If Downloading A Song Is Just Like Stealing A CD, Why Won't The RIAA Allow Reselling MP3s?

from the either-it-is-or-it-isn't dept

Mon, Jun 22nd 2009 10:46am — Mike Masnick

When you hear RIAA defenders insist that an unauthorized download is "just like stealing a CD" or something along those lines, it's worth noting even they don't really mean it. After all, if a digital file really was no different than a physical goods purchase, then you'd be able to do other things with it -- such as resell it. And yet, as you read through Eliot Van Buskirk's article about new online services trying to create marketplaces for people to sell their "used" MP3s, you'll see the scenario is quite different. After all, it's perfectly legal to sell your used CDs, but now when it comes to selling used MP3s you need a record label's permission? Why? Well, because even the record labels seem to inherently know that a CD is quite different from a download. So when the RIAA claims they're the same, what they really mean is "only the stuff we like is the same."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, mp3s, reselling
Companies: riaa

59 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

John Doe, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:02am

Why didn't I think of that?
Maybe I will open a digital flea market where gently used MP3s, digital photos, software and anything else digital can be sold. Just imagine the ads. Low hours on lightly used Mariah Carrey (sp?) song. Used copy of Excel, never opened macro editor, mint condition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BullJustin (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:11am

Re: Why didn't I think of that?
Adobe Photoshop CS3. Only used to stitch photos together. Most functions NEVER used! Must SEE to believe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:18am

Obvious answer again...
Because its only "property" when it benefits the music industry. If it benefits a consumer, or god FORBID society in general, then its not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:23am

didn't someone get sued for this?
I seem to recall something where someone tried some version of this and it fell apart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:28am

So if someone breaks into my car and steals a CD, I wonder if the RIAA will go after the theif?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:36am

Re: Re: Why didn't I think of that?
WTF?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:37am

If it were up to the RIAA, you wouldn't be able to sell used CD's either...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:38am

I'm pretty sure that if the RIAA had their way you would not be able to re-sell CDs...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:38am

Re:
"So if someone breaks into my car and steals a CD, I wonder if the RIAA will go after the theif?"

Nah, they'd probably go after -you- for "making it available."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mechwarrior, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:39am

This is basically the same sentiment for almost all digital products. Its very disheartening when industries purposely subvert consumer rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob R. (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:41am

only the stuff we like is the same.

I think it would be more like "only the stuff we can cash in on is the same."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:42am

Re: Re:
LOL! So true!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:44am

Off topic
It just occured to me that if I rename my mp3 with a file extention that my music player doesn't recognize, it ceases to be music and becomes semi-random bits of data, useless to my computer.

Now, if I upload it to you, have I violated a copyright? Do they "own" the specific series of 1s and 0s?

I'm just curious how much (or little) control they have over rearranging bits on my hard drive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Miles (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:50am

Re: Re:
Nah, they'd probably go after -you- for "making it available."
Quote of the month!

I'm still laughing.

As for the topic: uh, yeah.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:58am

This would make such a glorious, glorious lawsuit. Isn't there any way an advocacy agency (EFF?) could petition for an official clarification and stance from the US legal system on this? Such a lawsuit would disrupt and entirely upheave the RIAA's defense on everything music.

It would be the glowing hot rod shoved right through the heart of their position on 'digital music'. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:05pm

well....
I don't see the big mouth legal talking RIAA clones jumping all over this one.... Cat got your tongue guys? No half mile long "wall of text" explaining this one away?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:20pm

Actually, it is pretty simple why there is no resale on MP3s:

There is no way to tell the copy from the original. So you "buy" and MP3, and then "sell" it to a marketplace - except you keep a copy. Then from that copy, you make a copy and sell it to ANOTHER marketplace, and you do this for each of the potential market places.

Ding! Your MP3 purchase is now profitable, as you have resold it 10 times.

That's why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:27pm

Which is exactly what the labels are doing right now, and charging us for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some other Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:27pm

Re:
"There is no way to tell the copy from the original. So you "buy" and MP3, and then "sell" it to a marketplace - except you keep a copy. Then from that copy, you make a copy and sell it to ANOTHER marketplace, and you do this for each of the potential market places."

Which is exactly why the recording industry is in error when they claim that digital music downloads = CDs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TPBer, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:28pm

Re: Off topic
Hey Joe, it's like that with any file, ie: installs or 14.3 MB rar files that make up large DLs. If you have a bunch of the same just go out and get a free multi-renaming app. to reapply the correct extension.

