can there be a market for used digital content?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by bwana

There seems to be a feeling developing from the respondents here that digital media is fundamentally different than physical media.

As has been argued ad nauseum by those who seem to support the consumers right to infringe copyright.

Originally Posted by bwana

I am amazed that we even invented this clunkything called DRM. It feels like some steampunk invention out of Dune. Can you imagine if the printing press was treated the same way when they were invented? Can you imagine the church confiscating all printing presses or perhaps only allowing monks to operate them? Would the Gutenberg bible even have been printed?

Whilst I agree that DRM is clunky and useless, I can understand why it has been invented.

As was recently argued in another thread, it seems many(but by no means all) believe it is human nature for people to attempt to get away with whatever they can. Some argue it is the duty of the consumer to enjoy as much content as possible whilst doing whatever they can to circumvent payment for said media.

That being the case, I can understand why those who are selling the content came up with the idea of DRM, even if it doesn't work.

Originally Posted by bwana

By confining the distribution of electronic media according to old models, we are limiting ourselves.

See this is what I find confusing.....

On the one hand many seem to argue that digital media is a new beast and should be treated differently to analogue media. I agree.

Then these same people seem to argue that this new beast should be treated the same as the old whenever it suits them. ie: Being able to sell their "second hand" digital file.(whilst in many cases, if not most, keeping a copy of the original for their own use)

Either it is a new medium and should be treated as such or it isn't?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I consider it to be more of your usual argumentative rhetoric.

Of course, that's the great thing about sarcasm.

Either it is a new medium and should be treated as such or it isn't?

If you want to strip away rights available in the old medium without providing new ones (since you block those with DRM), and then charge the same... well, there's a reason there's so many attempts to attempt to legislate protection for the old business model, now with less of those pesky consumer rights!

And of course that's directly fuelling the backlash.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

If you want to strip away rights available in the old medium without providing new ones (since you block those with DRM), and then charge the same... well, there's a reason there's so many attempts to attempt to legislate protection for the old business model, now with less of those pesky consumer rights!

I can only assume this is more of your sarcasm as that is not what I said nor what I proposed.

Since sarcasm and argumentative rhetoric go hand in hand for you I shall not bother replying further to your second attempt to imply I stated something I did not.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ChrisC333]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

ChrisC333 - UK and EU law is quite plain. If it's advertised as a sale, sold like a sale, and has a "sale" button? It's a sale. Ebooks as-sold by Amazon and other web stores are a sale.

So? A sale is a sale. Are you suggesting that the word "sale" has some special meaning in UK law? If so could you provide a link to the relevant law(s). It would be interesting to read and see how it applies to books.

I don't live in the UK, but here we use the term "sale" to describe all manner of transactions. You can sell an object or you can sell a licence. Some licences can be transferred or resold but many can't. You can also sell services and you can sell various types of rights. There are also numerous categories in which you may sell something that is a blend of physical object and entitlements. Strata titles for dwellings is one example. Most sales may also carry some form of restrictions or obligations regarding your use of whatever you have paid for. There seem to be no specific set of conditions implied by the word "sale" here.

Just to keep this on the lighter side, I might suggest that you could sell your virginity on Ebay (it has been done apparently) but the buyer would have a hard time reselling it second hand. (I was going to say that you couldn't put a 'virginity' in a box to post it, but that might have been misinterpreted in some countries... )

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by bwana

When you buy something new and shiny, you pay more for it than if it were used. But the same analogy does not hold for digital content or intellectual property. Can you buy a 'used song' on itunes? a 'used album' a 'used ebook'?

If the concept of used does not apply, the the concept of 'new' cannot be defined. Since neither used nor new exist, then buying any intellectual property does not fit our understanding of the world.

But you say, we pay to go to school. Is that not the purchase of intellectual property? I would say no, it is like skiing or tennis lessons, you are buying a process.

I think this aspect of DRM has been neglected. Although DRM as it exists today is to prevent the use of 'unlicensed' media, its full potential has not been explored.

