3 ms·

The RIAA is, shock/horror, right in this case. First Sale Doctrine is not a free pass to make copies of digital media. A friend of mine is the principal at Sm

The RIAA is, shock/horror, right in this case. First Sale Doctrine is not a free pass to make copies of digital media. A friend of mine is the principal at SmartFlix, so I've had the opportunity to hear a lot of rubber-meets-the-road detail on first sale doctrine over the past few years.

leviathant 15y ago
Thing is, the RIAA has been arguing in court that the royalties they pay the artists for MP3s are based off physical sales, rather than license based sales. They're playing both sides of the argument. Should artists get paid for downloads using the same rates they agreed to for physical media? Or should downloads be treated like licenses, and artists get paid according to that scale? See also http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/04202416631/fight-power-chuck-d-sues-universal-music-hundreds-millions-unpaid-royalties.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/04202416631/fight-...
- feralchimp 15y ago
  Fair enough. I'm not arguing that the RIAA aren't pushy to a fault, I'm just saying they happen to have a reasonable interpretation of legal precedent to back up their claim w.r.t. this particular online music service. Also, the "sale" vs. "license" debate is a many-more-than-two sided thing. At some level, we're always talking about licenses...purchase of a work does not confer to me all of the rights enjoyed by the copyright owner, period. And "licensing" a song is really licensing very specific rights (and usually for some finite period). ...coherent but entirely skippable ranting below this line... This "debate" will progress when we can get some common ground on the following: 1. What exactly is the consumer licensed to do, in what circumstances? 2. How should the customer be expected to know this, given the inertia of media consumption history, and the fact that consumers generally don't sign contracts when they buy things? 3. Even if we can agree on what consumers' rights are (which we haven't, for reasons that all sides should frankly be ashamed of), how should the law deal with the dual facts that: a) fine-grained enforcement is technically impossible, and b) large scale infringement is technically and economically trivial for exactly the same populations that comprise the viable market for commercial content? It would be nice if we at least (the highly-technical / entrepreneurial / probably not-starving community) could start holding ourselves to a higher standard. We owe society some answers that are more sophisticated and productive than "the old business model is broken, so it's okay to pirate until someone launches [new service from which I can get everything I want, when I want it, at a price that's easily affordable]."
  - nmcfarl 15y ago
    > We owe society some answers that are more sophisticated and productive than "the old business model is broken, so it's okay to pirate until someone launches [new service from which I can get everything I want, when I want it, at a price that's easily affordable]." I agree but these are hard questions. I've thought hard about this and I decided that the only legally and morally clear option for buying music was to go back to buying CDs only (and ripping them). Which of course means I've not had any new music in months, as that's just a pain in the neck. I don't think mine is a good solution* but cases like this make you wonder if rights to own, or the like (eg: listen to in perpetuity), digital music maybe non-existent. ---- * And yes this is just as reductive as "steal everything"- but I couldn’t find any solid ground in between.

leviathant 15y ago

Thing is, the RIAA has been arguing in court that the royalties they pay the artists for MP3s are based off physical sales, rather than license based sales. They're playing both sides of the argument. Should artists get paid for downloads using the same rates they agreed to for physical media? Or should downloads be treated like licenses, and artists get paid according to that scale? See also http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/04202416631/fight-power-chuck-d-sues-universal-music-hundreds-millions-unpaid-royalties.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/04202416631/fight-...

feralchimp 15y ago
Fair enough. I'm not arguing that the RIAA aren't pushy to a fault, I'm just saying they happen to have a reasonable interpretation of legal precedent to back up their claim w.r.t. this particular online music service. Also, the "sale" vs. "license" debate is a many-more-than-two sided thing. At some level, we're always talking about licenses...purchase of a work does not confer to me all of the rights enjoyed by the copyright owner, period. And "licensing" a song is really licensing very specific rights (and usually for some finite period). ...coherent but entirely skippable ranting below this line... This "debate" will progress when we can get some common ground on the following: 1. What exactly is the consumer licensed to do, in what circumstances? 2. How should the customer be expected to know this, given the inertia of media consumption history, and the fact that consumers generally don't sign contracts when they buy things? 3. Even if we can agree on what consumers' rights are (which we haven't, for reasons that all sides should frankly be ashamed of), how should the law deal with the dual facts that: a) fine-grained enforcement is technically impossible, and b) large scale infringement is technically and economically trivial for exactly the same populations that comprise the viable market for commercial content? It would be nice if we at least (the highly-technical / entrepreneurial / probably not-starving community) could start holding ourselves to a higher standard. We owe society some answers that are more sophisticated and productive than "the old business model is broken, so it's okay to pirate until someone launches [new service from which I can get everything I want, when I want it, at a price that's easily affordable]."
- nmcfarl 15y ago
  > We owe society some answers that are more sophisticated and productive than "the old business model is broken, so it's okay to pirate until someone launches [new service from which I can get everything I want, when I want it, at a price that's easily affordable]." I agree but these are hard questions. I've thought hard about this and I decided that the only legally and morally clear option for buying music was to go back to buying CDs only (and ripping them). Which of course means I've not had any new music in months, as that's just a pain in the neck. I don't think mine is a good solution* but cases like this make you wonder if rights to own, or the like (eg: listen to in perpetuity), digital music maybe non-existent. ---- * And yes this is just as reductive as "steal everything"- but I couldn’t find any solid ground in between.