This has been used for many years by many people to get around those useless restrictions and blockades, but you probably already knew this.

Say if a site requires a ".doc" file and all you have is .pdf, just add .doc after the .pdf and so on.

Getting around all these effective restrictions is soooo hard :p

"Remember, Sharing is Caring"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Isaac Ludwig, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:44pm

Heavily used AutoDESK CAD platform for sale...
but looks and feels JUST LIKE NEW! You'd never know it was used extensively every day all day for 5 years. I dare you to find any wear and tear!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hayden Frost, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:52pm

This issue was already resolved
In a fairly recent case where Eminem's producers sued their record label, the label argued downloads are sales, not licenses, because the royalty rates the labels pay for licenses are over 4x higher than for sales. The producers lost and the jury ruled that as an issue of fact, a download is a sale, not a license. Since it's a sale, that means the doctrine of first sale applies. Of course, this is a single case in a single trial court, so it is by far from well settled.

The only remaining issue is whether the retailer who sold you the digital copy can contractually prevent you from reselling the content. First sale is only a defense to IP infringements, not breach of contract. That leaves consumers (or the sites trying to facilitate these resales) to argue misuse and some of the property law doctrines.

Regardless, it is theoretically legal that you could set up music player software where it stores all songs in the cloud -- some on your computer and some on other computers. Whenever you requested to play a song, if it isn't in your library, it would download it from another computer -- but also delete it from the remote computer. So long as the copy count across the entire network stayed the same (as opposed to normal p2p where the old copy is not deleted), you'd have very good legal arguments that you're not infringing.

And yes, I'm an IP attorney.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:59pm

Re:
Just because it is possible (even easy) to multi-resell digital content you own, doesn't mean that it ought to be illegal to sell it on only once.

Sure, it is easier in many cases to deny people rights in order to make things simple for corporations (or governments), but that way lie problems....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kelly Brown (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 1:04pm

Indeed
I've been making this point for a while in these kinds of debates. Content creators seem to want all the benefits of digital distribution mixed with all the restrictions of physical distribution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm, 22 Jun 2009 @ 1:05pm

I'd love to see how mixed up you could make them by applying this to other things.

Snap a photo of them and say "who does this belong to? You, because it's a picture of you, or me because I took it?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 1:18pm

Re:
It is disheartening when consumers subvert industry's right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 2:09pm

its stupid to think you could even have a "used" mp3 sale, u would just back up and sell a copy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 2:48pm

Re:
its stupid to think you could even have a "used" mp3 sale, u would just back up and sell a copy.

It's stupid to try and sell it for the same price as a CD then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 3:05pm

Re: This issue was already resolved
The only remaining issue is whether the retailer who sold you the digital copy can contractually prevent you from reselling the content. First sale is only a defense to IP infringements, not breach of contract. That leaves consumers (or the sites trying to facilitate these resales) to argue misuse and some of the property law doctrines.

Hmm. Well didn't the case about "stamped CDs" take on some of this, by noting that you couldn't contractually remove certain aspects of copyright law -- including first sale? Trying to remember the specifics so I may be wrong...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave Parker, 22 Jun 2009 @ 5:02pm

Oh Dear
Oh dear. The noobs are having trouble with apostrophes again. They're sooooo hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:13pm

Re: Pretty Simple Bullshit

Actually, it is pretty simple why there is no resale on MP3s:

There is no way to tell the copy from the original. So you "buy" and MP3, and then "sell" it to a marketplace - except you keep a copy. Then from that copy, you make a copy and sell it to ANOTHER marketplace, and you do this for each of the potential market places.

Ding! Your MP3 purchase is now profitable, as you have resold it 10 times.

That's why.

You still havent’t explained why such resales shouldn’t be allowed. All you’ve done is point out facts that everybody already knows. How does it follow from those facts that resales shouldn’t be allowed? After all, it has long been the position of Big Content that all such copies, if they are unauthorized, should be counted as lost sales for the purposes of copyright-infringement suits. So why can’t they also be counted as legitimate sales?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sammie Houston (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 4:34am

Watunes, The New Music Industry!
As representatives for the largest digital distribution in the world, we will show any artist and/or record label how to benefit from a Digital Distribution relationship as well as be paid 100% of their royalties for FREE! Gone are the days of selling your music through a physical means. Statistics say 48% of teenagers purchased their music online in 2007 with that number increasing from 32% a year prior. If you are still slanging CD’s, you are quickly falling into the dinosaur arena. We can help you change all that.

