Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12547 Followers
Agnostic_god_
1868 Followers
Robert Wright
7403 Followers
AngelWardriver
11953 Followers
trivialanomalyFeb 9, 2012
Right back at you Capitol records. The music industry has been using outdated copyright laws to suck it to the public. Now outdated resale laws (will this apply to all digital music?) are being used to hit back at the music industry. Kind of ironic.
nitoriFeb 9, 2012
If you paid for it then you should own it and be able to resell it.
PanjeeFeb 9, 2012
Could it be, that claiming OWNERSHIP is the very thing that causes controversy?
For example: Has a man ever been taxed for ANYTHING he has not claimed that he owns?
Folks that share software & digital media are not causing a controversy... but, as soon as the words CHARGING & PROFIT is brought into the equation - the potential exists for claims of infringement of copyrite & intellectual property rites.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownFeb 10, 2012
Profit? If somebody is reselling something that they bought, chances are they are gonna sell it for less than they bought it and not earn any profit. If they sell it for higher, nobody is gonna buy it because they can get it for cheaper from the original source.
PanjeeFeb 10, 2012
I agree. But, if everyone gives everything away... can there be any copyrite, licensing, reselling or intellectual Property rite violations?
norman619Feb 10, 2012
Panjee: You sound lost...
PanjeeFeb 10, 2012
Why do you say that?
kyzzyxxFeb 10, 2012
No, he is not lost. You just can't even comprehend the scope of what he is saying. It's like the words from John Lennon's 'Imagine'..
Imagine no possessions, it isn't hard to do...
all this crap exists because humans evolved possessing and protecting their possessions that allowed them to survive. They protected their shelter, their food, etc. from other predators so it was engrained into us to protect our possessions. It is likely engrained in our very DNA, at some level. Well, humanity has, intellectually, moved beyond the need for this, but not at an emotional and instinctual level, so we continue to choose to possess things. I say we should break with what is instinct for us and move beyond it. We are near to having the technology to do it. We should make a push for it like we did getting to the moon.
fertilebastardFeb 10, 2012
Sounds like you're describing the Happy Meadow Commune. Don't forget to share your weed.
kyzzyxxFeb 10, 2012
@fertileidiotthatshouldNOTreproduce
Nanotechnology.. read up on it. Being able to change the molecular structure of anything.. like sand into a steak. Funny little tech that no scientist says should be impossible.
But hey, go ahead defeating a possibility before even trying and using a lame excuse wrapped up to make me look like I am an idiot hippy because you are too lazy and ignorant to support the idea.
YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION
f**king loser!
Please.. continue.
DiggPiggletFeb 10, 2012
I imagine that everyone can give ONE copy of each song or album away to another person and lose ownership rights to that music.
rglarson13Feb 10, 2012
I wouldn't say that's absolutely true.
When you buy a ticket to a museum, you're actually purchasing a license to enter (exactly like the license you get when you "buy" an MP3). If you were allowed to resell it, you'd just resell your license to the next guy in line as you walked out, and he'd do the same, and so on.
Being able to make licenses unalienable is an important and necessary element of licensing.
Essentially, you're looking at it as buying something, when the reality is that you're forming a contract. It's more like how when you go to work for two weeks, you expect a paycheck. Your boss isn't buying you; he's just paying according to the contract.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FalalisFeb 9, 2012
By preventing people from reselling their legally purchased media, the media companies are doing exactly the same thing to their customers that pirates have been doing to them.
jaketyson85Feb 10, 2012
Maybe then can get Lars from Metallica to be their posterchild again. That douche was all about the dough.
norman619Feb 10, 2012
Most successful artists are. You do get that right? If they weren't they wouldn't be rich.
timedalkatFeb 10, 2012
I love how you define "successful artist" as rich.
LMFTFY
Most rich artists are.
r0g3rFeb 10, 2012
Some of the most celebrated artists in various art forms were never recognized as such during their own lifetimes, and therefore by your measure would be considered "unsuccessful artists."
Emily Dickinson is a very familiar name, but she was never successful by your measure of the word. Only 7 out of her hundreds of poems were published, and she was never famous in her lifetime.
She was also never rich.
I think her kind of success is more important in the long run than the Britney Spears kind, but that's just me.
cawpinFeb 10, 2012
norman619 - What pissed most people off about the Metallica thing, including me, was that they were suing people for doing exactly what MADE them successful, trading their music.
nickchopperFeb 9, 2012
I want to know why these companies want me to pay again for music I already bought on tape or even on records years ago.
andbrown1999Feb 10, 2012
That is my argument, if they want my money for new stuff it should be on a durable media or ill just have to download it again sometime in the future. For older stuff, it bewilders me.
