can there be a market for used digital content?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by riemann42

As far as considering my ideas Marxist, I find that interesting, and difficult to parse. I will think about this, and see if I can figure out how agreeing that an artist should be compensated for the sale of his/her work is Marxist. When I understand it, I will excise all such ideas from my brain so that when I testify before congress I can say I am not a communist, and mean it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added

Basically you argued they deserve pay and I argue they deserve the chance to try and turn a profit but with no guarantee that it will happen. My way let's people try to market their creation and get paid or not based on market forces you argued that since they created something they deserve money.

Think of it like this...

Bob was a pirate.
"Arr" said Bob.
Bob the pirate went on to do pirate things and then he died.

Okay pay me for my fabulous story of the pirate Bob.

Or you know I could try to sell it and never make a penny because it's not worth the electrons it took to send it to your computer.

Marxism places value of something in the work.

[riemann42]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Bear in mind most countries outside the USA have Moral Rights

Granted. I long for a legal system that grants rights based on Morality, rather than whatever Big Money wants to buy. Sorry, had to take your quote out of context.

Dawn, perhaps a tax on the sale to reward the original artist or author would be a great way to get around the ethical argument I make.

I don't see how it makes resell of digital products practical, however. You can tell I'm an American, as I naturally assume many people who sell used CDs copy it before selling it, and I doubt everyone will remove all digital copies when an ebook is resold.

[DawnFalcon]

Where is the legal requirement for this? Look: You don't pick up a book you don't own and walk out the store, you don't download books you don't own. It's not hard.

And I'm not sure you understand Moral Rights, many Americans don't... they're not the same at all as economic rights.

edit: not sure, heh.

[riemann42]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added

Basically you argued they deserve pay and I argue they deserve the chance to try and turn a profit but with no guarantee that it will happen. My way let's people try to market their creation and get paid or not based on market forces you argued that since they created something they deserve money.

Think of it like this...

Bob was a pirate.
"Arr" said Bob.
Bob the pirate went on to do pirate things and then he died.

Okay pay me for my fabulous story of the pirate Bob.

Or you know I could try to sell it and never make a penny because it's not worth the electrons it took to send it to your computer.

Marxism places value of something in the work.

Actually, I meant that they deserve to make money based on the sale of their work.

[riemann42]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Where is the legal requirement for this? Look: You don't pick up a book you don't own and walk out the store, you don't download books you don't own. It's not hard.

If the merchant believes he sold you the right to download an item, and use it for personal use only in a non-commercial setting, and you disagree and believe you bought the download itself, and have the right to sell it, then it seems fair that the merchant be informed of this disagreement. Otherwise, it seems, you are violating the contract without even bothering to challenge it, which may be legal, but not ethical.

[Iphinome]

Ahh, well when they sell their work they do. When I sell a book or cd they've already been paid. I don't pay Thomas Crapper every time I flush a toilet, and I don't pay Eli Whitney if i sell a cotton tee-shirt at a garage sale. I may not have the right to produce copies for sale because of copyright and patent law but the actual whatever I do pay for becomes mine that's factored into the price I pay for it.

[DawnFalcon]

riemann42 - Why? Fairness is not a requirement of exhaustion doctrine. There is no contract in the first place, it's a sale with associated grant of licence - which is something quite different (one-way, for starters).

Not to mention... It is down to the merchant when he is economically active to know the laws which apply (and, incidentally, implementing geographic restrictions on some books and not others to a EU country is "economic activity"), and not to have ToU and "agreements" which are 95% illegal.

Informing the company when you intent to break illegal EULA's is not ethical, it's asking for legal headaches fending off lawsuits with no basis, but filed by lawyers from companies with more money than you. I'm sure companies would find that convenient, but they are a legal fiction (remember, EU not US...) and resale of something you own is a perfectly reasonable action under societal, legal and ethical norms.

Bear in mind, people are "disagreeing" with the company's terms every time they exercise a fair usage right, and they're now supposed to tell the company? Remember, fair use is a defence against infringement proceedings and not a grant of the right to do so, and hence they're potentially incriminating themselves!


Iphinome - Exactly. Or they can have a contract or rental for a lower price (or ongoing price for access while paying to their entire catalogue, etc etc.)

[riemann42]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And I'm sure you understand Moral Rights, many Americans don't... they're not the same at all as economic rights.

I did not understand the difference. Thanks.

[bwana]

I conclude that a market for used digital content is an oxymoron. You can't even give away your digital content. Since digital content is priced similarly to physical content when it shouldn't be, I rationalize that the publishers are charging me for the convenience of using an ereader.

