
This ruling will be remanded to the judge within a few months.
In some ways I think the judge is trolling or admitting that he has no clue. His background is narcotics law and money laundering (and rubber-stamping plea bargains for prosecuters). He has no real experience with IP law. He's probably just waiting for the appeals court to tell him what the ruling is supposed to be since he doesn't have any clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense like this is the inevitable result when trying to apply realworld paradigms to data (falsely referred to as 'digital goods').
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense like this is the inevitable result when trying to apply realworld paradigms to data (falsely referred to as 'digital goods').
If I pay to download a song from iTunes or wherever, in what way is it false to call that a purchase of digital goods? I get to legally listen to the song, the same as if I had bought it on a CD. The physical CD was never what I was buying anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense like this is the inevitable result when trying to apply realworld paradigms to data (falsely referred to as 'digital goods').
If I pay to download a song from iTunes or wherever, in what way is it false to call that a purchase of digital goods? I get to legally listen to the song, the same as if I had bought it on a CD. The physical CD was never what I was buying anyway.
Read your iTunes terms and conditions...
Re: (Score:2)
There are many, many cases in which Copyright law differs from the terms and conditions offered by a software or media company. In those cases, it is Copyright law that applies, not the terms and conditions the company tries very hard to convince you are binding.
Having said that: if you agreed to terms and conditions prior to the sale, in many cases those terms actually are binding.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way the 'physical CD was never what you were buying' is if you never sold a used CD, never loaned a CD to someone else, and never used that CD in both your home and car players. If you really did that, for every single CD you bought, you are one in a million, or rarer. Now why are you posting on slashdot to advocate that a law which only suits one person in a million is somehow defensable? Why on Earth are you thinking that the other 999,999 people in your situation shouldn't feel like they have lo
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:4, Informative)
If I pay to download a song from iTunes or wherever, in what way is it false to call that a purchase of digital goods?
You didn't buy anything, you paid a fee to download a file.
I get to legally listen to the song, the same as if I had bought it on a CD. The physical CD was never what I was buying anyway.
Yes, it was. You don't own the songs on the CD, only the CD. Nobody owns a song, not even the copyright holder, who only holds a "limited" time monopoly on its publication. Buy the CD, rip it to MP3 and resell the CD. You're not breaking the law, since you didn't publish anything.
I really don't see why anyone was surprised at this ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
The physical CD was never what I was buying anyway.
SPMMD!
(Someone please mod Moron down) :p
Re: (Score:2)
Because the entire concept of "used goods" works because physical goods degrade and are difficult to replicate. When something doesnt degrade, and you can easily (and untraceably) make a duplicate, and a purchaser of the used article cannot verify that you have no copies left, the whole concept falls apart.
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Well why not? The media industry is selling time-unlimited licences to play an MP3 - that licence clearly has value, otherwise no one would be willing to pay for it. When you don't want to use it any more, why shouldn't you be able to reclaim some of the value by selling the licence on to someone else? The doctrine of first sale prevents vendors from preventing people from reselling physical goods, why shouldn't the same apply to anything which has value (such as a licence)?
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you sell an MP3 by copying bits to someone else's media, you're making a copy even if you then delete the original. I suppose it could be legal to sell MP3's if you sold them on the media they were originally saved on, so n
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
reading the CD and turning the bits into sound isn't considered copying under copyright law).
Debatable. IMHO running a piece of software shouldn't be governed by copyright law, but certainly some parts of the software industry believe that you need a licence to waive the copyright laws, since you are inherently copying the software into RAM. I don't think this has ever been tested in court (?)
If you assume that these parts of the software industry are correct (which I don't, but I doubt my views count), then surely copying a CD into your CD player's playback buffer is copying and requires a licen
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Informative)
The temporal movement of bits to allow sound reproduction does not constitute "fixing." Note that there are specific restrictions on public performance, so a theater can't just buy a DVD and show that to a paying crowd.
"If I want to move an MP3 from one hard disk to another on my computer then I'm doing exactly the same. Am I not allowed to do this?"
