Re-selling your MP3 files is a copyright violation, FedCoat judge rules.

[jbauer]

So, let me get this straight...if you buy an mp3 you are stuck with it forever and will eternally own rights to a copy and cannot gift (or pass down to family) or sell that to someone else? You can either keep it or delete it (and if so you can at some point re-download it if you want legally) but that is all? I'll keep buying CDs then since they offer more freedom.

Its illegal to buy a cd and rip the music off of it. Just incase you don't want to use your diskman player.

 

[unklejman]

I honestly don't see what the confusion is about. How can you sell a data to some one if there is no way to guarantee that you aren't just copying the file?

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

It wasn't legal for you to make a copy of a tape and then sell the copy. That's essentially what's going on with used digital music. There's no way to make sure that the person "selling" it isn't really just selling a copy. That's the nature of the beast. If the ReDigi model is allowed, then the original Napster model should be allowed. If the original Napster model is allowed, then the market itself would kill ReDigi. Who would buy someone's "used" digital music if they could legally download it for free?

"Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce," Judge Sullivan wrote. "However, courts have not previously addressed whether the unauthorized transfer of a digital music file over the Internet -- where only one file exists before and after the transfer -- constitutes reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The court holds that it does."

So if I am an honest re-seller and transfer a used digital mp3 file over the internet for a few bucks that is copying and not reselling my used good?

No. It's selling my used mp3 file that I own and no longer want. Just because some people can abuse the system, just like people who burned cd's doesn't mean you make selling used copies illegal entirely. They just want more control at the detriment of all the rest of our productivity.

 

[unklejman]

Used mp3?

Let me ask you this. Would you sell your "used mp3" for less than the original amount? What about your "used mp3" makes it worth less than a "new mp3" from the creator? Nothing? So you are creating a source for the media that undercuts the creator. This gives them incentive to make more media how?

 

[amy31416]

Used mp3?

Let me ask you this. Would you sell your "used mp3" for less than the original amount? What about your "used mp3" makes it worth less than a "new mp3" from the creator? Nothing? So you are creating a source for the media that undercuts the creator. This gives them incentive to make more media how?

Your concern is that it doesn't lose value? That's just silliness right there.

You do know that some used goods appreciate in value, don't you?

 

[amy31416]

Used mp3?

Let me ask you this. Would you sell your "used mp3" for less than the original amount? What about your "used mp3" makes it worth less than a "new mp3" from the creator? Nothing? So you are creating a source for the media that undercuts the creator. This gives them incentive to make more media how?

Your concern is that it doesn't lose value? That's just silliness right there.

You do know that some used goods appreciate in value, don't you?

 

[BenIsForRon]

Used mp3?

Let me ask you this. Would you sell your "used mp3" for less than the original amount? What about your "used mp3" makes it worth less than a "new mp3" from the creator? Nothing? So you are creating a source for the media that undercuts the creator. This gives them incentive to make more media how?

This is why I'm for IP in the digital realm. If we accept that I can sell any bit of digital data I have on my computer, then I could totally take away the profits of any artist by selling their music for less than they are.

 

[jbauer]

I honestly don't see what the confusion is about. How can you sell a data to some one if there is no way to guarantee that you aren't just copying the file?

Couldn't the same be said about a book, a CD, a DVD? Heck with the invention of 3D printers couldn't the same be said about nearly everything?

 

[unklejman]

Your concern is that it doesn't lose value? That's just silliness right there.

You do know that some used goods appreciate in value, don't you?

Goods yeah. Data?

 

[jbauer]

Used mp3?

Let me ask you this. Would you sell your "used mp3" for less than the original amount? What about your "used mp3" makes it worth less than a "new mp3" from the creator? Nothing? So you are creating a source for the media that undercuts the creator. This gives them incentive to make more media how?

Whats wrong with that? Guns have appreciated. There are many books that have appreciated. Many times homeowners wont take less then they paid for a house. Does that take a job away from an electrician?

If a copy is being made by the original holder the judges argument MIGHT hold water. If the DRM is still intact then I don't see why this would be a problem.

 

[unklejman]

Couldn't the same be said about a book, a CD, a DVD? Heck with the invention of 3D printers couldn't the same be said about nearly everything?

As some one mentioned earlier, the book, CD all have some value in their physicality.

And yes, 3D printers do open up a new arena of economic conflicts. There have already been cease and desists sent out to users on Shapeways for selling props that apear in movies, that are also being sold as merchandise.

 

[jbauer]

MP3s take up space on my hard drive thus they exist. They have a value of physicality to me as I can play what I want to play when I want to play it, into and out of whatever device I feel like playing it.

 

[unklejman]

Whats wrong with that? Guns have appreciated. There are many books that have appreciated. Many times homeowners wont take less then they paid for a house. Does that take a job away from an electrician?

