By preventing people from reselling their legally purchased media, the media companies are doing exactly the same thing to their customers that pirates have been doing to them.
Right back at you Capitol records. The music industry has been using outdated copyright laws to suck it to the public. Now outdated resale laws (will this apply to all digital music?) are being used to hit back at the music industry. Kind of ironic.
(Now I have a job where I get paid more than engineers at Capitol, but it still pisses me off because I was young and very capable, and I deserved that opportunity more than the other schmuck)
Profit? If somebody is reselling something that they bought, chances are they are gonna sell it for less than they bought it and not earn any profit. If they sell it for higher, nobody is gonna buy it because they can get it for cheaper from the original source.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, their hiring practices are pretty much the same as almost any business. In what job isn't there a nitwit nephew, brother, cousin of the boss somewhere in the system?
I have a vision.
Of course anyone (except the MAFIAA) will agree that first sale of course applies.
So now you start such an eMarketplace - buy 'used' music - sell 'used' music.
What law would stop an enterprise to sell you something - and buy it back let's say... five minutes later?
The only thing that stops me from buying a book from Amazon - and selling it back again for Amazon to sell as used five minutes later is the time it takes UPS or FedEx to deliver it back and fourth. But besides that?
Now this is different then renting - because full ownership is transfered - there is no limit on how long or short the new owner can keep the 'property', no fees.
And even further - remember that ill received christmas present? The game was for a PS and wouldn't run on your X-Box, the shirt had the wrong size and the necktie the wrong color - of course the shop allowed you to change your purchase - out of free and good will.
It's normal and good service to allow to change your purchase as long as the goods returned are still in good/perfect shape - and you buy something different in exchange - well, some real good companies even allow you to, gosh, just bring the product back and take the money instead!
Now transfer this to your eMarketplace.. you buy a song.. and then you realize it was the wrong song, had the wrong color, size - or didn't fit on your mp3-player.... and they allow you to change it - out of good will - without extra cost!
So.. you buy twenty, thirty song, a good playlist - legally.
And you head over and change those songs - whenever you like - since that 'eMarketplace' has so much good will that they always exchange goods that are still in perfect shape - for free....
All completely legal - unless the MAFIAA buys new laws.
Some of the most celebrated artists in various art forms were never recognized as such during their own lifetimes, and therefore by your measure would be considered "unsuccessful artists."
Emily Dickinson is a very familiar name, but she was never successful by your measure of the word. Only 7 out of her hundreds of poems were published, and she was never famous in her lifetime.
She was also never rich.
I think her kind of success is more important in the long run than the Britney Spears kind, but that's just me.
Instead of bitching you should stop and learn the valuable lesson here. More often then not knowing someone on the inside is more valuable than how well you can do the job. Most places I have worked would rather hire someone an employee knows and recommends over some random person off the street. It's even more like this in the creative industry and roadie circles. This is why you need to start networking. Make friends with people already in the industry THEN you will find it much easier to get that job.
So er... why is the recycle price a mandatory figure?
I'm all for services like this though I'm not sure how you can prevent someone making a copy of the song and selling it on. Though I suppose if they want to pirate they could just pirate.
Music as a cheap service is the only way I see the industry surviving long term.
Music as a life experience is the only way the industry has surviving long term.
Either work daily and hard and EARN your money - or die.
No more sleeping on big vaults of '(intellectual) property' doing 'the work' for you....
Well, first off - they are a private enterprise - and if they say '0,32$ per song and no bartering' you're free to sell - or leave.
It's not like they are enforcing an industrial standard here.
If you want to sell your song for 9.99$ - go ahead - find yourself a buyer - it is not others job to do that for you.
So I don't see where your problem lies?
Heck, go on and create your own startup that allows for bartering and different pricing - find out if it works (and if putting that much effort into the interface to allow for bartering is profitable in the end).
That eMarketplace is not meant to work like eBay - they are not the mediator for sellers and buyers to find each others.
They are 'second hand traders' - they buy from you and sell it to someone else - you never know who will buy 'your' song.
I just would prefer not to see a company make a fortune as a middle man, when really - this kind of functionality should be provided to people for free. I'm not just thinking of music either. This should count for video games and movies. So we could do with one universal system that allows us to sell our digital content, legally at the price we want.
If this company restrict to 32p then that's their choice I suppose. I just hope someone better comes along.
Would you do your job for free? People need to make money. Even amazon charges it's sellers and it's much bigger than this thing.
If you really think this type of stuff should be free then you go quit your job and spend all your time and money making a program, hosting the site, and troubleshooting it.
Sure it's nice when ppl do make pretty good programs for free use but that's not really a viable option for most people.
nitoriFeb 9, 2012Buried
If you paid for it then you should own it and be able to resell it.
FalalisFeb 9, 2012Buried
By preventing people from reselling their legally purchased media, the media companies are doing exactly the same thing to their customers that pirates have been doing to them.
trivialanomalyFeb 9, 2012Buried
Right back at you Capitol records. The music industry has been using outdated copyright laws to suck it to the public. Now outdated resale laws (will this apply to all digital music?) are being used to hit back at the music industry. Kind of ironic.
nickchopperFeb 9, 2012Buried
I want to know why these companies want me to pay again for music I already bought on tape or even on records years ago.
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012Buried
I applied to Capitol Records with a good resumé - they never read it. Weeks later, I visit the studios, and some new kid is doing setups - he got hired because he was "buddies" with some engineer there. So f**k Capitol and EMI - they hire people by acquaintance (not by talent, experience, passion or skill) and they are horrible at running their business. They deserve to go bankrupt.