At this point I see a market opportunity for apple and amazon. Accept submissions from authors directly. An additonal advantage would be a 'genius' function that could compare books based on content like gnooks, etc. I guess this reply is now off topic and will merit a thread of it's own.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by bwana

I conclude that a market for used digital content is an oxymoron. You can't even give away your digital content. Since digital content is priced similarly to physical content when it shouldn't be, I rationalize that the publishers are charging me for the convenience of using an ereader.

At this point I see a market opportunity for apple and amazon. Accept submissions from authors directly. An additonal advantage would be a 'genius' function that could compare books based on content like gnooks, etc. I guess this reply is now off topic and will merit a thread of it's own.

The thing to remember is that "used digital content" is itself an oxymoron. Whenever you use or transfer digital content you're actually creating a new copy. There is no such thing as a "used copy," so selling "used digital content" for public consumption makes about as much sense as selling "used food," for someone else's consumption (though for different reasons).

[DawnFalcon]

An interesting legal theory. Shame it shows a basic lack of understanding about first sale / exhaustion doctrine, and would prevent the resale of anything with any "digital content" whatsoever, including devices with the simplest of microprocessors and microcode.

"No sir, you can't resell your microwave, it has digital content"

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

An interesting legal theory. Shame it shows a basic lack of understanding about first sale / exhaustion doctrine, and would prevent the resale of anything with any "digital content" whatsoever, including devices with the simplest of microprocessors and microcode.

"No sir, you can't resell your microwave, it has digital content"

I'm not sure if this was in response to my immediately previous post, but if so I think I was sufficiently unclear that you misunderstood me.

I wasn't talking about the legalities of the resale of digital content. That comes down to whether one is dealing with an outright purchase or a license - and that's up to the courts to decide. If it does get ruled a sale then of course first sale/exhaustion applies.

The point I was aiming at was that due to the nature of digital content, the concept of "used goods" no longer applies. Resold digital content is just as "new" as the original purchaser's copy. Digital content is digital content: it's neither new nor used, it just is.

You can't sell "used food" because it's no longer food - and you can't sell "used digital content" because it's no longer "used."

The problem is that people are trying to deal with digital content according to existing paradigms that simply don't apply. I don't think any of this will be resolved until we have a new paradigm which does take into account the fundamentally different nature of digital content in comparison to physical media.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The point I was aiming at was that due to the nature of digital content, the concept of "used goods" no longer applies. Resold digital content is just as "new" as the original purchaser's copy. Digital content is digital content: it's neither new nor used, it just is.

You can't sell "used food" because it's no longer food - and you can't sell "used digital content" because it's no longer "used."

The problem is that people are trying to deal with digital content according to existing paradigms that simply don't apply. I don't think any of this will be resolved until we have a new paradigm which does take into account the fundamentally different nature of digital content in comparison to physical media.

How about second hand digital content? Vintage digital content? Pre-owned digital content? Heirloom digital content?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The point I was aiming at was that due to the nature of digital content, the concept of "used goods" no longer applies.

And as I stated, you are trying to negate the entire concept of first sale/exhaustion doctrine by sleigh of hand. It's not about the condition of the goods (which is legally completely and utterly irrelevant), it's about the rights of the IP owner to control your content, you're signing on the dotted line for a massive grab, and I explained precisely what this would actually mean, because "digital content" means everything with code in it.

Your food comparison is shit. Literally (hey, you picked it, not me!). You are directly comparing something has been literally consumed with something which remains in it's original form, just like...say... a book!

The problem is that people are trying to deal with digital content according to existing paradigms that simply don't apply.

Mm-hum. For reference, MPAA or RIAA?

fundamentally different nature of digital content in comparison to physical media.

It's. The. Same. Content. The medium is not the message, and never was. Stripping people's rights simply because of the medium can only destroy the market for more convenient mediums.

Of course, I'm sure that suits you fine...

Here's an analogy people can take issue with if they wish . . .

In the days before digital versions of books. A publisher secures the rights to publish an authors work, goes through the typesetting process, and prints a run of the book. A person purchases one of these books and using it as the source of the content purchases a printing press and prints out copies of the same book which this person then sells or gives away for free.

Fast forward to digital content. A person buys an e-book and then sells copies of the digital file or gives copies away for free.

There is, in my opinion, no legal or moral difference between the two. Both cases violate the copyright protection of the author and publisher. It is not the legal or moral impediment that has disappeared with digital content, it is just the practical constraints. The bottom line is that law and custom does need to catch up with technology.

Oh, and I think also that use of the term “used” does create unnecessary confusion. I would suggest taking a page for car dealers and refer to it as pre-owned.