5 ms·

It seems to me that deleting the original file is hardly good enough. I think that a secondary market for digital works is something that will just never work

by larrik 15y ago

It seems to me that deleting the original file is hardly good enough. I think that a secondary market for digital works is something that will just never work like it does for physical media, and that's something we just have to accept and move on with. My biggest worry is that ReDigi is going to end up losing a lawsuit that sets a bad precedent and makes future better technologies impossible. That said, the RIAA's ownership vs licence vs access debate is BS, and they never even stick to it. The RIAA needs to change course soon, because unlike the book and movie industries, I can easily imagine a future without a music industry at all. As for Amazon vs. the authors? I think they are pretty much both wrong, and I'm staying out of it.

bradleyland 15y ago
I think that in 100 years, we'll all look back at this time period of intellectual property hoarding as something akin to the dark ages.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  Unless the RIAA wins, in which case 100 years from now will be the dark ages.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  This is why I wished EFF or an organization like that would participate in those hearings. They seem to take "piracy" for granted, and if you pirate/copy files without authorization, you're clearly a criminal. I think there needs to be a more in-depth debate about that, because I'm not so sure piracy should be a criminal act. Just think about it. Why is piracy so hard to eliminate, if not impossible. Why does it grow in 10 other places when one place is eliminated. Could it be that it's a fundamental principle of the Internet, and what they really need to do is to adapt to this new reality, rather than keep wasting resources for decades to fight it, and create more draconian laws in the process that only end up serving other purposes?
  - henrikschroder 15y ago
    There has been a lot of research on pirate markets, from illegal downloads to counterfeit designer clothes, and it's pretty well understood. Pirate markets appear when the cost of a good in a market is way above the perceived value, and a pirated version can be produced for a fraction of the cost. Legit goods cost only money, but pirate goods instead cost time or uneasiness of breaking the law. Consumers then make cost-benefit analyses as to which version they want, and as long as enough consumers choose the pirated version, the pirate market is sustained. The way to beat a pirate market is to simply treat it as a legit competitor and out-market it. iTunes music store is so incredibly successful, because it is out-marketing illegaly downloaded music. Netflix is so incredibly successful, because it is out-marketing illegaly downloaded movies. They simply provide cheaper and better service than the previous legal alternatives.
roc 15y ago
MDY v Blizzard [1] already set an (absurd, unconscionable) precedent that people who purchased World of Warcraft did not own their copy of the digital work, but were licensees -- regardless of whether they ever agreed to the EULA or the service's Terms of Use. Further, the court held that copying a digital work into in-system memory by any program not 'unauthorized' by the rights-holder constituted infringement and the operator thus subject to statutory penalties. (Seriously. Let that and its implications sink in.) So the bad precedent already exists. And not only does it set some troublesome legal hurdles for future technologies, but a large swath of current technologies are suddenly in a very tenuous (and expensive) legal situation. If the RIAA sticks to this 'license' argument, they could hold that not only is it infringement to copy your DRM-free iTunes tracks out of iTunes, but so much as playing your iTunes-purchased tracks via software other than iTunes is infringement (as it necessarily requires loading a copy of that digital work into memory). [1] http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2006cv02555/322017/82/ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona...
- nobody31415926 15y ago
  That's not unreasonable - you don't own World of Warcraft you own a license to play it. If you owned it you could reuse the characters in your own game, produce your own movie of the game and so on - not bad for a $50 investment. Think of the same with a book - you don't own the IP in the book and paying $0.99 on amazon doesn't give you the right to produce your own HP movie franchise. Redigi's business model is exactly the same as you ripping your CDs to mp3 and then selling the disks, does anyone really think that people selling their downloads aren't keeping a copy? You agree to a license to a piece of art work - you buy whatever the copyright holder decides is the deal. If that means only listening to it on an Apple hardware, only listening at home, or not letting your neighbor watch the movie with you - well that's tough, find a different artist. The famous French scientist Louis Pasteur refused to allow his book on yeast and brewing to be read in Germany, he was mad at them for the 1870 war with France. It's his book - his rules. German beer doesn't seem to have suffered too much as a consequence (not sure what America's excuse is!)
  - enjo 15y ago
duskwuff 15y ago
> It seems to me that deleting the original file is hardly good enough. Especially since iTunes will allow you to redownload content!
nodata 15y ago
> and that's something we just have to accept and move on with. You haven't said why.
- larrik 15y ago
  True. It just seems hypocritical to me to demand that the RIAA and other old guard industries adapt their businesses to new technologies, and then sit here and complain we can't lend or resell digital copies the same way we can with physical ones. It seems that the only way to enforce fair lending or reselling is with restrictive online DRM, and I'd rather have the technological freedom to use my files where and when I wish in return for a moral and legal obligation to not just hand other people's work out to everyone for free. I should note that I am NOT one of those people who think that music should be free and artists should make it up with touring or with donations or whatever. Why? Because I like albums, and I don't like concerts that much. So, I'd (selfishly) much prefer a situation where artists are encouraged to record more and tour less, which honestly is not the situation with either the standard music contract NOR the apparent future of the web. (Just to be clear, I'm not really anti-piracy. I'd probably own zero albums if it wasn't for Napster back in the day which let me try out all sorts of music and find what I like. I don't like the radio. Before Napster, I just didn't listen to music. I'm just not pro-piracy either.)