Watunes offers services for the entire independent music community, whether you already have digital representation or are just getting started in the digital world. We make it easy to distribute your content to digital outlets, promote your content using our innovative marketing systems, and manage your catalog and sales using our first-class technology.

WaTunes is a social media distribution service that enables artists, groups, and record labels to sell music, music videos, and audiobooks through leading online entertainment retailers, including iTunes,ShockHound, and eMusic. Artists and labels can sell unlimited music and earn 100% of their profits – ALL FOR FREE! In fact, as of Tuesday June 9th, we signed NBA Legend and Hall of Famer Earl ‘the Pearl’ Monroe who owns record label Reverse Spin Records. The link is listed right below & you can either click on it and/or copy & paste into your browser. Please direct any further inquires, comments, questions, or concerns to us. We're more than elated to serve you anyway we possibly can.

Best,

Sammie

Earl "the Pearl" Monroe link:

http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=watunes&oe=UTF-8&um=1&am p;am p;ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

--
watunes.com

Sammie Houston
SVP, Client Services
e-mail: sammiehouston@watunes.com
Skype ID: sammie.houston
Office: 678-598-2439

Sneak Preview: http://tinyurl.com/dh3mum

Youtube advertisements, don't click on the link, please copy & paste into your browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwBmhWmF4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2AYrcDVhCs

Check out our Reviews, add your comments & feedback too:

http://www.rateitall.com/i-1125252
watunes.aspx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sammie Houston (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 4:35am

Watunes, The New Music Industry!
As representatives for the largest digital distribution in the world, we will show any artist and/or record label how to benefit from a Digital Distribution relationship as well as be paid 100% of their royalties for FREE! Gone are the days of selling your music through a physical means. Statistics say 48% of teenagers purchased their music online in 2007 with that number increasing from 32% a year prior. If you are still slanging CD’s, you are quickly falling into the dinosaur arena. We can help you change all that.

Watunes offers services for the entire independent music community, whether you already have digital representation or are just getting started in the digital world. We make it easy to distribute your content to digital outlets, promote your content using our innovative marketing systems, and manage your catalog and sales using our first-class technology.

WaTunes is a social media distribution service that enables artists, groups, and record labels to sell music, music videos, and audiobooks through leading online entertainment retailers, including iTunes,ShockHound, and eMusic. Artists and labels can sell unlimited music and earn 100% of their profits – ALL FOR FREE! In fact, as of Tuesday June 9th, we signed NBA Legend and Hall of Famer Earl ‘the Pearl’ Monroe who owns record label Reverse Spin Records. The link is listed right below & you can either click on it and/or copy & paste into your browser. Please direct any further inquires, comments, questions, or concerns to us. We're more than elated to serve you anyway we possibly can.

Best,

Sammie

Earl "the Pearl" Monroe link:

http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=watunes&oe=UTF-8&um=1&am p;am p;ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

--
watunes.com

Sammie Houston
SVP, Client Services
e-mail: sammiehouston@watunes.com
Skype ID: sammie.houston
Office: 678-598-2439

Sneak Preview: http://tinyurl.com/dh3mum

Youtube advertisements, don't click on the link, please copy & paste into your browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwBmhWmF4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2AYrcDVhCs

Check out our Reviews, add your comments & feedback too:

http://www.rateitall.com/i-1125252
watunes.aspx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:24am

Re: This issue was already resolved
"whenever you requested to play a song, if it isn't in your library, it would download it from another computer -- but also delete it from the remote computer. So long as the copy count across the entire network stayed the same (as opposed to normal p2p where the old copy is not deleted), you'd have very good legal arguments that you're not infringing."

+1 xD FTW!

Let's make a OneSwarm fork that does that!
(OneInstanceSwarm?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hayden Frost, 23 Jun 2009 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re: This issue was already resolved
The case you're probably talking about is this: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/umg_v_augusto/LA07CV03106SJO-O.pdf

In that case, the court said that no agreement was formed because of the way the discs were mailed out. When you buy an mp3 online, you have to go through the long winded ToS to make that purchase. The question is whether those terms can prevent you from permanently selling or giving away the file by contract law (not copyright law).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy, 24 Jun 2009 @ 1:37pm

different look on MP3's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 24 Jun 2009 @ 2:11pm

The RIAA is fucking stupid
And when they die nobody will care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2009 @ 2:39pm

This little article is wrong. The difference between a CD and an mp3 is that when you resell an mp3, it means that you're making a copy of it and selling that. CDs aren't easily reproducible-- So the RIAA is right when they say that stealing an mp3 is like stealing a CD.Functionally, you're stealing a hard copy of the music-- which you can then resell. If mp3s were also not easily reproducible you'd be able to resell those too. This becomes more intuitive when you look at iPods-- it's not illegal to put songs on an iPod then resell that because you're selling away your hard copy of the music-- or at least selling the soft copy in a way that renders it difficult to reproduce.

