Judge rules digital music cannot be sold 'second hand'

[The Straight Story]

A company which allowed customers to resell their digital music "second hand" breached copyright, a US judge has ruled.

ReDigi billed itself as the first legal way to resell music bought online - but soon provoked the ire of record labels.

It was sued by Capitol Records in January 2012, and on Monday a New York judge said ReDigi was making unauthorised copies of music.

The ruling could have broad implications for digital reselling.

Unlike physical music CDs, Judge Richard Sullivan ruled that the "first sale doctrine" did not apply.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22000668

[liberal N proud]

1. Makes sense

There is no way to know that if I buy a song/album on line and then want to sell it, that it is removed from my device.

[hobbit709]

2. There's also no way of knowing if a used CD wasn't ripped to a hard drive.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. True, but

at least they know you don't have that original physical copy of the CD any longer. There's value in that (nominal and theoretical as it may be) and that value is what you transfer when you sell the original disc.

With MP3's it's possible to make identical copies with a couple of keyclicks. There is no real way to ensure that you're selling the original copy. Thus there's no guard against bootlegging.

When I buy MP3's or m4a's I don't consider it a purchase of a tangible good. I consider it my showing support for the artist and making sure they get some money for their work. I could, theoretically, find ways of getting that music for "free" but that's not fair to the creator. I don't think of myself as having something I can resell.

[Occulus]

21. They don't know anything of the sort

every bit on every hard drive ever is a physical copy. That's a substantial reduction to simplicity that nearly obscures the truth, but it is literally true nonetheless.

"With MP3's it's possible to make identical copies with a couple of keyclicks."

A physical music or data CD is no different. No, it's not- seriously. There is no difference, either in theory or in practice.

"When I buy MP3's or m4a's I don't consider it a purchase of a tangible good."

It is exactly that. The problem is that too many people don't recognize that physical changes need to occur to a hard disk when data is written to it. Proof of this is the measurements made to the Amazon Kindle when a book is downloaded to it. It has been proven the thing actually becomes heavier, albeit infinitesimally.

http://gizmodo.com/5854786/your-kindle-gets-heavier-as-you-add-e+books-to-it

Digital goods are physical goods. Full stop.

They should be treated as such.

[Phillip McCleod]

48. true with a cd it can be done with only ONE keyclick.

just hit 'import to library...' in itunes, etc. and the sound files on the disk are converted to MP3 (or the like) and save on the HDD. if that's not a copy, then we need a new word for 'copy'.

[el_bryanto]

3. Music should be free! Fuck the people who make it!

Do I need a sarcasm tag?

Bryant

[Occulus]

22. Used copies should be able to be sold.

Digital copies are physical copies and should be treated as such.

[limpyhobbler]

45. Saying "music should be free" doesn't mean "fuck the people who make it"

Those two things are not at all the same.

just sayin

[el_bryanto]

59. They are exactly the same. And anybody who doesn't know that

is living in fantasy land.

Bryant

[limpyhobbler]

60. We could pay music makers a salary to make music, instead of basing it on music sales.

Then music would be "free". Not "free" in the sense of "no payment". But free in the sense of "anyone can listen to it".

Similar to how we could pay surgeons a salary instead of basing pay on the number surgeries they do.

We could also try paying musicians similar to the way we pay librarians.

I think we can benefit music creativity and diversity, can pay musicians actually more actually, because we all agree music is something we value.

I also like the idea of giving each citizen a music voucher to spend toward whichever music they like.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights/

I love music but I see little value in the music industry. Actually the music industry tends to feed us a lot of crap.

For a similar example, I think we should close all coal mines right away because of climate change. But that doesn't mean I want to hurt coal miners. I think they should be paid in some other way.

Because music is awesome, music people can be paid out of our taxes similar to how we pay for soldiers, land mines, librarians, cops, teachers. We could also give each citizen a voucher to direct a certain amount of the tax money.

