As Expected, RIAA Threatens Site That Claims To Let You Sell Used MP3s
from the dumb-in-almost-every-direction dept
Earlier this year, we wrote yet another attempt (and there have been a few) to set up a system for "selling used mp3s." It seems like a pretty pointless idea for a few reasons. First, why bother? Second, all the convoluted and annoying systems the company puts in place to try to make this "legal" just makes it annoying and useless. But, third, as we noted at the time, there was no way that the RIAA would let this happen.And, indeed, the RIAA is now demanding that ReDigi stop allowing for the sale of used mp3s. I'm having trouble thinking which is the dumber idea: trying to set up a convoluted and useless marketplace for selling "used" MP3s (something almost no one will want to do), or the RIAA even bothering to call extra attention to ReDigi by threatening and potentially suing.
A tip to the RIAA: this was dumb. Almost no one cares about or was using ReDigi anyway. It would have just faded away. By threatening, you bring them back into the limelight. On top of that, you (yet again) make yourselves look like clueless luddites who wish to wipe out the First Sale doctrine. Even worse, you could end up in a lawsuit that reminds you that the First Sale doctrine does exist, and is recognized by the courts, and you could establish a precedent that "reselling" used digital content is legal. So why bother, other than this bizarre and shortsighted infatuation with the idea that if anyone, anywhere benefits without you getting a slice, it must be illegal?
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: first sale, licensing, mp3s, music, resale
Companies: redigi, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So they tell the public they're selling licenses, and tell the people they owe money to they're selling albums. The two statements cannot be true at the same time.
They accuse the public of stealing from them by illicitly copying (despite the fact nothing was actually taken from their possession), all the while they actually have been stealing 80 cents out of every dollar they owed in royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
royalties to the masses....
wait, if we get behind this company to get a nice protracted lawsuit going, at some point the RIAA will have to admit that the original file is a license, not a copy of the song subject to first sale doctrine, forever indebting the labels to paying royalties on the licenses.
thanks RIAA for bringing this to our attention. :-)
Glad, as you said, that you were not afraid of this one.
nuf said..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: royalties to the masses....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apples and Oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apples and Oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apples and Oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apples and Oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apples and Oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apples and Oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apples and Oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apples and Oranges
And they call the general PUBLIC thieves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Blue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/04202416631/fight-power-chuck-d-sues-universal-mus ic-hundreds-millions-unpaid-royalties.shtml
You stand in support of Chuck D here... that online sales are a license, not a "sale". In doing so, you are accepting that the sales are licenses and not physical product, and are restricted by those licenses. Simply put, if this is true, then there is no simple right of resale granted, and no first sale doctrine in play.
Beyond that, the sale of "used" MP3s is clearly filled with risks of piracy - from the user "keeping a copy" of the material, to people selling what they didn't have the rights for to begin with. This is the sort of site that you turn individual piracy into a paying concept, and you know there would be any number of people lining up to scam the system with pirated material.
There is really no way for this one to work out and be legal, I feel for them in that they have a potentially good business model in theory, but the reality of contract law, licensing, and the potential abuses all come together to form an unsustainable business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike is wrong, has been proving inexorably wrong, and you now own the internets. Checkmate, well played, sir/madam/goat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not the labels, paying the artist as if it's a physical sale but telling the consumer they are only purchasing a licence.
Mike hasn't said it's one or the other, he's just said the labels can't have it both ways, a sale when the laws for sales count but licences when the laws for licences best suit not the consumer, not the artists but the labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
unless they of course use the RIAAs own words and royalty payments as a defense, and the court rules in that manner.
sale of "used" MP3s is clearly filled with risks of piracy - from the user "keeping a copy" of the material, to people selling what they didn't have the rights for to begin with.
oh no mp3s have the same limitation art and books have had since.....ever, even before they were magically digitized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2011 @ 9:05am said plus:
This can't be permitted.
But kudos to Mike for once pointing out that this attempt to get around copyright is just plain silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2011 @ 9:05am said plus:
http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2011/11/catvertising-is-the-future-of-advertising/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2011 @ 9:05am said plus:
One thing is certain however, the nature of what consumers are purchasing (license or copy sale) is going to be key in this debate. Both have implications, but the market will not stand for letting this distinction remain undefined for much longer. Either the industry settles on the definition or the courts will. My strong recommendation would be for the Industry to take the path of least cost and take their chances going forward...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet the resale of physical CDs is permitted despite the risk of the previous owner "keeping a copy" by ripping it before reselling it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The CD? Well, if you sell the original, you no longer have the case, the art work, or the original printed CD - it would be incredibly hard to sell that on.
The difference is obvious, even to Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And here, all along, I thought that a pirate was a commercial copyright violator. After all, piracy, in the traditional sense when it comes to copyright infringement, has always been the manufacture and sale of copyrighted material.
Theft has usually been incorrectly used to define someone who infringes on a personal, non-commercial scale. But then again, the industry really treats all infringement, whether commercial or otherwise as the same thing. After all, in their eyes, anyone who doesn't work for big content is a thief and pirate, regardless to whether that individual actually is involved in copyright infringement, commercial or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OMNOMNOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't you understand how things work around here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The things it lobbies for are primarily damaging to the large business interests it represents, but unfortunately also to everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is not quite accurate. Mike stands in support that IF, as the labels want to claim, digital sales are indeed licenses and not sales, THEN, in fact Chuck (and a lot of other artists) are indeed owed a lot of money.
It is the IF, THEN concept Mike (as well as a lot of us) supports.
You can't claim something (like a digital good) is one thing (like a license) when it is to your financial benefit and not that thing (no it's a sale) when it is to your financial disadvantage.
If it is a license you except ALL of the advantages AND disadvantages that come along with it.
If it is a sale you except ALL of the advantages AND disadvantages that come along with it.
That being said, I also don't hold with the argument that selling a "used" MP3 is no different than selling a CD. Even if I buy a CD, rip it, and resell it, I can only sell it once. True, multiple people can buy, rip, sell the CD, but each individual can only do so once, and thereby only "profit" from it one time. It would be a whole lot easier to find ways to sell the same "used" MP3 over and over again, thereby making the potential for abuse that much greater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're right, a license that forbids resale cannot be resold. But did they really sell a license, thereby committing both criminal fraud and tax evasion? Or did they actually sell an album, which is subject to First Sale? I bet most courts would agree that they sold an album, no matter what they told the customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-1 for except = accept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wrote some thoughts about this very thing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And eventually the CD you own will be OOP and may climb in value as a collectable.
I refuse to give the RIAA or MPAA even a dime of my money ever for the rest of my life.
Take your SOPA and shove it up yer ass I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take them to court for false marketing is the answer. 500$ statutory damages are available for each instance in VA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're claiming to be reselling goods under the First Sale doctrine, not selling licenses.
If the labels are right, and the music is indeed licensed, the labels will immediately be under grand jury investigation for tax fraud. Because they've been reporting album sales on the back end, while insisting to customers that they bought a license, not an album.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does the phrase "own it today" ring a bell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the labels are right, and the music is indeed licensed, then keep a copy of the ADVERTISEMENT that drew your eye to the purchase. IF THE ADVERTISEMENT SAYS "buy" rather than "license" then file a false marketing/advertising suit. 500$ statutory fines are available per infraction.
I'm not saying that this instant case is about false marketing, I'm saying, file your own suit against them for false marketing if you find them engaging in it. If they are advertising a license, then either license it or don't, your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]