If a copy is being made by the original holder the judges argument MIGHT hold water. If the DRM is still intact then I don't see why this would be a problem.

The houses and guns might appreciate in value, but there are reasons for the appreciation. Some one who wants a used home in a certain location does not want a home built in another location. But some one who wants a song to listen to doesn't care if that file has been access by any certain computer before.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Used mp3?

Let me ask you this. Would you sell your "used mp3" for less than the original amount? What about your "used mp3" makes it worth less than a "new mp3" from the creator? Nothing? So you are creating a source for the media that undercuts the creator. This gives them incentive to make more media how?

Something "used" has been out for a while after the release date of the product. So naturally, it is cheaper than the original price because there are a lot of them in circulation and more than one person wants to sell the product. The fact that it's a digital copy and can not be worn down like a used cd is pretty much irrelevant.

I bought it from the owner, I enjoyed it for awhile, and now I am reselling it. It is my property. I am not creating anything.

Used markets are pretty standard in any type of industry, record companies should be able to afford people selling their used products just like any other industry, or maybe they shouldn't exist in their current structure.

 

[unklejman]

MP3s take up space on my hard drive thus they exist. They have a value of physicality to me as I can play what I want to play when I want to play it, into and out of whatever device I feel like playing it.

I'm talking about things that actually have value, like paper, and plastic. The design on the cover.

Come on this isn't hard. It's like commodity currency vs fiat currency.

 

[amy31416]

Goods yeah. Data?

Data is a product/good. It can increase/decrease in value.

Sorry about the 3 posts--connectivity issues.

 

[jmdrake]

"Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce," Judge Sullivan wrote. "However, courts have not previously addressed whether the unauthorized transfer of a digital music file over the Internet -- where only one file exists before and after the transfer -- constitutes reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The court holds that it does."

So if I am an honest re-seller and transfer a used digital mp3 file over the internet for a few bucks that is copying and not reselling my used good?

No. It's selling my used mp3 file that I own and no longer want. Just because some people can abuse the system, just like people who burned cd's doesn't mean you make selling used copies illegal entirely. They just want more control at the detriment of all the rest of our productivity.

The problem with your "logic" is that it ignores the fact that there is currently no way to prove that only one copy of the file existed before and after the resale. By the very nature of an MP3 file, I can make an exact duplicate (many in fact) and there's absolutely positively no way that "ReDigi" can know only one copy existed before and after. That's the problem that I was attempting to address when I talked about a "Bitcoin" version of an MP3 file. For whatever reason you clipped that part out of my post. The reason that Bitcoins work is that somehow (I'm not sure how) when you transfer the Bitcoin, the old Bitcoin no longer exist. With an MP3.....? There's nothing to stop me for saving the MP3 to a CD and then playing it later. I can keep it and still "sell" it.

 

[jmdrake]

Something "used" has been out for a while after the release date of the product. So naturally, it is cheaper than the original price because there are a lot of them in circulation and more than one person wants to sell the product. The fact that it's a digital copy and can not be worn down like a used cd is pretty much irrelevant.

I bought it from the owner, I enjoyed it for awhile, and now I am reselling it. It is my property. I am not creating anything.

Used markets are pretty standard in any type of industry, record companies should be able to afford people selling their used products just like any other industry, or maybe they shouldn't exist in their current structure.

Really? What's to stop me from buying a copy of a song of iTunes the day it is released, making a copy of it, then reselling it on ReDigi that very same afternoon? I'll still have enjoyment of the file. (I made a copy after all.) But I've "sold" it. So in effect I "bought" the song for far less than the original sale price. Now maybe ReDigi has a policy that songs must be X months old before they can be resold, but I haven't seen that on their website.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The problem with your "logic" is that it ignores the fact that there is currently no way to prove that only one copy of the file existed before and after the resale. By the very nature of an MP3 file, I can make an exact duplicate (many in fact) and there's absolutely positively no way that "ReDigi" can know only one copy existed before and after. That's the problem that I was attempting to address when I talked about a "Bitcoin" version of an MP3 file. For whatever reason you clipped that part out of my post. The reason that Bitcoins work is that somehow (I'm not sure how) when you transfer the Bitcoin, the old Bitcoin no longer exist. With an MP3.....? There's nothing to stop me for saving the MP3 to a CD and then playing it later. I can keep it and still "sell" it.

I'd just like to add that even if an MP3 is "copyproof" similar to copyproof CDs, there's a relatively easy workaround. Just a DAW to record each song while playing it in iTunes or whatever player. Then, convert the .wav to .mp3, and voila, you've got an easily copied file.

Music industry, thou art a dinosaur. Evolve or die.

 

[dannno]

This will only help bring the music industry down faster, though if they had ruled the other way it would have given them an opportunity to possibly evolve.. So really they are just signing their own death sentence by continuing this nonsense. But I don't know if I want the music industry to evolve, the people who run it are clearly retarded.