The corporate music industry can continue to exist in parallel to this public option and people are free to spend their money wherever they choose.

[el_bryanto]

61. How do you decide what music is worth paying for? Who decides? nt

[limpyhobbler]

62. One way is to allow music listeners to direct money to artists of their choice.

The Artistic Freedom Voucher: Internet Age Alternative to Copyrights

web page
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights/

pamphlet
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ArtisticFreedomVoucherPamphlet.pdf

report:
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ip_2003_11.pdf


Also I would just increase public funding for musicians in general.

[el_bryanto]

63. We already have a system that allows me to do that. If I like Two Door Cinema Club

I buy music from Two Door Cinema Club.

Bryant

[limpyhobbler]

65. cool system.

I can go on youtube and type in the name of any song and it comes right up for free. You got a problem with that? To me it's awesome and I intend to keep doing that. Good luck with the war on music listeners. So you think you can monitor, police and control everything that happens on the internet? Want the government scanning peoples music files, or the SWAT team kicking down doors, looking for bootleg Bieber? Sounds awesome. Music sales are never going to be what they were before the internet. Artistic Freedom Vouchers are a way to pay musicians and reward diversity and quality in music during the internet age without wasting billions of dollars on trying to police everyone's hard drives.

[el_bryanto]

66. I am not going to do any of that stuff - i'm just going to say that you are stealing music

and hurting artists. If you are fine with screwing artists - I can't stop you. I am completely powerless. But let's call it what is is; don't wrap it up in pretty words that mean "I should be able to steal whatever I want whenever I want."

Bryant

[limpyhobbler]

67. You've never watched a video copyrighted by NBC Universal ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017100075

[el_bryanto]

69. If you are trying to tempt me into hypocrisy - it's doable

but it takes more than Rachel Maddow.

Bryant

[joeglow3]

68. I really don't want the government worrying about running the music industry

With 50 million on food assisstance, our resources are better spent there.

[riqster]

5. Common sense in a court ruling

All too uncommon these days. Kudos to the judge.

[bemildred]

6. Raises some interesting questions.

When you buy music online, what exactly are you buying?

[dipsydoodle]

7. A download

Not the right to resell it.

[bemildred]

8. And what is "a download"?

More fungible digital stuff, no? A million copies or one, how can you tell the original? Once it's out there, you are screwed as far as copyright protection. I'm not saying it is right, but I am saying it is a fact.

[Occulus]

23. Some fools seem to think digital is not physical.

I can hold a digital copy in my hand. The only difference between the CD and the hard disk is the media upon which it is recorded. There is no way to know, in either case, whether it has been previously copied.

It's a distinction without a difference.

[liberal N proud]

11. Buying digital media gives you the right to use it, you don't actually own it.

Unlike pay per view, when you download media, you purchase the right to use that media repeatedly.

[bemildred]

13. Can you sell your right to use it? If you promise to never listen to it again?

Suppose I unknowingly stumble on a copy and listen to it, like in the background in a Internet Cafe? Did I just commit a crime? Or the owner of the Cafe? Or is that OK?

Does owning a right to listen include owning a copy? (I submit it does, unless it's only a right to listen once, only a right to listen on line.)

They've been struggling with this conumdrum since the 80s, and it gets worse the more they try to fix it, because essentially they are selling nothing, digital stuff is not real stuff, and it doesn't behave like real stuff, you can make infinite copies for nothing for example. And no law can change that. The question must be re-thought. The book model does not work.

[liberal N proud]

17. I would assume using and listening are different things.

The way I use it may make it possible for others to hear it, but yet they don't have the use of the media.

Dose a shop owner have the right to play downloaded music in their business is probably something that could be contended, yet will most likely never be approached because the music companies do want you to hear the music in hopes that you will want to listen to it again and then pay for your own download similarly to the way radio was designed to promote selling albums/CD's.

[bemildred]

18. But your average user who buys a song, say, wants to listen to it.

And they want a copy so they can haul it around with them and listen to it a lot, share it, you want them to share it, right? Spread the word?