Depends on the license you received with the MP3. Looking at the iTunes store terms (yea, they're technically not MP3, but this the the largest distributor, so good as an example):
and Amazon
So, the both licenses allow you to make copies, to authorized devices and CDs (Apple), or "for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use" (Amazon). You're also allowed to make a backup copy.
Re: (Score:2)
You could download it straight onto a USB pen drive of suitable capacity.
I would note that you can buy audio books in MP3-CD format. That is a CD conforming to the Yellow book standard with a bunch of MP3 on in. Apparently selling these second hand is now illegal, hum...
Re: (Score:2)
whether or not it should be transferable when it was likely specified in the fine print somewhere that it wasn't transferable.
I'm fairly sure the licences say you're not allowed to transfer them. However, the question is, is this an enforcable term - you're not allowed to put just anything in a licence, some terms are not legal. Why should a licence be allowed a "nontransferrable" clause, but a book, loaf of bread, chocolate bar, etc. not?
since the file should really be irrelevant to the use rights granted by the license
Unfortunately, the media industry wants it both ways - they want to sell you a licence *and* the data itself as an inseparable bundle.
). Maybe a higher court will need to figure this out and br
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is the license (since you are licensing, not buying) and whether or not it should be transferable when it was likely specified in the fine print somewhere that it wasn't transferable.
Sometimes I am glad living in the E.U.. There the European Court of Justice clearly ruled, that any transfer of a digital good (be it via physical media or via download or any other means of transfer) including a permanent use license for an one time payment is a sale, and the First Sale Doctrin applies. There is no "just licensing". Either the license is permanent, then it's a sale, or the license has to be renewed for an additional payment, then it's a rent.
Re: (Score:3)
Because noone has solved the problem of "how do you ensure that the user has transferred all of his copies to the recipient", among other things.
Same goes for CDs. If I were to sell you a CD (which I'm legally entitled to do) there is no way to ensure that I didn't copy it first. All you can say (in both the CD and MP3 cases) is that retaining a copy (not selling the original) would be copyright infringement.
Re:Let's look at this more closely (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
My problem with that is companies are increasingly adding licenses to what should be products.
Just because they say they're licensing it, doesn't mean they're not selling you something.
And in a lot of cases, if I'm just 'licensing' it for temporary use, they better start changing their cost structure -- because it costs as much to 'license' a CD as it
Re: (Score:2)
And in a lot of cases, if I'm just 'licensing' it for temporary use, they better start changing their cost structure -- because it costs as much to 'license' a CD as it does to buy the damned thing and rip it yourself.
This is why I just buy the CD, rip it, and put the CD in a binder in my closet as a backup. I am hoping not to see physical media go away for movies anytime soon, either. Even though ripping DVD's and Blu-Rays is technically illegal under the pathetic DMCA.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree companies are taking the license idea beyond the realm of reasonable, but to play devils advocate I actually understand and agree with this ruling.
The reality is that for physical goods the average person can not buy a book/CD/DVD/etc.., make an undistinguishable copy (including packaging and presentation), and then sell the copies on the used market while keeping the original for themselves. Certainly it's possible to do, but not in a way that is financially worthwhile to the average person.
For dig
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with you, except when you purchase an MP3 you are not actually 'buying a product', you are licensing it's use. In the law, there's a big difference.
Is there? There's also laws in various places that if it looks like a sale and acts like a sale then it is a sale, no matter what the company tries to claim.
Quack quack.
I believe there was a story in Germany recently where it was ruled that some chap was allowed to resell some expensive used software (Autocad?) despite the company trying to claim it
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts don't allow you to rewrite the law of the land, so if the contract doesn't agree with the first sale doctrine, the contract has to give way, not the first sale doctrine.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the physical file that is being resold; it's not even the particular arrangement of bits that the file contains that is being resold. What is being resold is the license to use the file and its contents.
Copyright = right to control permission to copy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copyright = right to control permission to copy (Score:4, Funny)
But I dont Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V but I only do Ctrl+X / Ctrl+V! Honestly!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Redigi's business model relies upon making copies. The Thai bloke was importing copies. He wasn't making copies.