If I buy a song/book from iTunes that is new, I would pay real money for it, today that price is ~$1/$14. Apple could buy it back from me for 90 apple cents. Apple could revoke the song from my library. Apple cents could only be used to buy 'used' music.

Since apple knows i bought the song from them, then would know I am not selling them back a song that I got from elsewhere. Apple would only buy back songs they had originally sold to me. I could then use my apple cents to buy 'used' music from apple. By making the purchase of music easy, piracy is stunted. This model also recognizes the fact that the distribution of music electronically is far cheaper than traditional methods and therefore price should be decreased accordingly.

I guess there's a "flaw" in your concept.
Apple is listed and quoted on the stock exchange (so are most of the other corporates, which would be part of your concept).
So they have to report revenues and profits to the analysts.
Now imagine, they report your $ 1 in March 2010. Later on, you re-sell your song for some Apple cents and re-purchase another song.
They couldn't report the new song as new business.
My employer has a similar "problem". It's a hardware manufacturer and there would be a huge market for refurbished equipment. But it has to be taken off the market instead of being resold.

In most scenarios, it's not up to the manufacturer/developer, to decide. It's defined by SARBOX guidelines of the stock exchange. Very often, those guidelines don't make too much sense from a customer perspective, but you "blindly" have to follow.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I can only assume this is more of your sarcasm as that is not what I said nor what I proposed.

Mm-hum. You're simply brushing off my responses because you don't have a decent answer to the quandaries I'm pointing out. Oh, and it would seem that I /do/ need to use sarcasm tags. (Tip: Try actually following though the consequences of your proposals)


ChrisC333 - If it's a sale, Exhaustion Doctrine applies. And that means that you can resell. A licence is not a sale, it's a grant of licence and a service is not a sale, it's a provision of service: and they need to be sold as such.

[charleski]

I think the important issue here is that content providers can't have their cake and eat it.

If they're selling a non-transferable licence to read, view or listen to a certain piece of material, then fine, that's what they're selling, and they have a right to decide what they want to sell. But if what I'm buying is a licence rather than a particular copy of a work, then I own that licence and can exercise it however I choose. And that means I have the right to shift the format. If I buy a book in epub format for my Sony, and then later decide to get a Kindle, then I have the right to change the format to one which the new device can use.

If 'intellectual property' is subject to the same protections as real property (an idea to which I do not wholly subscribe), then my licence to consume a work is property as well, and measures which prevent me from exercising that licence are an infringement on my property rights.

So basically they need to make a choice:
If they're selling a particular copy of a work, then all I'm buying is that copy, I can't modify it, and if I want a different type of copy then I have to buy another one. But I can sell it to someone else, because the provider's rights to control the sale of that copy have been exhausted.
If they're selling a non-transferable licence, then that licence applies only to me, and can't be assigned to someone else, so I can't sell it. But I can exercise that licence as I want for my personal enjoyment (so no public performances etc), which means I can shift the format as much as necessary.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by charleski

If they're selling a non-transferable licence, then that licence applies only to me, and can't be assigned to someone else, so I can't sell it. But I can exercise that licence as I want for my personal enjoyment (so no public performances etc), which means I can shift the format as much as necessary.

Except if they are selling a non-transferable license to read (and only read) a single format.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Mm-hum. You're simply brushing off my responses because you don't have a decent answer to the quandaries I'm pointing out. Oh, and it would seem that I /do/ need to use sarcasm tags. (Tip: Try actually following though the consequences of your proposals)

By your own admission your repsonses are nothing more than sarcasm and therefore rhetorically argumentative. You are not pointing out anything but merely attempting to metophorically put words in my mouth. As you would obvously be aware, a rhetorical response on your part to does encourage or require a response on my part.

If you ever get around to actually responding to my posts in an intelligent and relevant manner then I may consider responding to your "points".(assuming make any of course)

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

Nothing more? Heh, just because they're sarcastic (and no, it's not an "admission", it's a simple statement) doesn't mean anything whatsoever about their truth. You are just frantically searching for an excuse, any excuse, to avoid my points.

