6 ms·

"Why the fuck do you get to resell something that I made? It's mine, I should get the money for it. Why do you get the money for it? Fuck you, I want my money!"

"Why the fuck do you get to resell something that I made? It's mine, I should get the money for it. Why do you get the money for it? Fuck you, I want my money!" is pretty much how I feel when I hear about people re-selling digital goods. It doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain how the original content creator profits off of this, if he/she doesn't then I believe this ruling is not only immoral, it's also completely stupid.

teddyh 12y ago
If you could clarify why your argument applies to digital media but not physical media, it would help. Or, alternately, do you believe that resale of a thing you made should benefit only you? Is that in perpetuity, or how long should this last?
- baddox 12y ago
  I'm not a fan of the way that argument was phrased, but the obvious difference is the physical difference between how a physical object is "stolen" and how a digital work is "stolen." It just comes down to property rights, which are subjective and change over time. Under my own subjective impression of property rights, someone breaking into my house and taking a sculpture I made is a violation of my rights, but if I sell a CD to someone and they give away a copy of it, I don't feel like there was a violation.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    When it comes to unauthorized copies that do not fall within the parameters of fair use, the theft - for lack of a better word - is not of the copy in question. The bone of contention is actually the money that you would have paid to the author in the case of a legal transaction, and which you "save" in the case of an illegal duplication. It's kind of like "saving" money on milk by walking out of the store without paying for it. Whether you're taking possession of a finite physical good, or increasing the legally regulated supply an intangible one, you're doing something that - by law - triggers an obligation to pay another person money. Disregarding the obligation by making a copy and retaining possession of the money which, by right, you now owe another, is where specific and definable deprivation enters the picture. When people who understand what they're talking about refer to "theft" in relation to the unauthorized duplication of intangible goods, this is what they mean.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > The bone of contention is actually the money that you would have paid to the author in the case of a legal transaction, and which you "save" in the case of an illegal duplication. The problem with that analysis is that the amount of money you didn't give to the artist is the same regardless of whether you downloaded a copy. In fact, the vast majority of people in the world didn't pay the creator of the media. And even for physical items, compensation to the initial holder is not what's relevant. If you take a gallon of milk and sneak out of the grocery store, but leave enough cash on the shelf in its stead, I think you will still be found of shoplifting, and I personally agree with that assessment. Likewise, if someone breaks into my house and takes my sculpture and leaves a million dollars of cash, that's still theft. What constitutes theft of a physical object is precisely that the item was taken not on the terms of the property holder.
      - alexqgb 12y ago
        "The problem with that analysis is that the amount of money you didn't give to the artist is the same regardless of whether you downloaded a copy." And yet, demand for that media was nevertheless satisfied. So all the costs in creating it were invested with no hope of return. That may have been stupid move on the part of the author, but if the money dries up, how long do you think these people are going to go on investing their own time and resources for free? "What constitutes theft of a physical object is precisely that the item was taken not on the terms of the property holder." Exactly. And the same goes for intangible property. Indeed, that's the whole point of IP law: to create a situation where it's impossible to avoid a formal negotiation with the property holder without breaking the law.
        baddox 12y ago
        > And yet, demand for that media was nevertheless satisfied. A quantity of one was satisfied at a price of zero. That's a pretty trivial spot on the demand curve. It tells you nothing about the demand for that same good at nonzero prices.
        12y ago
nospecinterests 12y ago
Really? What type of terms would you need/agree to to allow for the resale of a digital or physical item? If you want more than the original sale price of the item then you are charging way too little for the original sale.
Turing_Machine 12y ago
People are more willing to spend money on something that they know they can resell, which is an indirect benefit to the original seller. It works that way with cars, houses, and even physical books. Do you think a ban on selling used cars would result in more new cars being sold? I don't. For one, not everybody can afford a new car. For another, people generally use the money (or trade-in value) they get from the old car to buy a new one. Why should digital goods be any different?
hahainternet 12y ago
> Why the fuck do you get to resell something that I made? It's mine, I should get the money for it Because I paid you for it. I bought it off you, just the same as if someone later re-sells a desk I made for them I can't demand further payment.
AimHere 12y ago
Your argument could apply to a book too; why should an author NOT be able to veto whenever a copy of his work changes hands, or gets lent to a library or ends up in a second-hand bookshop? But the law of copyright is clear when it comes to physical goods. The consumer has rights too, and one of those rights is to treat physical copies of copyrighted works the same way as normal everyday physical items. It's one of the limitations that society has seen fit to impose on the rights of copyright holders; in exchange for their monopoly on the right to make copies of their works, the customers get the right to borrow, lend, resell or otherwise alienate themselves of the product. You'll find the doctrine called 'exhaustion of rights' or 'first sale', and in US Law, it's to be found in 17 USC 109. What's happening here is that with the internet switched on and the mass trade in digital goods, the copyright holders have been spending years making the analogies with physical goods that require capital and cost money to reproduce ('You wouldn't download a car') and now the physical items analogy is being applied to the rights that everyone else has too.