So it creates a conflict.

[liberal N proud]

27. There is a difference between me letting you listen to my music and letting you copy it.

[bemildred]

40. Only if I give you my MP3 player too.

To share the music without sharing the media/device means giving them a copy. Otherwise we are talking about "Hey, come over and listen to my new Eagles record, I got a new needle", wherein copy protection is not so necessary.

The whole point of digitization is that digital content is independent of it's storage media and interpreters. It's just bits. And to the extent that it's just bits, it's completely fungible, copies have no individual identity, only the storage media does.

The thing people like about the internet, that content is infinitely replicable, is also what drives them nuts when suddenly they want copy protection. There are two choices, proprietary formats with proprietary readers (Adobe Acrobat for example) and sticking with analog.

It's not that hard to do digital output with analog media, I'm surprised nobody has thought of that yet.

[liberal N proud]

55. If the device is connected to speakers, anyone in the room is sharing it with you.

[bemildred]

56. "Hey, come over and listen to my new Eagles record, I got a new needle".

Exactly so.

[dixiegrrrrl]

43. Plus, I can "buy" a song and put it on 3-4 different devices

On the 'puter for listening to
then put a copy on my mp3 player for walking around listening
and on a cd for playing in the living room cd player

3 copies, right there.

Which appears to be legal as long as the device is "mine"
which is the same as saying as long as I, the purchaser, listens to it.

But what if YOU come over and listen to it in my home?
Apparenlty legal.
What if I hand you my mp3 player or Ipod to take home?

Does who is on which side of my front door determine the "legality" of copyright?

[bemildred]

46. Yes, you get it, basically it's unenforceable, because enforcement depends on intent.

There are legal copies and illegal copies and no objective way to tell the difference. And if you cannot specify an objective way to distinguish a legal copy from an illegal copy, enforcement is going to be troublesome.

All those user agreements are full of efforts to resolve this issue, boilerplate, and other stuff that is creative, but none of it really works, it's all security through obscurity when you get right down to it.

You want people to buy and use and share your stuff, except not in any way that diminishes the payments made to you. And as we used to say in engineering class: "there is no closed-form solution to that problem."

[HiPointDem]

44. so how come the 'right to use it' costs pretty much the same as 'owning' it?

[liberal N proud]

54. Because we are paying it.

Simple capitalism at work.

[Duer 157099]

15. An earworm

They should pay to rent the space in my head!

[bemildred]

16. "It's a small world, after all ..."

But seriously, suppose you didn't want to listen to it? Are you still on the hook? What about buyers remorse? Do you get a discount? A refund? The business end of arts in the digital world is very thorny and difficult, and the more you try to squeeze, the more is squishes away.

[Occulus]

25. Don't even joke about that. They would LOVE to be able to charge you for simply remembering it.

If I have a perfect ear for music- IOW, if I hear a song, and can pretty much instantly play it myself after first listen (I forget what that ability is called, but it does exist; I've seen it done myself)- when I play that song from memory, am I engaging in copyright infringement?

A better way to put the question is this: is there a legal difference between digital storage (CD, hard drive) and chemical storage (human brain)?

Who owns the chemically stored copy? Me, or the industry?

That's some scary legal terrain right there. There's no question in my mind that the music industry would dearly love to be able to erase from my brain's memory any music I hear from any source so they could charge me again for the privilege of hearing it. They would label such as a benefit to the consumer, of course, since every time I listened would be just like the first.

I haven't bought music, excepting singles on Google Play, since about 1995 or so. I saw this coming, and I won't dance to that tune.

Fuck 'em. All of 'em.

[Duer 157099]

33. Well, I will joke about it, but I am suggesting that they PAY me for using my neurons!

I get your point, and of course, if they could, they would do exactly as you suggest.

In fact, I'll go a step further: leasing your education. That's right, you have to pay a yearly fee for the privilege of retaining the knowledge that you learned in college (or wherever). Otherwise, ZAP! Pulse to the hippocampus and there goes your memories.