What might be more interesting(if less practical, because of higher transaction costs and longer wait times), would be a service equivalent to Redigi; but with the legally-troubling copying handled by the end user.
According to the ruling, Redigi isn't covered by first sale because the item sold is the copy that resides on User A's HDD; but the item Redigi is selling is an unauthorized duplicate residing on Redigi's servers, created from(but not the same as) the copy on User A's HDD. So, while the number of
Re: (Score:3)
Suppose I sell someone my harddrive which just happens to contain thousands of (legitimately purchased) MP3 files (and that this is the harddrive that they were originaly purchased and downloaded onto
Re:Copyright = right to control permission to copy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
the concept of 'original' has NO MEANING anymore when its digital.
our laws are not keeping up with actual technology. there is no 'copy' or original; there is just a file and if its one instance of 1000, nothing has been 'lost' if 1000 copies are made.
a seller who has hamburgers will transfer a hamburger to me when I buy it. property in real life fits the legal definitions well; but selling a file does not cause him to have a decrease in inventory or cost him anything in terms of loss.
we all know this. t
Re:Copyright = right to control permission to copy (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically you make a copy too when you play the file, it'll COPY it off the HDD and into your computer's or phone's RAM.
Re:Copyright = right to control permission to copy (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the argument Blizzard successfully made to win a case against a popular bot. Was honestly somewhat amazed it worked.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was Blizzard who used that in an actual argument about someone using WoW as a client server or something.
Let's see what happens (Score:2)
This will be an interesting case to follow, with possible consequences for reselling other digital goods like games.
Re:Let's see what happens (Score:5, Interesting)
Not in Europe it wont thank god, seeing as we've already had a sane ruling in the opposite direction for software.
I'd say this will have no effect over here, but I'd be wrong. For some reason companies seem scared to death of setting up Europe only, or generally non-US only sites that offer services to people outside the US that are much wanted by users but forbidden by US law but not laws elsewhere. I guess at very least the US has been successful in scaring most startups/established companies into believing it really does have universal jurisdiction when it comes to laws relating to the digital world.
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't matter if they don't want to set up europe only.
what matters is that they want to setup european site. and they do, because we have money - and then they have to adhere to it in europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital vs. Physical (Score:2)
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 s
Does this apply to only MP3? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it applies to music in all formats.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not a lawyer, are you?
Just plain wrong (Score:2)
"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.
Re:Just plain wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
you could not even copy a file from one directory to another.
Or worse: modern high performance filing systems do things like scrubbing and RAIDing in the background copying your data all over the place. Merely using something more advanced than a simple FS on a non-RAID device would be in violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has to use de-duplication!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not. It might be he's trying to focus the spotlight on how outdated copyright law is in the digital era, and he may be trying to force change. Because he has a point. What's stopping you from duplicating a non-DRM MP3 and then reselling as many copies as you wish via this service? For that matter, what's stopping someone from making a copy via the analog hole and then reselling a DRM'd copy?
The fact is that digital goods simply cannot be treated the same as physical goods, and this must be cons
I don't see how you can prove uniqueness (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The same is true with physical CDs, too. What's to stop you from ripping your disc to MP3's and then selling the disc?
If I were in the recording/movie business, I would start packaging other stuff with albums/movies to encourage purchase of the physical medium; posters, stickers, t-shirts, etc. All the money they're wasting on lobbying and lawsuits isn't going to do a damn thing to curb piracy.
This is worked on me before. A few years ago I bought the box set of Muse's 'The Resistance' because it came with:
"
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think a fair price for mp3's is under 10 cents these days.
Based on what, other than a sense of entitlement?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's set the foundation that I agree that any creator can price their product any way they want. If they want to price it at $10,000 that's their right.
My reasoning on the pricing of songs has several sources.
First, I think the current pricing level is disproportionately high. Consider J.K. Rowling earning a billion dollars for her books. If the price were a 10th, she still would have earned 100 million dollars. And some people would have bought books by other authors. High prices crowd out othe
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think a fair price for mp3's is under 10 cents these days.
