Court rules that it’s not obviously illegal to sell used MP3s

[rhadin]

[QUOTE=Giggleton;1957075]I read a few sentences of the article. It's mostly garbage. Might be legal? lol what does that even mean??/QUOTE]

What it means is that Capitol Records doesn't have a guaranteed win case and so is not entitled to a preliminary injunction that would close the defendant before the case is actually tried. It also means that based on what facts are presented at trial, either side may win.

As far as I know, and this is far from my specialty, there is no law that says first right sales are never applicable to digital products.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by rhadin

As far as I know, and this is far from my specialty, there is no law that says first right sales are never applicable to digital products.

There are indeed now laws that say that. There is jurisdiction that actually allows application of the first sale doctrine to digital products, even if licensed instead of sold -- and there is jurisdiction to the contrary.

It is a rather murky playing field, where District Courts have ruled differently in cases that seem comparable in my eyes.

[austinmitchell]

A thought: if I sell my original CD, how does the record label know that I haven't kept a digital copy? Hasn't stopped the sale of used CDs...

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by austinmitchell

A thought: if I sell my original CD, how does the record label know that I haven't kept a digital copy? Hasn't stopped the sale of used CDs...

Because NOBODY would do something like that. NOBODY.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Because NOBODY would do something like that. NOBODY.

Not ME!!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by austinmitchell

A thought: if I sell my original CD, how does the record label know that I haven't kept a digital copy? Hasn't stopped the sale of used CDs...

I've come across a surprising number (i.e. more than 2!) of otherwise honest people who've said that they have or intend to rip all their CDs, and then sell the CDs to free up storage space.

I just can't see how they come to the conclusion that it's OK to do this.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I've come across a surprising number (i.e. more than 2!) of otherwise honest people who've said that they have or intend to rip all their CDs, and then sell the CDs to free up storage space.

I just can't see how they come to the conclusion that it's OK to do this.

Well, it is OK, obviously since they are doing it, why do you think it's not OK to do this??

They paid the creator once, now someone else is going to be paying, not the creator though, there is the problem, figure that out and let people share IMO.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well, it is OK, obviously since they are doing it, why do you think it's not OK to do this??

You see no problem in someone ripping their CD collection and making the digital files freely available to anyone who wants them, so I'm not surprised that you don't see why ripping CDs and then selling the CDs is a problem.

[cjr72]

Here's an interesting post related to the issue of reselling 'used' MP3s. According to the article when it comes to to the reselling of MP3s the recording industry is arguing that a music download is not like a purchase of a CD but is a sale of a license and thus the first sale doctrine does not apply. However, when it comes to compensating the artist the recording industry argues that a music download is like the sale of a CD which has a lower royalty rate than the sale of a license. The industry wants it both ways.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well, it is OK, obviously since they are doing it, why do you think it's not OK to do this??

They paid the creator once, now someone else is going to be paying, not the creator though, there is the problem, figure that out and let people share IMO.

I have to disagree with you on this one. You are certainly free to format shift to your hearts content with any digital file(s) you have purchased. However, to retain any of the copies while selling the original is wrong in my opinion. This would be no different than purchasing a CD, burning an exact copy, then reselling the original.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by cjr72

According to the article when it comes to to the reselling of MP3s the recording industry is arguing that a music download is not like a purchase of a CD but is a sale of a license and thus the first sale doctrine does not apply...

Fortunately this is simply not accurate. It is not the purchase of a license, it is the purchase of property.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Fortunately this is simply not accurate. It is not the purchase of a license, it is the purchase of property.

A license is property, too. And even owning a CD doesn't give you the right to copy and sell the music on the CD.

The problem with analyzing this is that while digital downloads are *sort of* like CDs in some ways, they're not completely like CDs in others. And I think what this case is going to turn on is how well reDigi makes selling back digital music like selling a used CD and not like just "sharing a copy" of something. (Which doesn't mean that the program would have to ensure that you hadn't previously made a copy, though).

I'm actually quite curious about how it works, particularly since it only works with itunes.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I have to disagree with you on this one. You are certainly free to format shift to your hearts content with any digital file(s) you have purchased. However, to retain any of the copies while selling the original is wrong in my opinion. This would be no different than purchasing a CD, burning an exact copy, then reselling the original.

I actually agree with you somewhat, my use of the twice capitalized OK was an attempt at textual sarcasm.

The problem lies in the act of copying...