Such slippery slopes.... Philip K. Dick would be proud.

[Occulus]

34. Education?

They already do exactly that if you don't pay off your student loans...



Shit like this makes me so damned angry....

[Duer 157099]

37. Well true, but it is done in a roundabout way

They currently use stress to accomplish that. Stress induced by financial strain. Stress has negative health consequences, especially in the brain.

So yeah, they already do do it.

But I can see them implementing an even more direct method.

[hunter]

41. That's how I get rid of Comcast when they come to the door: I ask, "How much?"

They give me some deal and I say, "Okay, fine but you have to pay me up front, in cash."

If Comcast wants to pay me, sure, I'd let them bring their cable to my house.

But that doesn't mean I'd connect their cable to a television.

[TM99]

9. The far reaching implications of this are not good.

How do you bypass 'first sale doctrine' which every corporation has wanted to do since that decision was decided? You make all media digital. What happens when all media is digital? There will be no books just eBooks. There will be no CD's, just mp3's. There will be no movies, just streaming content. There will be no game discs, there will only be online content. You will not own any of it. You will merely be leasing it or renting it from an entertainment corporation. You can't resell it because there is nothing to resell. You can not claim ownership of it whatsoever. Why purchase something if you can't own it and therefore resell it? What next? Houses? Cars? iPod's?

[cbdo2007]

14. Agree. I try not to "buy" things that belong to other people.

Even when I buy music I still get the physical disc so I can do whatever I want with it.

What if they go back and ban a movie, like "Song of the South"?? Can they go in and delete the movie from everyone's cloud drives? What if in 5 years they say all purchased music will now come with a 5 year lease and you have to renew for 10% every 5 years??? I really don't like the implications of all of this "owning stuff you don't own".

[TM99]

24. Yes, yes and yes!

I always purchase a physical copy. If I can not get the CD, I don't purchase it. I may very well rip it for use on my other devices, but I will not buy it strictly in a digital format. The same is true for books and movies.

There are lot of questions about where this can and will lead. I just don't think enough people are asking them or really thinking through the consequences of this situation and ruling. I hope they go for an appeal.

[dixiegrrrrl]

42. There was a story of an Amazon customer who got her Kindle wiped clean

by Amazon, for some disputer transgression.
Remember discussing it here, all the ramifications.

[HiPointDem]

47. that's exactly what they can do now with news media -- change it in midstream, so there's no

social memory.

the possibilities are infinitely creepy.

[dixiegrrrrl]

53. "Houses" they are doing now.

Illegal foreclosures by the millions
now the houses, by the thousands at once, are being sold to companies who turn them into rentals.
And the rental part of the business is being turned into derivatives and bonds, just like the house payments were.
They simply eliminated the homeower as playing any part in the equation.

cars: exactly the overpriced point of leasing.

[snooper2]

10. Didn't we just go through this with the supreme court and textbooks?

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Yes, we did. and this issue came up.

Which generated some interesting discussion at the time in the post, raised some good questions.
Now there has been a ruling re: digital music.
So, next question, does that apply to digital books?

And why is it ok for me to lend you a cd or book, , or even to re-sell a cd/book,
or swap one cd/book for another on a swap site
but not the same music/book in digital form?

[Orrex]

20. Reselling digital media is making a copy of that media

The owner of the copyrighted work retains the sole right to produce copies of that work. When you buy a copy, you own that copy.

If you resell a text book, you are selling the same copy that you bought. If you resell digital media, you are making an additional copy of material which you do not have the right to make.

Two likely questions in response:
"What if I delete my copy?" Well, you've already copied it, so the deed is done.

"What if I resell my phone/hard drive/mp3 player onto which my only copy was ripped?" That's probably ok, to be honest, but I don't imagine that it happens very often.

