Testing The Right To Resell Downloaded Music 802
David Gerard writes "A man has bought a song from Apple iTunes and has put it up for sale on eBay. "I only spent $0.99 on it but I bought the song just as legally as I would a CD, so I should be able to sell it used just as legally, right?" Does the Right of First Sale still exist?" The seller says he's seeking attention, but not to himself. Rather, he calls this "an experiment in property rights in the digital age," and promises not to keep a copy once the sale is done.
Article text (already slow to subscribers) (Score:5, Informative)
I just posted an eBay auction [ebay.com] for a song I bought from the iTunes music store [applemusic.com]. It should be interesting to see how this works out. I only spent $0.99 on it but I bought the song just as legally as I would a CD, so I should be able to sell it used just as legally right?
[Update 09-03-2003 10:08 AM] Right now I've come up with a couple ways that the transfer of ownership could take place. One is to call up Apple and ask them to do it for me, which would be an interesting call. The other way would be to give my account to the winning bidder, which doesn't seem like a bid deal considering that I've only purchased one song. Still, I'd have to make sure that my credit card info was completely disassociated with the account. Or I could just create a new account and repurchase the song on that account.
[Update 09-03-2003 11:25 AM] I'd like to respond to a few points made by people: 1. It's true that I'm seeking attention, but not for me personally. This is an experiment in property rights in the digital age, something that's gotten surprisingly little attention. 2. I've read the iTunes agreements and found nothing denying transferability. This isn't any more a commercial venture than selling CDs at the local music store, I'm not incorporated or even DBA. Furthermore, in case anyone thinks this is a cheap way to make a buck I will be donating all proceeds to the EFF [eff.org]. 3. When the song is successfully transferred, I will not be keeping a copy of the song. If I don't own it I shouldn't have a copy.
[Update 09-03-2003 11:25 AM] A very excellent comment below by Piggly Wiggly asks if I will convert the format for delivery. My answer right now is "no" because I don't want to cloud the issue of the sale by changing the format. Also, I'd like to thank all the people posting supportive comments who realize that this is about more than a $0.99 song being over-valued on eBay.
Huge profit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Huge profit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huge profit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huge profit (Score:5, Funny)
I wish I had thought of this...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Donate the proceeds to the EFF? Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Donate the proceeds to the EFF? Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Article text (already slow to subscribers) (Score:5, Interesting)
- De-authorize his computer from iTunes (so that the song will have its full, legal ability to be authorized on three machines)
- Copy the file to whatever media he's using for transfer
- Delete the original
- Cancel the credit card used to purchase the song
- Send the song, the Apple ID and password to the buyer
Simple!Re:Article text (already slow to subscribers) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Article text (already slow to subscribers) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Article text (already slow to subscribers) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Article text (already slow to subscribers) (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial usage would occur if you, for example, play the song in your bar, or broadcast it through your own radio station. None of that applies here.
Re:Article text (already slow to subscribers) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright Law Forbids This (Score:4, Informative)
No it doesn't. Do a google search for the term "Right of First Sale". The copyright law and Supreme Court decisions indicate that the copyright holder gives up all rights to control subsequent sales after the first sale. There are also special exemptions for Libraries, etc.
The copyright law prohibits someone from selling reproductions, but Right of First Sale dictates the disposition of the object afterwards.
The question here will be how Right of First Sale applies to a digital recording that was never originally distributed on any kind of media.
This decision might also affect the validity of other digital recording "licenses" like computer software, etc.
Sounds reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
I was certainly not riding bigwheels, I was a poor just-graduated-from-college-and-working-for-the-g
I remember talking to the owner of one of the stores I frequented and he said the retaliation from selling used CDs was to withhold marketing material (or money?) from the store. It was a small enough store not part of a chain and in a really good location that I don't think it mattered to him.
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Son of a bitch. (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot, News for Nerds and eBay listings.
How much will he get for it? (Score:4, Interesting)
And, no, I haven't RTFA yet, I'm going to do that now...
Re:How much will he get for it? (Score:4, Funny)
Let's just say that the profit margin seems to be a little bit higher on resold digital music.