CaptainMiseryFeb 10, 2012
You guys didn't buy the songs... You bought a cassette or CD that had music on it. That doesn't give you the right to go get a new copy from the pirate bay.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fertilebastardFeb 10, 2012
No... We bought the songs. The blank CD or Cassette cost a lot less.
CaptainMiseryFeb 10, 2012
No. you bought that one copy of the songs. If you didn't make your own backup copy, you have lost those songs until you buy another copy.
Think of it like a car. If I buy a car and lose it, I don't get to go to the dealership and take another one.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I_Keeps_It_RealFeb 10, 2012
the MPAA and RIAA want it both ways, either I bought a cd or I bought rights to the song
if I bought a cd then digital piracy is not stealing because im not taking anyone's cd
if I bought rights to the song then I should be able to turn in my old and broken copies for new ones.
rglarson13Feb 11, 2012
Technically, you bought a cassette, paid a fair rate for the effort that went into recording music on to that cassette, and purchased a very limited license to play the music from that cassette.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
murxFeb 9, 2012
I have a vision.
Of course anyone (except the MAFIAA) will agree that first sale of course applies.
So now you start such an eMarketplace - buy 'used' music - sell 'used' music.
What law would stop an enterprise to sell you something - and buy it back let's say... five minutes later?
The only thing that stops me from buying a book from Amazon - and selling it back again for Amazon to sell as used five minutes later is the time it takes UPS or FedEx to deliver it back and fourth. But besides that?
Now this is different then renting - because full ownership is transfered - there is no limit on how long or short the new owner can keep the 'property', no fees.
And even further - remember that ill received christmas present? The game was for a PS and wouldn't run on your X-Box, the shirt had the wrong size and the necktie the wrong color - of course the shop allowed you to change your purchase - out of free and good will.
It's normal and good service to allow to change your purchase as long as the goods returned are still in good/perfect shape - and you buy something different in exchange - well, some real good companies even allow you to, gosh, just bring the product back and take the money instead!
Now transfer this to your eMarketplace.. you buy a song.. and then you realize it was the wrong song, had the wrong color, size - or didn't fit on your mp3-player.... and they allow you to change it - out of good will - without extra cost!
So.. you buy twenty, thirty song, a good playlist - legally.
And you head over and change those songs - whenever you like - since that 'eMarketplace' has so much good will that they always exchange goods that are still in perfect shape - for free....
All completely legal - unless the MAFIAA buys new laws.
dandoniaFeb 10, 2012
It couldn't ever really be free. The people hosting the exchange would need to take a minor fee after all the banking/risks and hosting fee's would cost but I see no reason that any profit from that including the advertising couldn't go back into funding artists.
It could be done as a charity more than a business.
andbrown1999Feb 10, 2012
Great idea.... really. I think I'll call it musex.... Thanks!
murxFeb 10, 2012
Now I have an even nicer idea for you :)
Cut a deal with an upcoming band (one that dislikes the MAFIAA is best suited).
Of course all of this within a non-disclosure deal...
The deal will 'sell' you the distribution rights to their songs - you 'buy' yourself (for your musex) 100.000 individual legal copies - thus your musex inc. owns 100.000 first sale eligble copies of their songs. (You probably need two different companies for this 'deal' to be legal-proof).
Of course this deal only runs for a day (or even shorter...or a day longer - figure it out yourself :D ).
After that day is done the upcoming band owns their distribution rights again.. and can sell them to someone else - someone more MAFIAA like.... maybe the band sells the MAFIAA the rights on a nice flat fee...
And the MAFIAA will start their ad campaign to make that band big... and once hype starts your musex offer those songs on the big 'playlist' - completely legal. (Of course everyone needs to be careful about the fineprint in the contracts...).
Band wins - because they got some fine money (okay, they lose pennies in 'royalties' the MAFIAA would pay them over the years...) and they got free big advertising from the MAFIAA.
Musex wins - because it got more music to... sell and buy back and sell and buy back....
The consumer wins - because the get the music for free - and maybe spend a buck or two on live concerts of the band and have a lot of fun - experience music the way its ment to be.