Emphasised that for you. Why would you accuse him of a "sense of entitlement" or demand any other explanation for his thoughts? Do you think that every item that is being sold, is sold at a fair price? If you have ever seen the price of an item [amazon.com] and thought "that's more expensive that it should be" (which, if I understand correctly, is one of the basis of capitalism, "vote with your wallet" and the like), you should ask your question to yourself first.
Re: (Score:2)
Funniest thing about that $100,000 cable is the Ask a question section:
Typical questions asked about products:
- Is this grill easy to clean?
- Are the cushions in this patio set comfortable?
- Is this lawn mower easy to maneuver?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think a fair price for mp3's is under 10 cents these days.
Based on what, other than a sense of entitlement?
Based on basic economics. The buyer wants to minimize the price he pays. There's nothing "entitled" about that. We're not talking about a lemonade stand here.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The law isn't supposed to work on the presumption of guilt. If you sell a physical object, no one assumes you broke the law in order to acquire it - why doesn't the same apply to non-tangible goods, such as licences to listen to an MP3 (which, incidentally, is what is being sold; not the MP3 itself).
Re: (Score:2)
Physical goods are much harder to copy for the average person. And many people won't even know that the license is what they're selling. Many of the ones who do won't care.
I'm not saying I agree with the judge, I'm saying I think copyright law is way outdated for what is possible today.
I'm also of the opinion that digital goods probably should not be resellable but in light of that, should be priced much lower.
I think the biggest problem though is that no one really knows exactly how the law applies here an
Re: (Score:2)
Physical goods are much harder to copy for the average person.
Sticking a physical gizmo in your pocket and walking out of a store without paying for it is pretty easy, but selling physical gizmos is still legal because we don't usually assume everyone is guilty of committing a crime.
To be honest, if so many people are breaking a law that you have to assume everyone is always breaking it, its probably the law that's wrong, not the people...
I think the biggest problem though is that no one really knows exactly how the law applies here and that no one knows exactly what consumers are buying when they buy a digital copy of something.
Well the same is largely true when people buy physical CDs, DVDs, software, etc. largely because industry has done its best to mudd
A Judge has sided with the richer party (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to understand the judiciary. Whichever party has the most money wins.
Now where's my law degree?
Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
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/ [zdnet.com]
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/07/apples-digital-content-resale-and-loan-system-could-allow-drm-transfers-between-end-users [appleinsider.com]
Metaphysical confusion (Score:2)
Is it a physical thing? Is it an immaterial form? Is it a sequence of bits?
I don't see resale working4digital media w/o drm (Score:2)
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 m
The cost of limiting the copy (Score:2)
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
Why doesn't he move the business to Europe? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
In fairness, it does actually say "Pikoro writes" in TFS.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 an
Re:Ah the perils of the media business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 impos
Re: (Score:2)
Ah.. I must of hit a nerve.
Re: (Score:2)
*Must have. Must of doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to take old fart judges dying and being replaced by judges born in the media age.
I think 90% of the problems with media law is coming from the fact that our lawmakers and judges are analogous to "clueless users" right now. It's going to take time for that to work itself out, especially with the level of pompous that is currently in our Congress and the courts.
Re:1st sale doctrine (Score:5, Informative)
First sale allows people to resell legally made copies. A copy is defined in the statute as a material object in which a work is fixed. Thus, a file on a computer isn't a copy, but the hard drive the file is written to is. You're free to sell the hard drive with the music on it, but not to reproduce the file over the network, regardless of whether you delete the local file or not. Basically, you can't move a copy -- a hard disc, a flash drive, etc. across the net. It's physically impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
So if there was a physical memory stick at ReDigi could I buy it, transfer my music to it (fair use?) then sell it to someone who'll transfer their music off it (fair use?) and sell the empty memory stick back to ReDigi? That way a "material object" changes hands, no distribution or reproduction is done as part of the sale itself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like anyone forces an artist to sign a recording contract.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot see the "license" argument winning the day. It didn't apply to intellectual property pre-digital age (books, music