Wait till all the venture capitalists find out!
DRM Restriction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
She can TRY if she wants, and the clause can be there, but it's an illegal clause and thus is unenforcable, and I can take her to court in this state and get my money back.
There are some rights one cannot sign away, no matter what the TOS might say. The question here really is whether right of first sale is one of them.
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of the phrase "inalienable rights"? To allow people to give up their rights is just opening up the door for those with power to give folks an offer they can't refuse. Suppose all credit cards came with an indentured servitude clause?
Legal principles like first sale should take precedence over any contract made after the principle is upheld by a court. Since first sale was upheld a long time ago, that would include any contract dealing with digital media.
Every industry would love to get rid of the 2nd-hand market - it depresses prices. Gosh, if music fell under first sale you'd have cooperatives where everybody donates 10 songs to get access to the whole collection - as long as only one copy is checked out at a time it would be legal. Publishers would love to get rid of libraries as well - but that doesn't mean they're illegal.
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:5, Funny)
You mean yours don't ? Damn I'll have to get some new ones.
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
MANY rights can not be given up, no matter what you sign.
For example, slavery is illegal no matter what you sign.
Parental rights also are sometimes considered valid, even if you signed them away (as in surrogate parents).
The question is, is it possible to give away your right to sell an object and still be considered the legal owner of it. And that is very much up in the air. The right to sell is considered by many to be inherent to ownership.
Consider a bankruptcy case. Assume someone went was rich and had a huge collection of purchased songs, say 50,000 at $1. each. Would a judge be able to legally order those songs sold for? Or could the rich man say, no I can't sell them according to the TOS.
I think the TOS would be thrown out and the songs sold.
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:3, Informative)
emphasis mine
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the position I'm in with my left kidney and my right eye. It's my understanding that I own them, but here in the US I can't sell either. (especially not on eBay.)
Unless in TOS, and maybe even then, you own it. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you go down to the shop and buy a DVD, you own it. Just as you own your copy of the book you bought. However, the copyright to the movie or the book text is not owned by you. That is the way it always has been since the dawn of copyright.
However, now that data (the text) can be separated from the medium (the book), they are trying push legally dubious ToS or EULAs to fool people into thinking just as you do - that you do not own your own copy.
You own a copy of the data - you have every right to sell that copy, even if it is no longer confined to the pages of a book or the surface of a disc. However, you do *not* have the authority to make copies and sell them. Or to sell the original and keep a copy.
Kjella
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:5, Funny)
By clicking this you agree to ship us your first born postmarked within 48 hours (business days only). Click here for packing instructions.
Just because it's in a contract doesn't mean it's legal. Much less enforcable, moral, or in a sane alignment to the natural doctrines of the free market and capitalism. It just means another lawyer is off the bread line.
That's the point of DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
Forget about what should or should not be legal. It's like the law -- how do you know if it's not okay to do something? It's against the law. Can I wear a fish on my head? Sure, it's not against the law. Can I shoot someone? No -- it's illegal.
By the same token: can I copy this file onto 4 computers? No, the DRM won't let you. Can I sell it to someone else? Well, if the DRM lets you, obviously it's okay.
Re:DRM Restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the file iteself is useless without the iTunes account that set it up. That's how this DRM works. The account is what unlocks the file and makes it play music. And I'm sure that accounts are non-transferrable, except among computers you yourself own -- and you wouldn't want them to be otherwise, since the account is connected with your credit card, and can be used to purchase more songs. That's the real protection, the thing really preventing people from spreading their iTunes files all over the net...the threat of misuse of their account. Shit, I don't even leave my iTunes sessions open anymore, because my wife once bought a bunch of Nick Drake CDs on my account(It's the same credit card, I know...I just don't want anybody thinking I listen to that crap).
So there's an issue here most people aren't seeing. There's a good and a service involved in this sale. The good is the file itself. The service is Apple's unlocking of the DRM.
When I got my house painted, I paid for two things: the paint (a good), and the painter's work (a service). When he was done, i got to keep the leftover paint. I didn't get to keep him, I don't have any control over what he does from now on. I can sell you the extra paint, but if you want to get it on your house you'll have to pay the painter. You can try and convince him that I paid for his unlimited service based on the paint he sold me, but he will probably just laugh at you...even if I promise to scrap all the blue off the house myself, and transfer it to you.