teddyh 12y ago

If you could clarify why your argument applies to digital media but not physical media, it would help. Or, alternately, do you believe that resale of a thing you made should benefit only you? Is that in perpetuity, or how long should this last?

baddox 12y ago
I'm not a fan of the way that argument was phrased, but the obvious difference is the physical difference between how a physical object is "stolen" and how a digital work is "stolen." It just comes down to property rights, which are subjective and change over time. Under my own subjective impression of property rights, someone breaking into my house and taking a sculpture I made is a violation of my rights, but if I sell a CD to someone and they give away a copy of it, I don't feel like there was a violation.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  When it comes to unauthorized copies that do not fall within the parameters of fair use, the theft - for lack of a better word - is not of the copy in question. The bone of contention is actually the money that you would have paid to the author in the case of a legal transaction, and which you "save" in the case of an illegal duplication. It's kind of like "saving" money on milk by walking out of the store without paying for it. Whether you're taking possession of a finite physical good, or increasing the legally regulated supply an intangible one, you're doing something that - by law - triggers an obligation to pay another person money. Disregarding the obligation by making a copy and retaining possession of the money which, by right, you now owe another, is where specific and definable deprivation enters the picture. When people who understand what they're talking about refer to "theft" in relation to the unauthorized duplication of intangible goods, this is what they mean.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > The bone of contention is actually the money that you would have paid to the author in the case of a legal transaction, and which you "save" in the case of an illegal duplication. The problem with that analysis is that the amount of money you didn't give to the artist is the same regardless of whether you downloaded a copy. In fact, the vast majority of people in the world didn't pay the creator of the media. And even for physical items, compensation to the initial holder is not what's relevant. If you take a gallon of milk and sneak out of the grocery store, but leave enough cash on the shelf in its stead, I think you will still be found of shoplifting, and I personally agree with that assessment. Likewise, if someone breaks into my house and takes my sculpture and leaves a million dollars of cash, that's still theft. What constitutes theft of a physical object is precisely that the item was taken not on the terms of the property holder.
    - alexqgb 12y ago
      "The problem with that analysis is that the amount of money you didn't give to the artist is the same regardless of whether you downloaded a copy." And yet, demand for that media was nevertheless satisfied. So all the costs in creating it were invested with no hope of return. That may have been stupid move on the part of the author, but if the money dries up, how long do you think these people are going to go on investing their own time and resources for free? "What constitutes theft of a physical object is precisely that the item was taken not on the terms of the property holder." Exactly. And the same goes for intangible property. Indeed, that's the whole point of IP law: to create a situation where it's impossible to avoid a formal negotiation with the property holder without breaking the law.
      - baddox 12y ago
        > And yet, demand for that media was nevertheless satisfied. A quantity of one was satisfied at a price of zero. That's a pretty trivial spot on the demand curve. It tells you nothing about the demand for that same good at nonzero prices.
        12y ago

nospecinterests 12y ago

Really? What type of terms would you need/agree to to allow for the resale of a digital or physical item? If you want more than the original sale price of the item then you are charging way too little for the original sale.

Turing_Machine 12y ago

People are more willing to spend money on something that they know they can resell, which is an indirect benefit to the original seller. It works that way with cars, houses, and even physical books. Do you think a ban on selling used cars would result in more new cars being sold? I don't. For one, not everybody can afford a new car. For another, people generally use the money (or trade-in value) they get from the old car to buy a new one. Why should digital goods be any different?

hahainternet 12y ago

> Why the fuck do you get to resell something that I made? It's mine, I should get the money for it Because I paid you for it. I bought it off you, just the same as if someone later re-sells a desk I made for them I can't demand further payment.

AimHere 12y ago

Your argument could apply to a book too; why should an author NOT be able to veto whenever a copy of his work changes hands, or gets lent to a library or ends up in a second-hand bookshop? But the law of copyright is clear when it comes to physical goods. The consumer has rights too, and one of those rights is to treat physical copies of copyrighted works the same way as normal everyday physical items. It's one of the limitations that society has seen fit to impose on the rights of copyright holders; in exchange for their monopoly on the right to make copies of their works, the customers get the right to borrow, lend, resell or otherwise alienate themselves of the product. You'll find the doctrine called 'exhaustion of rights' or 'first sale', and in US Law, it's to be found in 17 USC 109. What's happening here is that with the internet switched on and the mass trade in digital goods, the copyright holders have been spending years making the analogies with physical goods that require capital and cost money to reproduce ('You wouldn't download a car') and now the physical items analogy is being applied to the rights that everyone else has too.