Chris
Columbia Law '07
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Havvy, 24 Jun 2009 @ 3:32pm

On Property Rights
Property rights are meant to create a fair share of limited resources. Music is not limited. Reproducibility is. If you find a way to remove that reproductive barrier, then property rights to music vanish. Unfortunately, people think this is a bad thing, and attempt to place arbitrary limits on reproducibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Swapster (profile), 24 Jun 2009 @ 3:42pm

Trading CDs, DVDs, Video Games and Books
Indeed, I am sure that publishers do not like the idea of selling or swapping media. But that genie left the bottle a long time ago.

Swapster lets users trade CDs, DVDs, Video Games and Books -- and it's free!

I think the difference with digital media vs physical media is that you can't easily replicate physical media, and there is certainly a cost associated with it even if you did. Digital media is simply sent over the Internet for next to nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stan, 24 Jun 2009 @ 4:00pm

Not a great argument
This argument simply does not hold water. The way that it is the same as a cd is because it is a copyrighted piece of material. The reason you can resell that cd is because you can authenticate its origins. The cd comes labeled from the manufacturer, and has a cd case from the same. It is easily recognizable. The same is not true for MP3s. There is no way to find out if that MP3 is the original licensed piece or an illegal copy. For that reason you CAN NOT resell it.

No one is going to say that an MP3 is exactly the same as a CD, and the RIAA does not say that there is complete similarity between the two. They state that they are the same in as much as they both are copyrighted works. Nice try, but that argument does not hold up to logic or the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan, 24 Jun 2009 @ 5:16pm

Don't agree at all.
Don't know if it's been said before but the thing with selling CD's is that there's a physical change of ownership.
Selling copies of CD's is not legal.

Now if I sell you an MP3 and I send it to you online then the mp3 is not taken off my computer and placed onto yours. You just get a copy of it. Hence, law-breaking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cedley1969, 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:07pm

I just thought of that.
So a group of friends buy mp3 content, stored it on an online server and 'sell' it to whoever wants to play the track and then 'resell' it to the next person, as long as no two people were playing the same track at the same time no laws are broken as far as I can see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:33pm

Re:
This little article is wrong.

Actually, no, it's not.

The difference between a CD and an mp3 is that when you resell an mp3, it means that you're making a copy of it and selling that.

Yes. That's true. But the same thing is true when you download an MP3. That's why it's not stealing.

Which is the point I made in the article exactly. So, you just proved that I was right, not wrong.

CDs aren't easily reproducible-- So the RIAA is right when they say that stealing an mp3 is like stealing a CD.

Whoa. Cognitive dissonance at work. Your previous sentence contradicted your very sentence.

Functionally, you're stealing a hard copy of the music-- which you can then resell.

Heh. Chris. Time to give back your law degree. Or maybe look up the Dowling ruling in the Supreme Court. *Stealing* involves taking something so that the original owner no longer has it. As you yourself pointed out, an MP3 is just a copy. That's not stealing. It *may* be infringing. But not stealing.

If mp3s were also not easily reproducible you'd be able to resell those too. This becomes more intuitive when you look at iPods-- it's not illegal to put songs on an iPod then resell that because you're selling away your hard copy of the music-- or at least selling the soft copy in a way that renders it difficult to reproduce.

Wow is that logic twisted. So because something is abundant, you can't resell it? That's backwards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DonPMitchell (profile), 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:35pm

Selling an MP3
The analogy would be valid if you sold the MP3 and then deleted your own copy. If you just sell a copy, its like burning a copy of a CD and selling it, which is a blatent violation of copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:48pm

Re: Not a great argument
This argument simply does not hold water.

Actually, it holds an awful lot of water.

The way that it is the same as a cd is because it is a copyrighted piece of material.

Uh, that doesn't explain how it's the same at all. Yes, they are both covered by copyright. But in many other ways they are entirely different.

The reason you can resell that cd is because you can authenticate its origins.

Ah. Can you point me to the section in title 17 where "you can authenticate its origins" is required?

I'm waiting.

There is no way to find out if that MP3 is the original licensed piece or an illegal copy. For that reason you CAN NOT resell it.