Isn't that what's going on here? The only confusion is over what the consumer's rights are, and what the medium is. Apple gave him a file and promised their services to unlock it an unlimited number of times to play it on his computers. If he gives it to somebody else, that's his own accord. The file is his to give. But the buyer shouldn't expect Apple to do anything for them. After all, they don't have a contract with Apple. Apple doesn't know the buyer from Adam, and if they don't want to perform a service for the buyer, they shouldn't have to.
Resell ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Currently Apple doesn't allow download outside US, so if he is infact legally allowed to sale his bought music, then
Can he sell it outside US, at a higher price and make profit ?
Transfer? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the moment, the Apple Store lets you "authorize" music files. So for this person, after the file had been "sold", he would have to deauthorize the up to 3 other computers that had been allowed to play the song, give a copy of the file to the buyer, then provide them with his Apple iTunes Store username/password so they could authorize it on their machine.
As he mentions, he could call up Apple and ask them to switch his authorization of the song to another user.
Either way, it does raise an interesting question, and as someone who has been using the iTunes Music Store, I've never thought about it: Suppose that years from now, I want to sell all my downloaded music files to someone else. Is there a way to transfer the license? What if I left them in a will to my children later on - could Apple be required to ensure that they could use the files later?
Or he's about to run into a massive "legal agreement" which will negate his First Sale ability - we'll just have to see what happens, neh?
Re:Transfer? (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's the case then he'd have to get a new file from Apple (which prolly ain't happening) to give to the buyer
Re:Possible? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't believe you are correct. His rights are assigned and associated to the iTunes file, not an ill-gotten MP3 he downloaded. Even if you buy a CD, according to copyright laws you are allowed to make one backup copy for archival purposes. That's why the RIAA has a leg to stand on in court. Even if you own the CD's, legal you can not download the MP3 from someone else. You rights are associated to your media, not someone elses media. Now if you rip the songs off of your media, and do not share them, then you are ok. As soon as you share them, or download someone elses, then you have violated copyright law, because the content you are using is not associated to your purchased media.
So if you sell the iTunes file, and then give the person the MP3, not only did he reneg on the iTunes sale (because the rights are associated to the iTunes file, not the MP3 you downloaded), but you just sold a pirated MP3.
Re:Transfer? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, its pretty easy technically, as long as Apple supports it through FreePlay. You tell the music store you've sold the file to this other guy. It authorizes him to download and play it, and maybe even handles the money transfer. Then it prevents you from downloading it or registering any new copies of the file. You've still got the problem of the seller keeping already-registered copy, or having burned one off to a CD, but you've got exactly the same problem with a used CD. (And CD copying is no les
Highest Bidders Name (Score:5, Funny)
I like freedoms and stuff very much but... (Score:3, Interesting)
In my mind purchasing music in mp3 format should be a non transferable license.
I can see it now, people listing entire "Collections of high quality mp3s for $600! A $6000 value!" and promising to delete their files...
It just wouldn't work.
Re:I like freedoms and stuff very much but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I like freedoms and stuff very much but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could be wrong, but is there something that will prevent the files from being sold over and over again by the same person with all profits going to himself instead of EFF?
Re:I like freedoms and stuff very much but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I like freedoms and stuff very much but... (Score:4, Funny)
For him to pirate now is like slamming on your brakes screeching to a stop next to a cop car, flipping him the bird and then peeling out down the street in a Hazard Yellow Ferrari. You ain't going to blend into the background...
Re:I like freedoms and stuff very much but... (Score:4, Insightful)
So do you don't believe that anything with intellectual property should not be able to be resold? Or is music somehow special?
Can I buy a copy of <insert software title here>, retail boxed at Office Depot, and then resell it?
In my mind purchasing music in mp3 format should be a non transferable license.
Is it an anti-competitive streak that wants to prevent a secondary used market from developing? (This was a huge monopolistic tactic that IBM used until the court made them stop it in 1956. See: "Big Blue: IBM's use and abuse of power".)