[Occulus]

28. There is one very significant problem with that.

Every time you view or play anything at all on any computer, even streaming media, a copy is automatically made and cached, and there are no protections upon that beyond renaming the media in question to a gibberish filename in a gibberish directory.

If I keep a cached copy of a YouTube video containing copyrighted material posted by the owner, am I doing anything illegal? I think not. I did not create the copy, the technology did it automatically as part of normal and expected operation.

"But," you say, "that copy gets automatically deleted; therefore, there is no infringement." Not necessarily so; a computer can be told not to empty its cache. This is a necessary feature.

Just for fun, here's a *nix script that can apparently download anything into /dev/null :

#!/usr/bin/env bash# BOOBYTRAP #!
# DISABLED #######!
#! #!
#! OPERATION_DMCA >/dev/null #!
#! notroot:~ $ #!
#! #!
################################!


#1. Install aria2 command-line bittorrent client.


#2. $ mkdir ~/.aria2; touch ~/.aria2/aria2.conf


#3. aria2.conf:
#
# continue
# dir=/dev/null
# file-allocation=none
# log-level=warn
# max-connection-per-server=4
# min-split-size=5M
# on-download-complete=exit
#
# !!!! NOTICE LINE 2 IN THE .conf ABOVE !!!!


#4. Download Bullshit Into Oblivion and Smile:
#
# $ aria2c "magnet:?xt=urn:btih:248D0A1CD08284299DE78D5C1ED359BB46717D8C&dn=aria2"
#
# !!!! NOTICE THE '=aria2' TACKED ONTO THE END OF THE MAGNET LINK !!!!
# !!!! NOTICE THE COMMAND IS 'aria2c' NOT 'aria2' !!!!


# Disable the BOOBYTRAP to get your secret message...
# ...though it seems a little late, now, don't it?

echo "Reach out... reach out and touch someone."
echo "Reach out... reach out and hack for phun."

whatis God?

No, I haven't run this script. Yet. But it's an interesting question: since /dev/null is "oblivion" in the *nix world, does downloading something to it mean you "have" a copy, or does it not?

[Orrex]

31. A copy required for use of the item is different

I actually made a similar point re: caching to a former employer who allowed people to look at video and pics online but forbade people to download that content. "Uh, they're downloading it by viewing it," I told him.

"That's ok," he said. "As long as they don't actually download it."


If your system copies the item into its cache during viewing, and if this is a necessary step in the process, then it likely defaults to part of the reading/viewing process, broadly equivalent to the act of opening a book. The cached copy would probably be construed as a "fair use" copy as a result.

A case could probably be made for instance when you use a public computer to view content that you have purchased, but I leave that to the lawyers. Suffice it to say that if it were a cost concern for large corporate interests, it would likely have been dealt with already.

[dixiegrrrrl]

32. Bear with me here..I may be dense.

I download and pay for an e-book, say in epub format, for my Nook.
I download it, into my Nook, read the book, then drag and drop the file from the Nook onto a thumb drive..
Note I am speaking of the original file, now...no copy is left on my computer or Nook, via drag and drop.

I hand you the thumb drive with the original downloaded epub file.

copyright violation?

Then I order a real book from Amazon, they mail it to me, I open the package and give the book to you as a birthday present.
Any difference?

[Orrex]

39. I don't think that's dense at all

The drag-n-drop process creates a copy of the file at the destination and then deletes the original--but it doesn't have to. There are two copies of the downloaded file in that example. one of which gets deleted. But the act of copying it is where copyright can be breached.

Honestly, I'm not sure how the law handles that, where you have a copy-then-delete scenario, except that it's different from selling/giving a physical object because there is only one object in the equation from start to finish.


In any case, you're not being dense.

[LanternWaste]

29. I think that the combination of ease-of-transfer of digital information

I think that the combination of ease-of-transfer of digital information, and the (for all practical purposes) flawless copies from the original have left the courts, the laws and even our own ethics in the dust, and it will take some time for the us to catch up to technology.

