makes sense, but that doesn't make the record companies money and that's what it's all about.
the issue for them is not even that it's possible to keep the original copy AND sell the license, they want everyone to buy a 'fresh new' copy, every 'used' sale to them is lost money. not too long ago, there were arguments over selling used video games. these argument go all the way back to cassette tapes even.
but it's as ridiculous (and immorally greedy) as if car dealers wanted to ban the sale of used cars just so everyone HAD to fork over the dough for a new one.
I love how the RIAA are outraged that they can't get paid for making unlimited copies of other people's work at marginally depreciated server costs, but when someone else is successful they respond with lawsuits instead of acquisition. Yeah, it's piracy that ruins media, not the antiquated gatekeepers and toll booths that stagnate the entire industry.
Is that the best you can do, talking nonsense? iTunes tracks are DRM free, and I'm playing it now on my Galaxy Nexus via Google music. No Apple products required.
Every time they fight this battle they lose. Betamax, cassette tape recorders, CDs/DVDs and their recording devices... and the RIAA will lose this battle too.
I don't like the ReDigi model or pricing, but if the RIAA is against them, then ReDigi has my full support!
Errr, iTunes tracks are DRM free, so Steve "the bastard" Jobs already gave you the power to copy your purchased songs to infinity. If you want to label somebody "the bastard," go look at the RIAA.
EULAs are getting more and more s**tty... We give money, but we don't get to own the stuff... RIAA&MPAA and member companies should be boycotted until they change their policy.
The same could be said about buying CD's from garage sales or thrift stores.
The owner could have done something like copy the CD to their computer before selling it to somebody else, and the artists make no money off of the resale (and why should they)
So should we ban selling CD's, tape's, 8tracks, records, and even used MP3 players (because they might still have music on them) used?
They are supposedly selling you the rights to the file. But who has tested that concept legally? In reality consumers have no idea they are buying the "rights" to a file, so there is an argument that the contract cannot hold up as is.
Other computer related contracts that were vastly overreaching have also been nullified in the past.
there are plenty of facts that will put apple in a negative light, such as the screwjob they put in the legal terms for iauthor. apple's position in drm free music however, is NOT one of the things that puts them in a negative light.
you are the one skewing the facts to push your agenda.
You cannot consider entertainment to be a good. Legally or otherwise. That view ultimately fails. It falls apart because, in reality, entertainment can NEVER be a good. It is a service. It is instantaneous, intangible, mutually exhaustive, et cetera.
Which brings me to my main point, how does one copyright a service? That is the real underlying problem here. How do you do this? I suppose you could copyright the set of directions, but the service itself? Can you copyright a taxicab ride? Can you copyright a water utility? I suppose you could copyright certain technologies within the water utility, but the utility itself?
This is a very large problem. People intuitively know you cannot copyright or claim ownership to entertainment. Everyone knows this. Just like you cannot copyright your favorite recipe, a garden, or the sunset. You can offer a service, and make money in this fashion. You can run a restaurant and sell your favorite recipes to your customers. You can run a gardening company and use your favorite gardening designs. You can take a photo of the sunset and sell it as a postcard.
But how can you copyright these things? You cannot copyright the recipe, garden, or that spot where you took the picture of that pretty sunset. Someone, if they are knowledgeable enough, can taste your food and devise your recipe and make the food themselves. Someone can look at your garden, make a sketch, and make their own garden. Someone can analyze your photograph, figure out where you were, go there, and take their own photograph. These things cannot be owned. They are services. The most you can do is supply a superior service.
All of this is especially true with music. Everyone intuitively knows nobody can copyright music. It is music. Sound. Waves of sound bouncing off of things and landing in your ear. Thats it. How can someone copyright that? Perhaps someone can play a song very well, and offer a service whereby they will play the song for you. Perhaps in a large concert hall or such. Perhaps someone else can provide a service whereby they bring unheard of and new songs to people who would have otherwise never heard such music. But copyrighting the music itself? Categorically absurd.
So it brings us to the problem we have today. The people intuitively know that entertainment cannot be legitimately copyrighted. The people know, and crave for, the best service available to them. But we have a legal system that illegitimately grants copyrights for entertainment, and an 'entertainment' industry that refuses to supply a superior service.