You did state a reason that people can copy and then resell used. So what? This has been possible for decades. So should we also ban used DVD's, Videotapes, Records, CD's, Prerecorded cassettes, 8-tracks, etc.?
What about books?
Magazines? Maps? Newspapers? Where does it end? Do you have some reason that MP3's somehow deserve special protection? Or is it only when a big corporation doesn't like it?
The reason that nobody respects copyright anymore is because of the behavior of copyright owners. See my earlier post on this [slashdot.org].
Okay, if you say I can't resell my Encyclopedia set, or my expensive book on Garbage Collection, or my CD's, or even my mp3's, then I'll just loan them instead of selling them. I'll offer my friends the use of my encyclopedia set, my expensive book, my CD's, DVD's, and even my mp3's. Yeah, I'm sure the corporations will love that.
When taken to it's logical conclusion, the behavior of copyright holders, and also of what you are advocating, is rather scary and draconian indeed.
So how do we ensure that I didn't secretly sell Joe my encyclopedia set? We did the dirty dastardly deed secretly behind closed doors. The encyclopedia set looks good in his house just like it did in mine. Can any stranger prove that those books weren't his to begin with? Similarly, we'll secretly sell mp3's. Heck, I'll just make you a copy and keep the original.
Is that your problem? We should only have draconian restrictions on things that are easy to copy? So what happens when it is easy to copy books? In the forseeable future, mightn't all information, including books be distributed digitally? Still it raises the frightening possibility that someone will want to control that I can resell a CD or VHS tape because -- gasp! -- I might have copied it. Is this concern worth the unwarranted intrusion to make sure that I do not have a copy anywhere?
Hmmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ruin what, excatly?
I fully applaud Apple for taking the first leap into a new model of music distribution, one far more compatible with the modern world. However, iTunes has quite a few flaws that make it... Well, at best useless, and at worst even less sweet for the artists than the RIAA's traditional screwing.
A buck per song... Most CDs have between 10 and 20 songs on them, and cost, surprise surprise, between 10 and
It depends on the use. (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrible Choice Of Song (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe he's should pay the buyer to take the crappy song from his crappy collection of movie soundtracks.
Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that I'm not a lawyer though I'll just give my opinion (worth less than the original price of the song).
1) Unless it clearly states in the agreement made with apple, there is nothing preventing him from making this sale. He purchased the right to listen to that song in the specific format, it's his to dispose of as he chooses.
2) Making a sale for a profit in no way makes him a bad person (and he's claiming he'll be donating the money). I can't see how he could be legally required to pass this profit on to the original artist or to the supervising agency (in this case Apple who sold him the song).
3) The RIAA has nothing to do with this. As someone mentioned, they don't complain about the resale of CDs or DVDs (at this point) and there is no legal basis for them to in the future.
All and all I think this is an excellent way to bring attention to this issue. My only concern is that it will cloud the already muddy legal waters and make things more difficult for us lay folk to understand.
Cheers.
Not so excellent? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure those claims are compatible.
Here, at last, we have a major player offering a realistically-priced, legal, electronic means of distribution for music. This is something people have been crying out for since the Internet discovered file transfer, and something I'm sure many of us would want to encourage.
So this guy goes along, and turns it into one big test case. That might be beneficial if it works out, though it's not guarante
Coming soon to an OS X Mac near you... (Score:4, Funny)
iTunes 4.0.2
Closes loophole in iTMS EULA which implies transferability of purchased music to a third party. It is recommended that all users of iTunes install this update."
Shipping? (Score:5, Funny)
Are there high email costs to other countries that make shipping too expensive?
Re:Shipping? (Score:3, Insightful)
The iTMS will currently only authorize computers in the US. So if he sold it to someone outside the US, they would not be able to authorize their computer to play it.
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
BUT...
* When you sell off a CD, you are selling a physical item and at least in theory that is some measure of protection against you keeping a copy after having sold it.
NOTE: This to me is an argument not for being able to sell "used" digital copies, but against being able to sell even used CDs anymore. When CDs came out the technology for consumers to digitally copy discs just wasn't there. Sort of like when the authors of the US Constitution were talking about firearms they were thinking muskets, not automatic rifles. The technology changed but no one realizes that the "rights" associated with them should also change.