Again, the law actually disagrees with you entirely. But okay. Let's play your game.

If we assume that there is no way you can resell it because there is no way to authenticate its origins, then the same must apply to downloading. After all, based on your own logic, since you can't authenticate the origins, there's no way to prove its unauthorized, and thus infringement.

That's a lot of water my argument is holding.

No one is going to say that an MP3 is exactly the same as a CD, and the RIAA does not say that there is complete similarity between the two.

Actually, that's not true.

From the RIAA's own "copyright faq": "no different than walking into a music store, stuffing a CD into your pocket, and walking out without paying for it."

Oops.

Nice try, but that argument does not hold up to logic or the law.

Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:50pm

Re: Don't agree at all.
Don't know if it's been said before but the thing with selling CD's is that there's a physical change of ownership.
Selling copies of CD's is not legal.

Now if I sell you an MP3 and I send it to you online then the mp3 is not taken off my computer and placed onto yours. You just get a copy of it. Hence, law-breaking.

Sure, but if that's true, then downloading the music is also "just getting a copy" which is different than "stealing."

That's the point I was making.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Blogger, 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:53pm

I will
I think I will create some kind of digital used goods marketplace myself. Maybe we ALL should and that way it will be harder for them to close us all down.

Let's get the ball rolling people. Hit me up if you're interested via my websites contact page and we'll make some market places and link them all together or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BoB, 24 Jun 2009 @ 7:06pm

This little article is wrong. The difference between a CD and an mp3 is that when you resell an mp3, it means that you're making a copy of it and selling that. CDs aren't easily reproducible-- So the RIAA is right when they say that stealing an mp3 is like stealing a CD.Functionally, you're stealing a hard copy of the music-- which you can then resell. If mp3s were also not easily reproducible you'd be able to resell those too. This becomes more intuitive when you look at iPods-- it's not illegal to put songs on an iPod then resell that because you're selling away your hard copy of the music-- or at least selling the soft copy in a way that renders it difficult to reproduce.

Chris
Columbia Law '07

This is what you sound like to me:

MP3s are easy to clone, so it's illegal.
CDs are hard to clone, so it's legal.

Counterfeiting a one dollar bill is easy, so it's illegal.
Counterfeiting a twenty dollar bill is hard, so it's legal.

The legality of reselling an item shouldn't be established by its difficulty to reproduce. Either they should both legal to resell, or neither should be legal to resell.

On another note, Nathan made a comment I found interesting.
"Selling copies of CD's is not legal."

What about making a copy of a CD for yourself and selling the original? Is making a copy of a CD you own illegal? Am I legally obligated to transfer all copies of a CD along with the resold original?

Do recording industries record and mix each CD individually? Hell no. They make copies.

Why are they allowed to make copies and sell them if everyone else is not?

Music is invented, not owned. Copyrights are for D*cks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonthecomposer, 24 Jun 2009 @ 8:17pm

And downloaders are not "pirates" either. That is a term used by the RIAA to criminalize those who download files.
1) Pirates kill and steal
2) No killing or stealing in involved when someone downloads
3) Downloading is EXACTLY THE SAME as copying and keeping a copy locally
4) Therefore, those who download are NOT pirates

The act of illegal downloading is most precisely described as making a copy then saving it locally while ignoring copy-prohibitive licensing. Nowhere is stealing involved. Nowhere is piracy involved.

But what really gets me is how the RIAA could have effectively
1) Lobbied (and possibly paid off politicians) to implement such harsh downloading laws the likes of which are more monitarily severe than those of rape or murder
2) So thoroughly bastardized the whole idea behind intellectual rights that it has effectively become sheer propaganda the severity of which is comparable to that of the nazis
3) Caused so many to agree so thoroughly without real reason
4) Gotten away with it to the point that it has become LAW

HOW TF DID THIS HAPPEN?!?!?!?!

But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Since the law protects the intellectual rights of every artist, whosoever creates a piece can also use THEIR OWN CUSTOM LICENSE for it. That means that the artists can effectively bypass the RIAA altogether. You can even make it illegal for someone to copy-protect your music! So really, the power is in the hands of the artists. So by using laws the RIAA helped to get created, the ARTISTS can turn the RIAA's own greed against them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2009 @ 5:45am

Re: Oh Dear
Get over yourself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonthecomposer, 25 Jun 2009 @ 8:15am

Re: Re: Oh Dear
Get over your'self.... LOL

That was a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
acce245, 27 Jun 2009 @ 11:07am

Re:
Eh, except that by putting your music on an ipod, you still actually have the original copy on your computer (assuming your itunes directory is somewhere on your computer). I would argue that, since I can reproduce my audio CDs in under 10 minutes, or make an entire MP3 cd in under 30, that they are in fact easily reproducible.