This all reminds me of that restaurant owner and chef who cooks his food the day before he sells it, and heats it up in the microwave. Meanwhile charging top price for the experience. And he wonders why nobody likes his food, and nobody is willing to come to the restaurant.
I have the best produce, he says.
The best meat from the best butcher, he says.
I use the best equipment to make the best food, he says.
Then I heat it up in the microwave so the customers know its warm.
Ding ding ding! There is your problem. Perhaps selling the food how the CUSTOMER wants is the best idea. Perhaps making your food today and selling it tomorrow is a bad idea? Perhaps.making todays food to sell to todays customers is a good place to start? Perhaps making food to order?
This is basically what the music and movie industries are doing. Providing something the customers do not want, and suing everyone who provides something the customers do want.
The only legitimate solution is to get rid of copyrights for entertainment services, let the companies that cannot adapt die off, and let the strong survive.
Look, the copyright lobby insists that digital products are just like the real things so stealing them is "theft", yet they don't want us to be able to resell them just like any other real thing. How hypocritical.
Steve Jobs made it possible (Apple was the reason the labels were forced to drop DRM) so you might want to consider taking that back lest he haunt you.
WhoNewMediaJan 22, 2012Buried
Makes sense, you buy a conceptual 'single item' license, it should be no different than reselling old CD's or DVD's
ljkelleyJan 23, 2012Buried
I hope they prevail. We as consumers have the right to resell items that we buy. And the digital age should not change that.
cantstopwontstopJan 23, 2012Buried
makes sense, but that doesn't make the record companies money and that's what it's all about.
the issue for them is not even that it's possible to keep the original copy AND sell the license, they want everyone to buy a 'fresh new' copy, every 'used' sale to them is lost money. not too long ago, there were arguments over selling used video games. these argument go all the way back to cassette tapes even.
but it's as ridiculous (and immorally greedy) as if car dealers wanted to ban the sale of used cars just so everyone HAD to fork over the dough for a new one.
thebsgJan 23, 2012Buried
I love how the RIAA are outraged that they can't get paid for making unlimited copies of other people's work at marginally depreciated server costs, but when someone else is successful they respond with lawsuits instead of acquisition. Yeah, it's piracy that ruins media, not the antiquated gatekeepers and toll booths that stagnate the entire industry.
pika2000Jan 23, 2012Buried
Is that the best you can do, talking nonsense? iTunes tracks are DRM free, and I'm playing it now on my Galaxy Nexus via Google music. No Apple products required.
MrFrogyJan 23, 2012Buried
Every time they fight this battle they lose. Betamax, cassette tape recorders, CDs/DVDs and their recording devices... and the RIAA will lose this battle too.
I don't like the ReDigi model or pricing, but if the RIAA is against them, then ReDigi has my full support!
pika2000Jan 23, 2012Buried
Errr, iTunes tracks are DRM free, so Steve "the bastard" Jobs already gave you the power to copy your purchased songs to infinity. If you want to label somebody "the bastard," go look at the RIAA.
JLF2035Jan 23, 2012Buried
Yeah, that seems to be the ideal concept for them. "we're selling you the rights, not the actual music/software, ect.."
Personally, I don't care what they say. When I buy something; It's mine to use as I please. f**k the RIAA.
kikkiaaJan 23, 2012Buried
EULAs are getting more and more s**tty... We give money, but we don't get to own the stuff... RIAA&MPAA and member companies should be boycotted until they change their policy.
sonicgardenJan 24, 2012Buried
i buy a shovel, i use it to dig a hole, i sell it to my friend, the shovel company makes no money off my sale to my friend, yet that is legal.
why it wouldn't be for anything else is simply, greed.
corydorningJan 23, 2012Buried
TL;DR - he doesn't think the MPAA and RIAA should be able to copyright entertainment.
casspaJan 23, 2012Buried
Seems reasonable to me.
lostngoneJan 23, 2012Buried
Illegal no. But is against the Apple/iTunes EULA.
Didn't you people read it before agreeing to it?!?!
revg33kJan 23, 2012Buried
The same could be said about buying CD's from garage sales or thrift stores.