* When you buy a CD or a digital song the artist gets some of that money. With digital copies the artist's percentage usually grows dramatically. When you resell that same item, the artist gets -nothing- out of the deal except for possibly a miniscule growth in fan base.
While the RIAA is a crappy organization, I believe they are going to go down just as inevitably all empires do. Let us not take the artists down with them.
Remember, you have rights to fair personal use, just like with software. But if you read the fine print selling that software "used" is often forbidden by the license terms. Perhaps artists and record companies will have to start defining similar terms. It certainly would not be hard at all to package digital records with a player, calling the whole package "software", the songs "content" and then being MUCH more restrictive on terms. Something like that will happen if people continue to try to erode the rights of the author and publisher. It is not all about consumer rights. Those publishers of digital music are trying to offer an alternative we've all been screaming for for years
Bottom line for me
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
And can you tell me why they should? They've already been paid for it, why should they be paid again? When I sell my used car, should I have to forward a portion of it to Chrysler?
Remember, you have rights to fair personal use, just like with software. But if you read the fine print selling that software "used" is often forbidden by the license terms.
So don't agree to the license. As you said, you have the right to fair use, so using the software without agreeing to it is a non-issue. Unless the license grants me something that under copyright law I don't already have, I'd be pretty stupid to agree to it, wouldn't I? (Yes, I know that the license says that I can't use the software unless I agree, but since I'm not agreeing to be bound by the license, nothing it says matters.)
It certainly would not be hard at all to package digital records with a player, calling the whole package "software", the songs "content" and then being MUCH more restrictive on terms.
So I'll just ignore that license too. No big deal.
eBay policy (Score:5, Informative)
Downloadable Media Policy
eBay prohibits the listing of items or products to be delivered electronically through the Internet.
Examples
A copy of a software program which the successful high bidder can download from your Web site
Music or video files that you will deliver through a peer to peer file-sharing community or network
A copy of a downloadable eBook
A secret URL address where the high bidder can download "freeware" or "shareware" software programs
Doesn't seem like this is okay with eBay.
Re:eBay policy (Score:3, Interesting)
This would appear to be a way around the eBay policy restriction you cite.
All of which is besides the point, anyway, unless/until eBay decides to cancel the auction (and refund his listing fee).
-renard
This is a CYOA policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Restrictions on changing format? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting concept, except, there is a big flaw in you experiment.You need either an iTunes or iPod to listen to any song from ITMS. Only way you can give this song to anyone that does not have either one of these is by burning a CD, which I dont think you are allowed to do.
That was one of the comments posted on the website. Does anybody know if the contract/agreement actually prevents you from making backups for personal use? Aah, I see it now, just struck me: you are allowed to make as many copies as you want (of CDs, tapes or any media for that matter) for PERSONAL use. BUT you cannot sell the backups. You could go ahead and sell the original, but then you would actually have to destroy all the backups.
In the iTunes case, the guy would have to devise some way of selling the original version (not the backups on secondary media), which would be accessible only through iTunes or iPod.
Though this is just an experiment to test the current copyright laws, just the fact that you would need iTunes or iPod to listen to the stuff would prevent it from being a commercially viable practice, which could harm iTunes and the like.
It's not stated specifically in the terms. (Score:3, Informative)
You agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute, or create derivative works based on the Service, in any manner, and you shall not exploit the Service in any unauthorized way whatsoever, including but not limited to, by trespass or burdening network capacity.
But that's only derivatives. The only mention close to this topic in the Terms of Sale [apple.com] is this:
All sales on the iTunes Music Store are governed by California law, without giving effect to its conflict of law provisions.
So there isn't anything specific about reselling it. However, if sold in the DRM version there's no guarantee the purchaser can unlock it, unless the seller shares his buying info and authorizes the other computer. Apple can probably enforce that - they are no obligation to authorize anyone other than the original purchaser. If he transfers it to CD or mp3 to sell/ship, then he probably would place himself in danger of prosecution as an unauthorized distributor of copyrighted work. {e.g. I probably can't take a CD, make a tape, and then sell that tape even if I then destroy the CD. - the physical equivalent of what he might try if the mp4 can't be transfered.)
