Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Your Rights Online

Judge Rules That Resale of MP3s Violates Copyright Law 294

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the first-sale-does-not-apply dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules That Resale of MP3s Violates Copyright Law

Comments Filter:
  • by bio_end_io_t (2771123) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:08AM (#43335959)
    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?
    • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:14AM (#43335991)

      Hey, they're as good as new!

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        The lesson -- you can't buy am MP3. I would think people would understand that. Buy the CD instead, you CAN resell physical media.

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          I take it as buy mp3's and then share them far and wide to everyone you can.

        • 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.
          • by hawguy (1600213) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @10:41AM (#43337877)

            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.

            • by CastrTroy (595695)
              This is why I won't spend money on digital music. Digital music should be significantly cheaper than buying a physical CD. I've actually seen quite a few cases where the downloaded album is more expensive than the CD.
            • by bdwebb (985489)
              The issue is that I have not been able to purchase more than 1 or 2 CDs in the last 15 years that hasn't been half trash, half the songs I want. Regardless of whether or not the CDs are affordable, if I am paying for half fluff and half what I actually want it becomes overpriced again.

              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
            • 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.

        • by Zordak (123132) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @10:07AM (#43337415) Homepage Journal

          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.

      • I always break my mp3's a little before selling them.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nonsense like this is the inevitable result when trying to apply realworld paradigms to data (falsely referred to as 'digital goods').

      • by tehcyder (746570)

        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.

        • 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...

          • "Terms and Conditions" are not the same as Copyright law. I do wish people would get this through their heads.

            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.
        • by Artifakt (700173)

          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

        • by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @08:29AM (#43336373) Homepage Journal

          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.

        • by Type44Q (1233630)

          The physical CD was never what I was buying anyway.

          SPMMD!

          (Someone please mod Moron down) :p

        • 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.

    • by FireFury03 (653718) <`slashdot' `at' `nexusuk.org'> on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:45AM (#43336123) Homepage

      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)?

      • by GIL_Dude (850471) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @08:05AM (#43336231) Homepage
        You've nailed the key point. The fact of the matter is that the file (or copies of the file) should have no bearing on this case. 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. The whole "it isn't the same file when you transmit it to their server" is a red herring. I'd imagine the court case must have been brought against something pretty narrow in order for it to come down to a decision about the file (since the file should really be irrelevant to the use rights granted by the license). Maybe a higher court will need to figure this out and bring this out of the realm of technical issues and copies of files and get it back to the licensing of imaginary property.
        • by msauve (701917)
          The difference is that when you buy a CD, then play it, you're not making a copy (reading the CD and turning the bits into sound isn't considered copying under copyright law). When you sell that CD to another person, you're not making a copy. So, no copyright infringement is involved.

          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)

            by FireFury03 (653718)

            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

            • by msauve (701917) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @09:26AM (#43336913)
              It's not debatable, except in the sense that a lawyer will debate any POV, regardless of its validity. From 17 USC 1:

              "Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

              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):

              (ii) You shall be authorized to use iTunes Products on five iTunes-authorized devices at any time...

              (iii) You shall be able to store iTunes Products from up to five different Accounts at a time on compatible devices, provided that each iPhone may sync tone iTunes Products with only a single iTunes-authorized device at a time, and syncing an iPhone with a different iTunes-authorized device will cause tone iTunes Products stored on that iPhone to be erased.

              (iv) You shall be authorized to burn an audio playlist up to seven times.

              and Amazon

              Upon payment for Music Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Music Content only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to the Agreement...you may not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Music Content.

              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.

          • by jabuzz (182671)

            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...

        • 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

        • by Sique (173459)

          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.

    • by kaizendojo (956951) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:48AM (#43336143)
      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. Next time, look a bit closer at that huge agreement you skip past on iTunes, Amazon and the like.
      • by gstoddart (321705)

        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.

        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

        • by omnichad (1198475)

          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.

        • by iamgnat (1015755)

          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

      • 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

      • by jonbryce (703250)

        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.

    • by macraig (621737)

      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.

  • by blarkon (1712194) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:08AM (#43335961)
    Redigi's business model relies upon making copies. The Thai bloke was importing copies. He wasn't making copies.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:15AM (#43335993)

      But I dont Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V but I only do Ctrl+X / Ctrl+V! Honestly!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 91degrees (207121)
      Right. No matter what the moral rights and wrongs of the case, the letter of the law is what matters here. You might be able to make an argument for fair use here but really we need a change in the law, and ideally a complete rethink of what rights the seller and buyer of digital media have.
    • 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

      • by rossdee (243626)

        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

      • by blackraven14250 (902843) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @08:21AM (#43336303)
        Yeah, I don't think the judge realizes that computers don't work in the same way as physical good. You literally can't hand over the original, you have to copy and delete the original to "move" it.
        • 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

    • 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.

  • This will be an interesting case to follow, with possible consequences for reselling other digital goods like games.

    • by Xest (935314) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:20AM (#43336013)

      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.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        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.

    • 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

  • 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.

    • Re:Just plain wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hackula (2596247) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:53AM (#43336175)
      Clearly this guy is simply a moron who does not have a clue about the subject matter. For example, his claim would forbid me from transferring a file over the internet to myself, but would allow people to indiscriminately transfer files over a network (your average college dorm or library contains millions of songs distributed across many computers). If he were to expand his definition to include local transfers, then you could not even copy a file from one directory to another.
      • 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.

      • by Endo13 (1000782)

        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

  • 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 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:

      "

    • by tehcyder (746570)

      Personally, I think a fair price for mp3's is under 10 cents these days.

      Based on what, other than a sense of entitlement?

      • 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

      • by isilrion (814117)

        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.

        • 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?

      • 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.

    • 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).

      • by Endo13 (1000782)

        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

        • 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

  • by rodrigoandrade (713371) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:36AM (#43336083)

    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)

    by RDW (41497) on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @08:00AM (#43336209)

    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]

  • 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?
  • 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

  • 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

  • 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.

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.

Working...