ONTD Political

Record company thinks you shouldn't be able to sell used mp3s, I think they should fuck off.

9:30 pm - 07/02/2012
When Pete Brown got tired of his Don Henley album, he did what music fans have done for decades. He sold it.

But Brown’s version of the rock classic was digital. The 31-year-old liquor distributor from Indianapolis downloaded it from Apple’s iTunes music store and resold it on ReDigi.com, the Web’s first consignment shop for digital music, which a Cambridge start-up launched in October.

He earned a few bucks but may have broken the law in the process, though iTunes’s terms and conditions do not explicitly prohibit users from reselling their purchases. Capitol Records is suing ReDigi for allegedly violating copyright law and running a business “built on widespread, unauthorized copying of sound recordings.”

The case is making its way through federal court and is expected to determine the legitimacy of a secondary marketplace for these downloads. But it could also bring a landmark decision on how copyright law applies to digital albums, electronic books, and feature films that are downloaded on the Web, according to legal scholars.

If the court rules in favor of ReDigi, it could pave the way for used digital music and other digital products to be resold, just like CDs and books at stores.


“I want people to treat virtual goods like physical goods,” said Larry Rudolph, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer science professor who founded ReDigi with John Ossenmacher, a technology entrepreneur.

The two started the company on the premise that if people buy digital media, they should have the right to sell it, too. That way, said Rudolph, a more vigorous virtual marketplace will emerge and fewer people will illegally download songs if they know they can eventually turn around and resell it. “Having a used market shows that virtual stuff is not free. It has value,” he said.

Capitol Records doesn’t see it that way.

“While ReDigi touts its service as the equivalent of a used record store, that analogy is inapplicable: used record stores do not make copies to fill their shelves,” [OP Note: What are they even talking about? Asses.] according to the record company’s lawsuit, filed in January in federal court in New York. Oral arguments on the case are scheduled for the fall.

[Cut some boring history stuff, you can find it at the source.]

ReDigi works by using sophisticated technology to transfer music tracks from one computer to the next. When someone signs up to use its service, the company places a software application on the user’s computer that transfers songs into a cloud-based storage locker on the Web. When a buyer purchases the song, usually for 69 or 79 cents, ReDigi removes it from the locker and transfers it to the new owner.

The company says its software ensures that once a song is sold, it is no longer on the original owner’s hard drive and can’t be played on devices like iPods that sync with their computers. And, the company says, it can also tell if songs have been legally obtained.

The ReDigi app will not let users upload music copied from CDs, since the original owner could keep the CD. It’s currently selling songs downloaded only from Apple’s iTunes music store because it does not explicitly prohibit reselling purchases. Other sites such as Amazon.com do, so ReDigi does not allow users to resell those music downloads.


Apple does not have an official relationship with ReDigi and would not comment on the company or whether it has a position on reselling its digital media.

The technology that ReDigi has developed to create its virtual marketplace for music is not foolproof, and ReDigi cannot be certain its users have not made a copy of the music they are selling, according to Capitol and some legal experts. [OP Note: And that totally NEVER happens when someone sells a used CD, because you can totally NEVER burn a copy of a CD before selling it amirite?!]

“What they are seeking to achieve is unachievable,” said Matt Oppenheim, a copyright attorney in Maryland who has previously represented record labels in copyright lawsuits. He is not involved in this case.

The process of creating a marketplace for digital goods is complex, and the legal questions the ReDigi case will address are complicated.

A key issue is whether the so-called first-sale doctrine in US copyright law covers digital songs and e-books, which ReDigi said it could sell in the future. The doctrine gives anyone who buys a physical album or book the right to resell it on the secondary market and was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1908. It created the basis for the used book market and video rental stores.

“The first-sale doctrine absolutely applies to digital downloads,” said Gary Adelman, a New York copyright attorney who is representing ReDigi.

Not so, said Oppenheim. The reason, he said, is that in order to sell a digital download the owner has to make a copy of it. “You are simply not allowed to copy, that’s not permissible,” said Oppenheim, the copyright lawyer.

But is a digital transfer from one owner to the next a copy? ReDigi says no. Capital Records says yes. And if it is a copy, is it permitted by copyright law? The answers to those questions have implications beyond ReDig, and could affect the fast-growing cloud storage business, which lets users store digital music files on the Web.

ReDigi is operating in a legal gray area and pushing the bounds of copyright law, said Sarah Abelson, a recent graduate from at the University of Colorado Law School, who wrote a scholarly article on ReDigi that was published this year by the American Bar Association. “When technology is developing so quickly, it’s hard to predict where the law needs to be.”

Source.

Tbh they should force Amazon and co. to let you resell those mp3s. There is no reason for this not to be legal.
narwhalhugs 3rd-Jul-2012 01:39 am (UTC)
I think it depends on how this works. Do these sold files automatically delete from the seller's computer? Because if not, it's not the same as selling your CD, it's the same as selling a copy of your CD while keeping the original CD. But I won't pretend to know exactly how these things work.

edit: Or I could have just finished reading the article before I commented. Whoops.