Copy of the iTunes User Agreement (Score:5, Informative)
It's available in PDF [mac.com] and TXT [mac.com] for your enjoyment.
I haven't read it over yet... but I bet this guy is just asking for trouble.
Copy of the Music Store agreement (Score:3, Informative)
iTunes Music Store Terms of Service. [apple.com]
Terms of Sale. [apple.com]
Re:Copy of the iTunes User Agreement (Score:5, Informative)
Why I Bid On The Song (Score:3, Interesting)
This auction isn't about just getting a song -- I own no Mac hardware/software, so even if I won the auction, I couldn't play the song. It's about, as the seller says, testing basic rights in the digital age -- whether the (relatively) undisputed right of people to sell used CDs, etc. still exists when dealing with electronic formats. I figure, the more people who bid on this thing, the greater the interest will be shown to be in retaining basic rights in relation to digital media.
Besides, I know I won't win with the attention Slashdot is throwing at this thing, so the money is meaningless. That, and I wouldn't mind sending a $37.00 donation to the EFF anyway, since that's what the seller is doing with the proceeds of the auction.
Profit! (Score:3, Funny)
2. Post on ebay.
3. Media blitz (tell slashdot money is going to EFF).
4. ???
5. Profit!
In order for 5 to work, guess what he has to do in 4.
What I've always wondered... (Score:3, Interesting)
-Paul
how about the right to redownload? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple Apologists argue that its the user's fault for not backing up the song immediately after downloading and that a hard crash is the same as having a CD scratched or stolen. While there are many steps a CD owner can take to prevent scratches and theft, there is very little an iTunes user can do to prevent a hard drive crash from occurring. Backups are important, but short of backing up every song the minute you download it, there is no way to prevent people from getting screwed.
eBay can cancel this auction (Score:4, Informative)
Check eBay's policies... They are well within their rights to end this auction. eBay generally tries to stay away from legal gray areas. Things that are actually legal to sell, for example, unprogrammed DSS access cards and Xbox mod chips with the Cromwell Clean Linux BIOS are not allowed by eBay to be sold. eBay is just trying to cover their own ass.
$320!!?! (Score:5, Funny)
Right of First Sale helps the music industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people think that by only purchasing used CD's, they are not supporting the RIAA. However, by creating a market for used CD's, full retail CD's become more valuable and this helps music companies' bottom lines.
If DRM can be made to easily co-exist with and encourage RoFS, then the perception of digital media files as a tangible good will improve, as well as the market value of digital media.
This Boggles The Mind (Score:3, Informative)
Simply put, this is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. I predict that Apple totally ignores this - and any/all other sales like it until a secondary market develops. Even then, I see Apple simply taking the position publicly that once it initially makes the sale, it has no further involvement with the process. I also predict an analogy to used record shops. By the way and for the record - I use Apple products in my home and work, but am not affiliated with it in any way.
$9,700 now, "this is a test, this is only a test" (Score:4, Informative)
Plenty of interesting posts out there on the topic (DRM, Apple, eBay bashing excluded)..
But the point I think many are missing is that this is explicitly an Experiment to see where it goes. I have to admit, selling an iTune on eBay sounds like some sort of smart-assed reply on
and this guy is actually doing it !
(of course, all proceeds if any going to EFF [eff.org]). Kudos ! and kudos to timothy for posting it.
The real issue is... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what the industry is afraid of and rightly so. If we didn't have 4 million Kazaa users freely swapping commercial songs, then the industry might not be so paranoid.
I know it's really easy to argue that our civil liberties are being trampled and I agree they are. But how do we fix the illegal file swapping AND maintain our constitutional rights?
My cynical side tells me that the situation will continue to develop into an us and them cyberwar. The anonymity and convenience of the internet facilitiates this. A legal battle will only serve to draw the proverbial line in the sand but will not change the situation until the two sides come together.