by larrik 15y ago

bradleyland 15y ago

I think that in 100 years, we'll all look back at this time period of intellectual property hoarding as something akin to the dark ages.

sixtofour 15y ago
Unless the RIAA wins, in which case 100 years from now will be the dark ages.
nextparadigms 15y ago
This is why I wished EFF or an organization like that would participate in those hearings. They seem to take "piracy" for granted, and if you pirate/copy files without authorization, you're clearly a criminal. I think there needs to be a more in-depth debate about that, because I'm not so sure piracy should be a criminal act. Just think about it. Why is piracy so hard to eliminate, if not impossible. Why does it grow in 10 other places when one place is eliminated. Could it be that it's a fundamental principle of the Internet, and what they really need to do is to adapt to this new reality, rather than keep wasting resources for decades to fight it, and create more draconian laws in the process that only end up serving other purposes?
- henrikschroder 15y ago
  There has been a lot of research on pirate markets, from illegal downloads to counterfeit designer clothes, and it's pretty well understood. Pirate markets appear when the cost of a good in a market is way above the perceived value, and a pirated version can be produced for a fraction of the cost. Legit goods cost only money, but pirate goods instead cost time or uneasiness of breaking the law. Consumers then make cost-benefit analyses as to which version they want, and as long as enough consumers choose the pirated version, the pirate market is sustained. The way to beat a pirate market is to simply treat it as a legit competitor and out-market it. iTunes music store is so incredibly successful, because it is out-marketing illegaly downloaded music. Netflix is so incredibly successful, because it is out-marketing illegaly downloaded movies. They simply provide cheaper and better service than the previous legal alternatives.

roc 15y ago

MDY v Blizzard [1] already set an (absurd, unconscionable) precedent that people who purchased World of Warcraft did not own their copy of the digital work, but were licensees -- regardless of whether they ever agreed to the EULA or the service's Terms of Use. Further, the court held that copying a digital work into in-system memory by any program not 'unauthorized' by the rights-holder constituted infringement and the operator thus subject to statutory penalties. (Seriously. Let that and its implications sink in.) So the bad precedent already exists. And not only does it set some troublesome legal hurdles for future technologies, but a large swath of current technologies are suddenly in a very tenuous (and expensive) legal situation. If the RIAA sticks to this 'license' argument, they could hold that not only is it infringement to copy your DRM-free iTunes tracks out of iTunes, but so much as playing your iTunes-purchased tracks via software other than iTunes is infringement (as it necessarily requires loading a copy of that digital work into memory). [1] http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2006cv02555/322017/82/ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona...

nobody31415926 15y ago
That's not unreasonable - you don't own World of Warcraft you own a license to play it. If you owned it you could reuse the characters in your own game, produce your own movie of the game and so on - not bad for a $50 investment. Think of the same with a book - you don't own the IP in the book and paying $0.99 on amazon doesn't give you the right to produce your own HP movie franchise. Redigi's business model is exactly the same as you ripping your CDs to mp3 and then selling the disks, does anyone really think that people selling their downloads aren't keeping a copy? You agree to a license to a piece of art work - you buy whatever the copyright holder decides is the deal. If that means only listening to it on an Apple hardware, only listening at home, or not letting your neighbor watch the movie with you - well that's tough, find a different artist. The famous French scientist Louis Pasteur refused to allow his book on yeast and brewing to be read in Germany, he was mad at them for the 1870 war with France. It's his book - his rules. German beer doesn't seem to have suffered too much as a consequence (not sure what America's excuse is!)
- enjo 15y ago

duskwuff 15y ago

> It seems to me that deleting the original file is hardly good enough. Especially since iTunes will allow you to redownload content!

nodata 15y ago

> and that's something we just have to accept and move on with. You haven't said why.

larrik 15y ago
True. It just seems hypocritical to me to demand that the RIAA and other old guard industries adapt their businesses to new technologies, and then sit here and complain we can't lend or resell digital copies the same way we can with physical ones. It seems that the only way to enforce fair lending or reselling is with restrictive online DRM, and I'd rather have the technological freedom to use my files where and when I wish in return for a moral and legal obligation to not just hand other people's work out to everyone for free. I should note that I am NOT one of those people who think that music should be free and artists should make it up with touring or with donations or whatever. Why? Because I like albums, and I don't like concerts that much. So, I'd (selfishly) much prefer a situation where artists are encouraged to record more and tour less, which honestly is not the situation with either the standard music contract NOR the apparent future of the web. (Just to be clear, I'm not really anti-piracy. I'd probably own zero albums if it wasn't for Napster back in the day which let me try out all sorts of music and find what I like. I don't like the radio. Before Napster, I just didn't listen to music. I'm just not pro-piracy either.)