US Judge rules against 2nd-hand digital music sales

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Fbone

1. It could still reduce the creator's sales by 50% at the $5/4.99 scenario.

But qualitatively no different than for example sales of secondhand video games. Perhaps not 50% of sales, but they do make a significant difference. They are available for sale in the same shops as new games, often displayed right alongside them.
It has never before been the case that 1 sale = 1 consumer.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The specific thing which differentiates a digital product from a physical one is the fact that the digital product doesn't degrade as the physical one does: a second-hand ebook or MP3 file is absolutely identical to the original in every way. Thus, given the choice between buying a "new" eBook for, say, $5, and a "2nd hand" one for $3, there would be no reason - ever - to buy the new one. Thus, to my mind, the mere existence of 2nd hand digital goods would instantly destroy the market for new goods, and that's bad for the consumer in the long term. I honestly don't see how any form of creative marketing could overcome this.

Not true in 2 ways. First, as time passes the number of 'original' copies will inevitably diminish. True, digital copies don't wear out-but they do get deleted or lost. (Lost might be stretching it assuming decent search tools but I don't know-I'm certain I've got numerous files in my backups that I can't seem to find. You can believe I failed to back them up if you want to but I prefer to think that I simply can't find them.)

Anyway, the second way is that sometimes files do get damaged while being transferred. It might depend on how it gets transferred but will all second-hand sellers be conscientious enough to verify that their copies are accurate? I think not.

So the 'degradation' will be significantly slower than for hard-copy volumes but it will still exist.