I wrestle with this topic a lot, as it comes up often in conversation with my friends; and it's tough for me to settle on one side or the other as different scenarios are played out.

For fun, have a few drinks with some close friends and pose the (rhetorical) question, "is deleting the pdf copy of a book morally equivalent to burning a physical copy of that book?" Weirdness ensues (if the wine is good, that is...lol).

I think at that at this point in time, anyone who believes they posses an absolute answer to this problem are fooling themselves. The Gutenberg Press changed education, religion, and the dissemination of information forever, and the debates of what was or was not appropriate regarding the exchange of that information lasted for 150 years; and I think that the internet is doing the same thing, and our conversations regarding the ethical distribution of information in the here and now will also last far into the future.

(Long lunch today, and the worker who allows me to talk endlessly about nothing is out today... it seems you took her place. Sorry)

[dixiegrrrrl]

35. So, I ate lunch, with wine, to catch up to you...

and find your question about book burning interesting.

I also think the virtual media copyright question really has to do with "who controls what"
and "why is it ok to own a physical copy of an album you bought but not an mp3 file of the album you bought"
becomes a tranchant issue,
since I can see a future when physical books and dvds and cds are no longer available...
perhaps banned, for the ease of corporate control and profits.

.

[SomethingFishy]

19. Ok let the judge stew on this question:

I just downloaded my 100 favorite albums. "Illegally". Never mind that I am an old rock and roller who has purchased all of these albums in every stinking piece of shit format the record industry has thrown at me. Yes I "Illegally" downloaded albums that I have bought on vinyl, on 8-track on cassette and on CD. Should I be thrown in jail? I mean just because I paid for these albums 4 times over during the years doesn't mean I should get a "FREE" ride right? Straight to prison with me.

I can't wait for the day that Record companies are a thing of the past and artists create, rec0rd and distribute their own material over the internet and actually get the money they deserve.

It's coming. Just not soon enough.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Not if it becomes impossible for them to make money by selling their work.

Musicians can make some money by live tours, but for recordings to be anything more than a recruiting tool for those tours (and hence for anyone not touring to be able to make any money through music) it's necessary to be able to prevent people getting access to your music for free.

[musiclawyer]

50. I make not even a penny each song stream

I make less than a buc per song legally downloaded from iTunes etc. but my singer doesn't like to our. So we will never make big money. It's just a labor of love. If you are indie, you better tour if you want to pay off the mortgage

Nowadays most of the good music is off big label or no label at all. Keep that in mind.
That's why I think Spotify is the future.

[DonCoquixote]

26. please check this article to show where this could lead

http://www.cracked.com/article_20256_5-things-record-labels-dont-want-you-to-know-they-do.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Music&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=trending_now

from the article:

"It probably won't surprise you to know that things like charging a crowd of people $2 each to listen to a band's CD is illegal -- you're basically getting paid for a performance of somebody else's music that you don't own the rights to. But the definition of the word "performance" is mind-bogglingly vast when it comes to music royalties.

For example, did you know that a "public performance" includes a coffee shop owner putting a CD or an MP3 player behind the counter to play some Mumford & Sons as background music? Or that it counts as a performance if a shop wants to play music over the phone while people are on hold? That's why hold music is almost always bland, instrumental filler -- keeping you on hold to a computer algorithm's idea of a "marimba jam" is a lot less expensive than having Usher keep your hold time sexy. ASCAP explains it all in this depressingly comprehensive guide to all the ways you can pay for the right to listen to the music you already own when other people who don't also own it might be close enough to hear it too.

They even take time out to lecture you for not considering the artist, who might be getting shafted out of their four-tenths of a cent royalty when you choose to dance to "Wonderful Tonight" at your wedding reception without asking Clapton first:"

and, another quote from the article, for those who keep saying "it's for the artist!"

"But isn't this sort of fuckery all so that greedy rock stars can live the rock star lifestyle? These are people who spend their downtime having snowball fights with bikini models, where the snowballs are made out of cocaine.