Saying that stealing an mp3 is like stealing a cd is ludicrous. both on the cd and on the computer, the audio file is still software, or soft copies. It is only the disc that is actually hardware, or a hard copy. VHS, 8-track, cassette, vinyl, didn't rely on software, and were in fact hard copies (as you had to analog copy all of them). CDs can be fully digitally stripped, copied, et cetera, and it makes them an entirely different media.

This is like the whole danger mouse thing, with the blank CD-R. By selling a hard CD with no software (in this case, mp3 or audio), they are effectively circumventing this issue, and legally. Also, don't forget that backup copies of your music are legal, and you don't have to be the one storing them for it to be so (until a court decides otherwise, as this is your property when you purchase it, correct?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 2 Jul 2009 @ 9:58pm

Law of Conservation?
Alright, if I may ask, the question I believe becomes "what constitutes a copyrighted object?". That is what I'd like to know. I will pose a series of questions I'd like answered, and feel free to mail me and give me an answer as such.

1) When you buy a CD, what are you purchasing:
a) the right to listen to the music on this CD?
b) the hardware on which the music is stored?
c) the collection of bytes which compose each individual track?
d) the collection of bytes which collectively compose the entire CD?
e) other: EXPLAIN

2) When you buy an MP3, what are you purchasing:
a) the right to listen to the music you have downloaded?
b) the software file on which the music is stored?
c) the collection of bytes which compose each individual note which make up the song?
d) the collection of bytes which collectively compose the entire song?
e) other: EXPLAIN

(FOR ADDED ANALOGY)

3) When you purchase a VHS tape, are you purchasing:
a) The right to watch the movie you've purchased on the tape?
b) the hardware on which the video is stored?
c) the collection of frames which make up a scene in the movie?
d) the collection of frames which make up the entirety of the movie?
e) other: EXPLAIN

(I recognize that this pair of questions is distinctly different from the first two by basis of the fact that you cannot redeem your ticket to a movie at any time you desire, or multiple times. I still request an answer.)

4) When you purchase a movie ticket, are you purchasing:
a) The right to watch the movie you bought a ticket to?
b) The experience of watching the movie in a movie theatre?
c) The frames which you are watching which compose a scene in the movie?
d) The frames which you are watching which compose the entire movie?
e) other: EXPLAIN.

I genuinely want an answer to these questions, as I feel it would enlighten me as to the nature of purchasing rights. e-mail is badpath866.survey@gmail.com.

Go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shukov, 6 Jul 2009 @ 1:14am

ridiculous
No one owes you free music. If you don't like the producers policies then don't buy it or go ahead and be a thief and degrade yourself. But please shut the hell up about what you want. Nobody owes you a anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sonali, 15 Jul 2009 @ 6:42pm

i want to sex with you people sooooooooo bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew, 7 Sep 2009 @ 12:00am

riaa sucks
If the RIAA were to die in some sort of fiery explosion right now, well that would just be ok.

but seriously it is not illegal if the file has no license.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 30 Jul 2011 @ 12:52am

Re: On Property Rights
You can't say that Music is not limited. Unless it's created on a computer, music comes from a person's own talent, and it's often rare to find it in large doses. Unfortunately, when you buy a CD, most of your money's going to the people who recorded and wrapped up the music in a nice package, not the talented person who created it. Buying music should be about supporting those people who can entertain us through their music. Not about giving all our money to a recording studio or 'stealing' it in the form of an mp3.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2011 @ 1:15am

It Ain't About the Law
Downloading music is no longer about the law. You can do it whenever you want, and most likely, you won't get caught or punished. Stop arguing the itty bitty points of whether something, by law, is legal or illegal. Start thinking by morals. I don't like the recording industry as much as the next person, but I like the artists behind it. And really, their the ones doing all the work.

When you download an mp3, you're effectively taking someone else's work for free. That person poured their time and effort into that work. What do you pay for when you hire a builder to build your house? You pay for their expertise and time. Their labor is only a very small part of what you pay. It should be the same with music artists. You want their music, you pay! Don't 'borrow it forever' from your friend, who has another copy of it anyway. Don't download it for free either.

The only problem is, when we buy music, we pay most of our money to the recording studio. There has to be a way to get most of the money to the person who made the music, and a tip to the person who put it together, not the other way around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]