And go on, you've clearly stated in your second paragraph there you have a response to my points. [/maybeee sarcasm]


Jellby - Then, because of the very limited nature of what they're selling, they're going to have to accept a far lower market price. (And again, for it to be a grant of licence it needs to be sold as such here)

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Nothing more? Heh, just because they're sarcastic (and no, it's not an "admission", it's a simple statement) doesn't mean anything whatsoever about their truth. You are just frantically searching for an excuse, any excuse, to avoid my points.

And go on, you've clearly stated in your second paragraph there you have a response to my points. [/maybeee sarcasm]

I fail to see where you have made any points. Truthful or otherwise.

In your first response to my post you simply implied that I was advocating "people should give up all their legal rights because it's not convenient for corporations to manage them" which I never advocated. Had you asked why I thought people should give up any particular right I may be inclined to respond to your post. Instead you clearly intended to post an argumentative and sarcastic repsonse instead of engaging in any sort of discussion.(as is your preferred method of interacting here I'm beginning to see)

In your other response to my posts you simply imply I "want to strip away rights available in the old medium without providing new ones (since you block those with DRM), and then charge the same... " which, again, I never advocated. Again, had you sought clarification as to my position or even stipulated one of your own I might be inclined to respond. Instead you, again, preferred to simply make an argumentative post that had no actual point or relevance.

Feel free to get back to me if you ever do make a point or attempt to engage in any sort of intelligent discussion. Until then I shall ignore your posts in this thread so as to not further disrupt the thread.

My apologies for feeding the troll everyone but sometimes I can't help myself.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[charleski]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Except if they are selling a non-transferable license to read (and only read) a single format.

No, they can't have their cake and eat it. They're either selling a copy in a specific format, which can be transferred, or they're selling the right to consume the content, which can't. Those are two different things.

If intellectual property is indeed 'property' then transactions in it are subject to the same constraints as other property deals. If I own a hammer and decide to sell it, then I give up my rights in that hammer; I can't tell the new owner he can only use it on Wednesdays, or only use it with certain types of nails*. Likewise, when a rights-holder sells a work to someone they give up some of their rights in return for the compensation paid to them. That's a fundamental principle.

*Well, I could try to tell him that, but such terms would be unenforceable and void.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by pendragginp

But that isn't something they have now, what with libraries and used book stores. They're holding on to something that doesn't exist anyway in the real world.

With books they had price fixing up until fairly recently (in the UK at least, I don't know about anywhere else). That meant that nobody could sell a new book below the price the publisher dictated. I notice that idea is being applied to ebooks now.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

people will just have to accept that there wont be any major type of second hand market for digital files.

Cheers,
PKFFW

The problem with that is what happens when the publisher (or author) decides to stop selling the digital book, like has happened with a few Brian Keene books recently? Anyone who didn't buy it while it was available would have no way of buying it later.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I fail to see...

Well yes, of course you do.

..you simply implied that I was advocating "people should give up all their legal rights because it's not convenient for corporations to manage them" which I never advocated.

You suggested an example of that, giving up the right to resell ebooks because it is inconvenient for companies to track who has the rights to which books.

Instead you clearly intended to post an argumentative and sarcastic repsonse instead of engaging in any sort of discussion.

Sarcastic, yes. But argumentative? Nope, you're simply projecting - hint for the Americans: Sarcasm | Attack.

You go on in the same vein, refusing to acknowledge the wider implications of the policies you're advocating. It's not an unreasonable extrapolation, bluntly, given the actions of media companies over the years.

My apologies for feeding the troll everyone but sometimes I can't help myself.

Well, er, actually I find feeding the troll in cases like this quite amusing while I'm waiting for other people to finish actually. My bad.

And why should people "have to accept" anything which disallows them from using their rights, is not substantially cheaper and is usually actually of poorer quality. This is no more and no less a call for failure on the part of the ebook industry, as happened a decade ago. Why does that need to occur again, precisely? (Renting me an ebook will only get me to pay rental prices...)

Warning: Above post may have traces of sarcasm, nuts and pecan sauce.