AAAaaand! The MAFIAA loses :P
rglarson13Feb 10, 2012
The first sale doctrine applies to things that are sold. Licensed music isn't subject to the first sale doctrine, because you don't own that particular copy, you're just being allowed to use it.
The concern here is that you won't actually delete your copy of the MP3, which is why (in most cases, at least -- I'd imagine there are sites that you actually sell the MP3 outright) you're purchasing a license to use the MP3, rather than purchasing it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
murxFeb 10, 2012
Music is not sold per 'license' - you're mixing this up with software.
rglarson13Feb 11, 2012
Not if you're "buying" from iTunes:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/09/07/itunes-songs-arent-purchased-but-licensed-court-rules/
The court says that because there are so, so many restrictions on what you can do with your "purchase" that it's not so much a sale as a licensing agreement.
However, you're correct that the record labels are claiming that they're sales, not licenses. In which case, 17 U.S.C. $ 109 applies:
"[T]he owner of a particular copy or phonorecord [...] is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
murxFeb 11, 2012
Well, in the article it states that it is not legal precedence - just this individual contract.
Second - because licenses generate more profit for the artists then royalties Universal wants a rehearing (funny, eh? It's all for the artists!!! But as soon as they will get more and the MAFIAA less they will sue to fix it....) - and thus UNIVERSAL wants to prove that they are sales - not licenses (of course as soon as they sue eMarketplace they will say it is the other way around...).
And then: (At least in Europe) - a court could decide that no matter what is in the TOS/contract (because they are against other laws, consumer protection laws for instance, common use etc) etc. all music sold to the end user are sales - and not licenses - shutting down this sharade completely.
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012
I applied to Capitol Records with a good resumé - they never read it. Weeks later, I visit the studios, and some new kid is doing setups - he got hired because he was "buddies" with some engineer there. So f**k Capitol and EMI - they hire people by acquaintance (not by talent, experience, passion or skill) and they are horrible at running their business. They deserve to go bankrupt.
(Now I have a job where I get paid more than engineers at Capitol, but it still pisses me off because I was young and very capable, and I deserved that opportunity more than the other schmuck)
bobbi21Feb 10, 2012
While I agree with the overall sentiment, their hiring practices are pretty much the same as almost any business. In what job isn't there a nitwit nephew, brother, cousin of the boss somewhere in the system?
TheNoizeFeb 10, 2012
True! lol
norman619Feb 10, 2012
"I applied to Capitol Records with a good resumé - they never read it. Weeks later, I visit the studios, and some new kid is doing setups - he got hired because he was "buddies" with some engineer there. "
Instead of bitching you should stop and learn the valuable lesson here. More often then not knowing someone on the inside is more valuable than how well you can do the job. Most places I have worked would rather hire someone an employee knows and recommends over some random person off the street. It's even more like this in the creative industry and roadie circles. This is why you need to start networking. Make friends with people already in the industry THEN you will find it much easier to get that job.
fertilebastardFeb 10, 2012
Yep... That's why networking is so important.
TheNoizeFeb 10, 2012
oh I know that very well, thanks! Apparently the friends I had at capitol were not as influential as his :) I know businesses work like that and networking is more important than a resumé, of course! It will always be like that. But should it be like that? :P
ljseinfeldFeb 10, 2012
Maybe you were giving off "Whiny Douche" pheromones?
(The applicant doesn't get to determine the "goodness" of the resume. The company doing the hiring does.)
TheNoizeFeb 10, 2012
Sure. But the fact that I have an even better job now kind of illustrates my point.
blankmikeFeb 9, 2012
These are legal and business issues not technological ones. None the less I do have some comments to hopefully contribute meaningful content to the conversation.
First off I agree with the majority of the comments to date. If someone pays for something then they should be able to resell it when they are done with it. It is different if they are renting or licensing it. The way things are worded, people have bought it.
In terms of reselling physical media... Things are a bit confused here in Canada. The last I heard, the reselling of used computer games (according to only one judge) is illegal even if all the original material is included. The recording industry is also up in arms over the resale of used CDs, tapes, and records. The whole point was taking a cut of the first sale isn't enough. The recording industry wants a cut of all subsequent sales too.
dandoniaFeb 9, 2012
So er... why is the recycle price a mandatory figure?
I'm all for services like this though I'm not sure how you can prevent someone making a copy of the song and selling it on. Though I suppose if they want to pirate they could just pirate.
Music as a cheap service is the only way I see the industry surviving long term.
murxFeb 9, 2012
Music as a life experience is the only way the industry has surviving long term.