Edited at 2012-07-03 01:41 am (UTC)
evilgmbethy 3rd-Jul-2012 12:09 pm (UTC)
I have no idea how you could guarantee the person doesn't still have the music. I mean. With my digital music, I have it on my hard drive, on my mp3 player, and I burn the mp3s onto dvds every once in a while so I have it all backed up. I'm sure a lot of people do this, too.
kittymink 3rd-Jul-2012 01:51 am (UTC)
used mp3's lol. Vinyl forever.

Record stores, at least not Amoeba Records, don't give you shit for your used CDs/records anymore - unless the clerk is sufficiently honest/unlazy to look stuff up. I know this from cuting back on a lot of my vinyl collection.
kittymink 3rd-Jul-2012 01:52 am (UTC)
and if you have crap/mainstream taste in music they won't take it at all - or so I have heard - that stuff ends up @ Goodwill.
jettakd 3rd-Jul-2012 05:50 pm (UTC)
It's probably regional, cause my experience is the exact opposite. The more mainstream/in demand a cd is, the more the used store here will probably give you for it, unless they have at least 10 copies already.
kittymink 4th-Jul-2012 02:33 am (UTC)
must be, places like Amoeba only exist because of nerds and hipsters.
othellia 3rd-Jul-2012 02:27 am (UTC)
But is a digital transfer from one owner to the next a copy? ReDigi says no. Capital Records says yes.

Can someone turn around and say that since we're all technically buying "copies" from Apple anyway, we should get even more of a discount?

Though technically I've never bought anything from Apple. The DRM is too restrictive; my sister gave me some songs in accordance to their 5 computers rule and when I had to transfer all my data following a crash, I could never recover those. I mostly stick with bandcamp or actual CDs from Amazon.
circumambulate 3rd-Jul-2012 05:58 am (UTC)
Itunes hasn't had drm in music files for years, and even if you had some old ones all you have to do is deauthorize the old (or all) computer(s).
layweed 3rd-Jul-2012 03:17 am (UTC)
I wish Steam would let me sell/trade the shit I bought. So much crap that I bought and have not or will never play because IT SUCKS SO MUCH UGHHHHHHH.
oceandezignz 3rd-Jul-2012 04:59 am (UTC)
DUDE THIS!
musikologie 3rd-Jul-2012 05:44 am (UTC)
Oh man, I'd be all for selling on Steam. I am not going to play half of my library again, why not let someone else use it?
redknightalex 3rd-Jul-2012 06:41 pm (UTC)
I agree. I would petition against Steam in general if it weren't for all of the damn sales they give you every week (and usually around the fourth of July they come out with the BIG ones). And, in the end, what would you really gain? Steam credits? Most likely.
nicosian 3rd-Jul-2012 03:24 am (UTC)
I buy a lot of music online. It hasn't really occurred to me to 'sell" a digital version when i'm done with it. I have swaths of music I just don't listen to from years past but we keep all of it.

( I think i got a cd last in..oh.3, 4 years ago.)
oceandezignz 3rd-Jul-2012 05:03 am (UTC)
I only tend to buy used CDs (sometimes new if I really want it bad, or if its Utada Hikaru) of various Asian bands I follow so I can get rid of my mp3s and feel less guilty. And then there's my Zune plan which keeps me from even more mp3 downloading...

The idea itself ain't so bad I mean, you paid for it but if you don't want it... y'know?

If the tech is sound to keep the old owner of the song from still "owning" it after the point of sale, as well as keep people from bucking the system with CD rips, then Capital should hush.
moonbladem 3rd-Jul-2012 09:56 am (UTC)
I checked out Utada Hikaru on YouTube after you mentioned her here and find I like her music. :)
circumambulate 3rd-Jul-2012 06:03 am (UTC)
The only way, and probably rightfully so, I the RIAA would ever go for this would likely be a unique ID in each copy of the file. I think rights to resell would be a poor trade for the cluster fuck of DRM they would dream up to allow it.
mercat 3rd-Jul-2012 07:11 am (UTC)
Hm... I am curious how this all plays out. Copyright and digitial ownership could get nasty reeeeal fast.
blinkidybah 3rd-Jul-2012 12:49 pm (UTC)
Typical record company bullshit -- "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL IT IF IT WAS A PHYSICAL OBJECT!!" But the second people treat them like physical objects wrt First Sale etc "WELL THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENTTTT"

In their minds, legal = whatever will get them more money. I can't wait for these guys to be out of business in twenty years.
emeraldus 3rd-Jul-2012 01:11 pm (UTC)
My reading comprehension might be nil due it to being too early for me but does this service only sell ONE copy of the "used" digital download? As in, once it's sold, it's completely removed from their database? If so, this would be the equivalent of selling an used vinyl record, but if the used download remains in their database, then they are selling copies of the download.
world_dancer 3rd-Jul-2012 01:40 pm (UTC)
Hmmm... This could definitely get interesting.

I see what people are saying about burning a CD and then reselling the original. The thing with that is you can only do it once. After that, you'd be selling copies (illegal).

In this case, I think the record companies are afraid that you can make infinite copies of songs/records and resell them, or might be able to do so in the future if this goes unchallenged. The way copyright laws usually work it seems is that you are obligated to sue people who even vaguely look like they might break your copyright or you could end up losing your rights. That's what authors usually tell me anyway. So the record company is suing now rather than waiting and having tons of people it has to sue later just to retain the stuff it's already paid for.
This page was loaded May 23rd 2013, 11:06 am GMT.