Nope -- for the most part, the artist doesn't make shit from record sales. Not only can the label wind up keeping all of the profits on even an album that goes platinum, but the band can actually wind up deeply in debt to the label. For instance, after selling over 2 million records and receiving precisely dick, the band 30 Seconds to Mars still owed EMI over $1 million."

Now, I myself humbly add that in addition to younger artists getting screwed, there are many older ones in the same boat, like this half of the Chambers brothers. If you heard "Time has come today" on those commericals, he is letting you know how much of that he got paid.

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/legendary_blues_singer_reality_of_the_music_industry_for_the_99

I AM the former Lead Singer of a 60’s BAND. I performed before thousands at Atlanta Pop 2, Miami Pop, Newport Pop, Atlantic Pop. I did NOT squander my money on drugs or a fancy home. I went from 1967-1994 before I saw my first Royalty Check.

The Music Giants I recorded with only paid me for 7 of my Albums.

I have NEVER seen a penny in Royalties from my other 10 Albums I recorded. Our Hit Song was licensed to over 100 Films, T.V. & Commercials WITHOUT our permission. One Major TV Network used our song for a national Commercial and my payment was $625. dollars. I am now 72, trying to live on $1200 a month. Sweet Relief, a music charity is taking donations for me.

Only the 1% of Artist can afford to sue.

I AM THE 99%

So, while I do care about the artist, I do think it is imperative that we realize why the record industry acts, and it is NOT for the artist.

[justiceischeap]

36. When was it ever? nt

[phleshdef]

38. I think I agree with this decision because of the difficulties in keeping everything honest.

In theory, I agree with the notion that a person should be able to resell pretty much anything they've bought. But when it comes to digital formats, its pretty much completely unenforceable to apply such a concept with integrity. If there was a fool proof way to guarantee the transfer of digital property to another person in a way that assured that the seller no longer has a copy and that the digital property being transferred was indeed something that was bought in a digital format, then I could see allowing it. But there really isn't a good way to pull that off.

[Phillip McCleod]

49. personally i pirate whatever i feel like pirating..

..and i pay for what i feel like paying for. works out pretty good all around in my opinion, which is the only one i care about.

[ZombieHorde]

51. Interesting. nt

[hunter]

52. Drop out of Mass Media Culture and don't buy this stuff. Problem solved.

There are plenty of people who create art, music, and software that's not booby-trapped with onerous "intellectual property rights."

I've never bought an Apple product except as broken but repairable junk. The last Microsoft product I bought was Windows 98SE. Then I switched to Linux and other free and open source software.

I'd probably fire anyone who brought proprietary software into my shop... if I had any employees.

I stopped buying retail music CDs about the same time I stopped buying software. Occasionally I'll buy a CD in a thrift store, or directly from the artist.

I don't share music from my CDs unless the artists specifically encourage such sharing. Some do. I don't buy digital music owned and produced by Sony, Universal, Warner Music, and other associates of the RIAA.

I buy paper books. I buy magazines.

Sometimes I buy retail DVDs; the price of those seems very reasonable, so perhaps I'm not consistent in my ideology. But I don't copy them. I do share them like books with friends and family.

Most of my electronic books are in the public domain. The few electronic books I've bought are not copy protected so I've got backups if a device fails, and I can read them on many different sorts of devices, devices not leashed to a big corporation like Amazon.

[snagglepuss]

57. .

[Apophis]

58. How is selling music second hand any different than selling a used book?

Makes no sense to me.

[KurtNYC]

64. We need for more artists to release their works in the public domain

The best way for musical artists to get paid a small fortune is to perform live. Releasing your music in the public domain has been proven to drive up the artists' financial rewards because it creates a greater demand for live performances and other revenue streams for the performer.

Recording and publishing entities have very different interests than do performers and their audience and they can be taken out of the equation but it needs to happen in a legal manner.

I encourage musical artists, both known and the yet to be famous, to release their works to the public domain.