The owner could have done something like copy the CD to their computer before selling it to somebody else, and the artists make no money off of the resale (and why should they)
So should we ban selling CD's, tape's, 8tracks, records, and even used MP3 players (because they might still have music on them) used?
I say no.
superkendallJan 23, 2012Buried
They are supposedly selling you the rights to the file. But who has tested that concept legally? In reality consumers have no idea they are buying the "rights" to a file, so there is an argument that the contract cannot hold up as is.
Other computer related contracts that were vastly overreaching have also been nullified in the past.
reaper527Jan 23, 2012Buried
there are plenty of facts that will put apple in a negative light, such as the screwjob they put in the legal terms for iauthor. apple's position in drm free music however, is NOT one of the things that puts them in a negative light.
you are the one skewing the facts to push your agenda.
computerczarJan 23, 2012Buried
Legal fees will bury them. Innovation and the legal system don't go together.
melthornalJan 23, 2012Buried
The problem, simply put, is this:
Entertainment is a service, NOT a good.
You cannot consider entertainment to be a good. Legally or otherwise. That view ultimately fails. It falls apart because, in reality, entertainment can NEVER be a good. It is a service. It is instantaneous, intangible, mutually exhaustive, et cetera.
Which brings me to my main point, how does one copyright a service? That is the real underlying problem here. How do you do this? I suppose you could copyright the set of directions, but the service itself? Can you copyright a taxicab ride? Can you copyright a water utility? I suppose you could copyright certain technologies within the water utility, but the utility itself?
This is a very large problem. People intuitively know you cannot copyright or claim ownership to entertainment. Everyone knows this. Just like you cannot copyright your favorite recipe, a garden, or the sunset. You can offer a service, and make money in this fashion. You can run a restaurant and sell your favorite recipes to your customers. You can run a gardening company and use your favorite gardening designs. You can take a photo of the sunset and sell it as a postcard.
But how can you copyright these things? You cannot copyright the recipe, garden, or that spot where you took the picture of that pretty sunset. Someone, if they are knowledgeable enough, can taste your food and devise your recipe and make the food themselves. Someone can look at your garden, make a sketch, and make their own garden. Someone can analyze your photograph, figure out where you were, go there, and take their own photograph. These things cannot be owned. They are services. The most you can do is supply a superior service.
All of this is especially true with music. Everyone intuitively knows nobody can copyright music. It is music. Sound. Waves of sound bouncing off of things and landing in your ear. Thats it. How can someone copyright that? Perhaps someone can play a song very well, and offer a service whereby they will play the song for you. Perhaps in a large concert hall or such. Perhaps someone else can provide a service whereby they bring unheard of and new songs to people who would have otherwise never heard such music. But copyrighting the music itself? Categorically absurd.
So it brings us to the problem we have today. The people intuitively know that entertainment cannot be legitimately copyrighted. The people know, and crave for, the best service available to them. But we have a legal system that illegitimately grants copyrights for entertainment, and an 'entertainment' industry that refuses to supply a superior service.
This all reminds me of that restaurant owner and chef who cooks his food the day before he sells it, and heats it up in the microwave. Meanwhile charging top price for the experience. And he wonders why nobody likes his food, and nobody is willing to come to the restaurant.
I have the best produce, he says.
The best meat from the best butcher, he says.
I use the best equipment to make the best food, he says.
Then I heat it up in the microwave so the customers know its warm.
Ding ding ding! There is your problem. Perhaps selling the food how the CUSTOMER wants is the best idea. Perhaps making your food today and selling it tomorrow is a bad idea? Perhaps.making todays food to sell to todays customers is a good place to start? Perhaps making food to order?
This is basically what the music and movie industries are doing. Providing something the customers do not want, and suing everyone who provides something the customers do want.
The only legitimate solution is to get rid of copyrights for entertainment services, let the companies that cannot adapt die off, and let the strong survive.
ehomyakovJan 23, 2012Buried
Look, the copyright lobby insists that digital products are just like the real things so stealing them is "theft", yet they don't want us to be able to resell them just like any other real thing. How hypocritical.
superkendallJan 23, 2012Buried
Steve Jobs made it possible (Apple was the reason the labels were forced to drop DRM) so you might want to consider taking that back lest he haunt you.