Does anyone agree that if music was more readily accessible (ie. iTunes), then most of us wouldn't be tempted to go to Kazaa when we really want to simply purchase the song. We don't want to drive to the store or wait for an online order to be shipped and we don't want to buy a whole album of crap along with it.
In terms of transferring songs. I have gigabytes of ripped songs from my vast CD collect on my computer. I filled up one hard drive so I buy another larger one and just copy the mp3s over. I haven't stolen anything or given anything away. What's wrong with this? The industry would make it so difficult to do stuff like this if they could.
Ok, I'm done.
M
$9,600?? (Score:3, Informative)
Now either someone mistyped a bid, or someone is philantropic here.
For the record, the bid is now at $9,700 and rising. It was at $360 not 10 minutes ago and $9,600 when I started this comment.
Go bidders!
Check his feedback!! (Score:5, Funny)
The Seller is going to get screwed (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, maybe someone really does what to make a point? It would be cool if the proceeds were to be donated to the EFF...
Auction's prohibited by Ebay rules (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, the auction will be taken down soon...
Your filz ownz you. (BBEdit says so) (Score:3, Informative)
This guy can contend his interpretation of the License all he wants, but my interpretation of :
from Terms of Serviceis that he can't sell a work from the Service (iTMS). Not to mention that any transfer via email, upload, etc, entail making a copy as you send it. Finding prohibition of copying ain't too hard.
Tell Apple what we think! (Score:4, Informative)
Media catching stories from slashdot. (Score:3, Informative)
Links:
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=13369&categ
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4439.cfm
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11358
Won't be long now before ebay pulls this auction. No money for EFF.
Re:Apple usage policy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is legally happening here? (Score:5, Informative)
A very good observation. I believe it is illegal (ie, against copyright law) to reproduce a work through any type of copying. This would be similar to photocopying a book, burning the original, and selling the copy to someone. It's the very act of copying the work that is illegal because you were not given the right to reproduce the work. Here's the relevant section of the code [copyright.gov]:
So, since only the original author has the right to reproduce the work it would be illegal to reproduce it. If the iTunes music store specifically gave you the right to reproduce the work then you could make a million copies. However, you would then run into section 3 of the code quoted above, which says that only the owner of the copyright can transfer ownership of a copy of the work.
A very thorough and much more involved look at the First Sale Doctrine can be found at the Duke Law & Technology Review article: "THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE AND DIGITAL PHONORECORDS" [duke.edu]
Re:What is legally happening here? (Score:5, Informative)
Bull-hockey. The courts have ruled no such thing. In fact, the copyright law specifically allows for this sort of "copying" the data into memory in the case of computer software or other cases where such "copying" is a necessary part of using the copyrighted work.
RTFM [copyright.gov]:
Re:Apple usage policy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Apple usage policy (Score:3, Funny)
Betcha there is soon.
Re:Apple usage policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone have a copy of the EULA?
usage policy v legal rights, which has dominance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps all he has is a non-transferable license to maintain a copy of the music for personal listening purposes, similar to how some hardware vendors (gouge) charge their customers an exorbitant license fee for software. Those software license fees
Re:TOS compatible (Score:5, Informative)
read the article? (Score:3, Funny)
it's probably an
but not for long [osxhax.com]
Re:Have no doubt... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:eBay auction (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, he is donating all of the proceeds to the EFF, so most likely people are just chocking the money up to a donation and bidding out of curiosity for the outcome.
Re:eBay auction (Score:5, Funny)
Shoulda been Metallica... (Score:5, Funny)
Suck on this, Hetfield.
Re:That's the joy of eBay (Score:3, Insightful)
I know someone that was bidding on pontoon boats on ebay. They lost, and called the seller to see if they had anything else. As it turns out, the seller is actually a company that builds pontoon boats. They sell them for regular pr
Re:Is resale of CDs legal? (Score:3, Informative)
It's called the "Doctrine of first Sale", and it has a Supreme Court decision from the early 1900s, and basically says the original seller has no say about what the buyer does with a legally acquired copy (aside from being able to prohibit copying it). Especially, they can't keep you from reselling it.
Re:Why delete it? (Score:3, Informative)