Either work daily and hard and EARN your money - or die.
No more sleeping on big vaults of '(intellectual) property' doing 'the work' for you....
murxFeb 9, 2012
Oh and for the mandatory price...
...it would not be very efficient to negotiate each and every purchase/sale of a used song.
The price for selling needs to attract customers - must be as low or cheaper as the competition from other online music shops.
The price for buying is a bit more difficult to establish.
Since the company needs to make a profit to pay for it expenses - and the price of sale is pretty much set through the competing offers - the calculation is simple:
Total of expected monthly sales times sale price minus monthly expenses divided by monthly sales equals purchase price.
So let's take their numbers:
0,89 times - let's assume 10.000 sales per month - 8.900$ per month
0,32 times 10.000 purchase per month - 3.200$ per month
Result: 5.700$
Well, that's enough to pay for small server and bandwidth and two - maximum four people to run the business. Sounds like a reasonable size for a 'garage' startup company.
Since their business is easily and with little costs able to grow they can offer better purchase pricing with more participants like:
0,89 times 20.000 - 17,800 per month
Expenses (just a bit more bandwidth and server time):
6.800$
So possible purchasing price:
0,55$ per song!
So let's dream and consider 100.000 sales & purchases per month:
0,89 times 100.000 - 89.000$
Expenses (let them have some money) 15.000$
0,74$ per song - just 15 cents less.
And going FB-like with millions of users the purchase price could end up just a single cent below sale price.
dandoniaFeb 9, 2012
I'm fine with them setting a low point, just not a high point. If I want to sell a song for 79p then that should be my choice. Hell if I want to sell it for £9.99, again that's my choice.
murxFeb 10, 2012
Well, first off - they are a private enterprise - and if they say '0,32$ per song and no bartering' you're free to sell - or leave.
It's not like they are enforcing an industrial standard here.
If you want to sell your song for 9.99$ - go ahead - find yourself a buyer - it is not others job to do that for you.
So I don't see where your problem lies?
Heck, go on and create your own startup that allows for bartering and different pricing - find out if it works (and if putting that much effort into the interface to allow for bartering is profitable in the end).
dandoniaFeb 10, 2012
I just would prefer not to see a company make a fortune as a middle man, when really - this kind of functionality should be provided to people for free. I'm not just thinking of music either. This should count for video games and movies. So we could do with one universal system that allows us to sell our digital content, legally at the price we want.
If this company restrict to 32p then that's their choice I suppose. I just hope someone better comes along.
bobbi21Feb 10, 2012
Would you do your job for free? People need to make money. Even amazon charges it's sellers and it's much bigger than this thing.
If you really think this type of stuff should be free then you go quit your job and spend all your time and money making a program, hosting the site, and troubleshooting it.
Sure it's nice when ppl do make pretty good programs for free use but that's not really a viable option for most people.
murxFeb 10, 2012
Oh, maybe I see your problem:
That eMarketplace is not meant to work like eBay - they are not the mediator for sellers and buyers to find each others.
They are 'second hand traders' - they buy from you and sell it to someone else - you never know who will buy 'your' song.
norman619Feb 10, 2012
Nice! I see the birth of a new market.
badsyntaxFeb 10, 2012
While I'm a little happy for the decision, MP3s and everything else digital should NOT be treated as a physical item under any circumstances.
macharborguyFeb 10, 2012
i am torn on this. NOT about the issue of being able to resell digitally purchased content, but the fact that bits are never really "used". A digital copy is identical the first time you downloaded it to the 5000th time you copied it across your computer.
Maybe "used" isn't the best term to use. Pre-owned maybe
diggzaurusFeb 10, 2012
All I see is a CISCO ad... can't see the article...
ljseinfeldFeb 10, 2012
Wonder if this is a lead up to the slippery slope of solidifying the classification of information-based products as property?
tareaqictFeb 10, 2012
http://www.yogamatkit.com/
urdumania1Feb 10, 2012
It could be done as a charity more than a business.
n0xzFeb 10, 2012
Glad the first sale doctrine applied to digital contents. Screwed the RIAA, MPAA !!
Now I can sell my kid's Lady Gaga, Justin Bibers ... and buy them some real music, Pink Floyd, Queen, Led Zeppelin.Yay !!
isuzu14bFeb 10, 2012
This is so f**king awesome. This is going to make some serious waves for the RIAA.
jd5466Feb 9, 2012
http://unlimitedmoviesdownloading.blogspot.com/