(Now I have a job where I get paid more than engineers at Capitol, but it still pisses me off because I was young and very capable, and I deserved that opportunity more than the other schmuck)
mtownFeb 10, 2012Buried
Profit? If somebody is reselling something that they bought, chances are they are gonna sell it for less than they bought it and not earn any profit. If they sell it for higher, nobody is gonna buy it because they can get it for cheaper from the original source.
jaketyson85Feb 10, 2012Buried
Maybe then can get Lars from Metallica to be their posterchild again. That douche was all about the dough.
bobbi21Feb 10, 2012Buried
While I agree with the overall sentiment, their hiring practices are pretty much the same as almost any business. In what job isn't there a nitwit nephew, brother, cousin of the boss somewhere in the system?
murxFeb 9, 2012Buried
I have a vision.
Of course anyone (except the MAFIAA) will agree that first sale of course applies.
So now you start such an eMarketplace - buy 'used' music - sell 'used' music.
What law would stop an enterprise to sell you something - and buy it back let's say... five minutes later?
The only thing that stops me from buying a book from Amazon - and selling it back again for Amazon to sell as used five minutes later is the time it takes UPS or FedEx to deliver it back and fourth. But besides that?
Now this is different then renting - because full ownership is transfered - there is no limit on how long or short the new owner can keep the 'property', no fees.
And even further - remember that ill received christmas present? The game was for a PS and wouldn't run on your X-Box, the shirt had the wrong size and the necktie the wrong color - of course the shop allowed you to change your purchase - out of free and good will.
It's normal and good service to allow to change your purchase as long as the goods returned are still in good/perfect shape - and you buy something different in exchange - well, some real good companies even allow you to, gosh, just bring the product back and take the money instead!
Now transfer this to your eMarketplace.. you buy a song.. and then you realize it was the wrong song, had the wrong color, size - or didn't fit on your mp3-player.... and they allow you to change it - out of good will - without extra cost!
So.. you buy twenty, thirty song, a good playlist - legally.
And you head over and change those songs - whenever you like - since that 'eMarketplace' has so much good will that they always exchange goods that are still in perfect shape - for free....
All completely legal - unless the MAFIAA buys new laws.
timedalkatFeb 10, 2012Buried
I love how you define "successful artist" as rich.
LMFTFY
Most rich artists are.
r0g3rFeb 10, 2012Buried
Some of the most celebrated artists in various art forms were never recognized as such during their own lifetimes, and therefore by your measure would be considered "unsuccessful artists."
Emily Dickinson is a very familiar name, but she was never successful by your measure of the word. Only 7 out of her hundreds of poems were published, and she was never famous in her lifetime.
She was also never rich.
I think her kind of success is more important in the long run than the Britney Spears kind, but that's just me.
norman619Feb 10, 2012Buried
"I applied to Capitol Records with a good resumé - they never read it. Weeks later, I visit the studios, and some new kid is doing setups - he got hired because he was "buddies" with some engineer there. "
Instead of bitching you should stop and learn the valuable lesson here. More often then not knowing someone on the inside is more valuable than how well you can do the job. Most places I have worked would rather hire someone an employee knows and recommends over some random person off the street. It's even more like this in the creative industry and roadie circles. This is why you need to start networking. Make friends with people already in the industry THEN you will find it much easier to get that job.
dandoniaFeb 9, 2012Buried
So er... why is the recycle price a mandatory figure?
I'm all for services like this though I'm not sure how you can prevent someone making a copy of the song and selling it on. Though I suppose if they want to pirate they could just pirate.
Music as a cheap service is the only way I see the industry surviving long term.
murxFeb 9, 2012Buried
Music as a life experience is the only way the industry has surviving long term.
Either work daily and hard and EARN your money - or die.
No more sleeping on big vaults of '(intellectual) property' doing 'the work' for you....
murxFeb 10, 2012Buried
Well, first off - they are a private enterprise - and if they say '0,32$ per song and no bartering' you're free to sell - or leave.
It's not like they are enforcing an industrial standard here.
If you want to sell your song for 9.99$ - go ahead - find yourself a buyer - it is not others job to do that for you.
So I don't see where your problem lies?
Heck, go on and create your own startup that allows for bartering and different pricing - find out if it works (and if putting that much effort into the interface to allow for bartering is profitable in the end).
murxFeb 10, 2012Buried
Oh, maybe I see your problem:
That eMarketplace is not meant to work like eBay - they are not the mediator for sellers and buyers to find each others.
They are 'second hand traders' - they buy from you and sell it to someone else - you never know who will buy 'your' song.
dandoniaFeb 10, 2012Buried
I just would prefer not to see a company make a fortune as a middle man, when really - this kind of functionality should be provided to people for free. I'm not just thinking of music either. This should count for video games and movies. So we could do with one universal system that allows us to sell our digital content, legally at the price we want.
If this company restrict to 32p then that's their choice I suppose. I just hope someone better comes along.
bobbi21Feb 10, 2012Buried
Would you do your job for free? People need to make money. Even amazon charges it's sellers and it's much bigger than this thing.
If you really think this type of stuff should be free then you go quit your job and spend all your time and money making a program, hosting the site, and troubleshooting it.
Sure it's nice when ppl do make pretty good programs for free use but that's not really a viable option for most people.
I_Keeps_It_RealFeb 10, 2012Buried
the MPAA and RIAA want it both ways, either I bought a cd or I bought rights to the song
if I bought a cd then digital piracy is not stealing because im not taking anyone's cd
if I bought rights to the song then I should be able to turn in my old and broken copies for new ones.
murxFeb 10, 2012Buried
Music is not sold per 'license' - you're mixing this up with software.