I don't even...
Used mp3s is a nonsense.
or rather, capitalism and logic are conflicting here somewhat
I buy a thing
I no longer have use for that thing
I find someone who has use for that thing
I sell them that thing
if the problem is that the mp3 isn't a thing then how can I buy it - or rather how can a label/iTunes whatever sell it?
the only way is to redefine the mp3 as a service but that is problematic too
IT'S A NEW WORLD
The record labels will lose a lot of money. Who will buy their music from itunes etc. when you can get cheaper "used" files which are exactly the same as new ones?
And I don't count piracy here.
you can buy mint condition goods second hand
and also this argument doesn't take into account the progress of formats eg if you bought an LP from beatport on 320 kbps mp3 and in 10 years time it's released on HDAudio 192khz or whatever than that is an equivalent degradation wouldn't you say?
don't let the sematics of 'used' and 'digital' fool you - if you have the right to resale I don't see how digital purchases should be exempt from that
I meant in the context of creating exceptions from established legal principles (or just anything else) purely for that reason.
so it doesn't even make sense. it'd just be people selling music without authorization.
or indeed a computer full of installed software
that has loads of digital files already on it, so what you're really buying (aside from the hardware) is the time you'd save downloading all that stuff + the bandwidth required. it's still wrong, but it's different to just selling a digital copy of a file online because the buyer still has to click + download every time. and with no money going back into the industry, you may as well download it from rapidshare. same difference in the end.
(assuming in both cases the seller is forfeiting their access to the material, but even without that assumption both media are easily duplicated)
Forget for a minute the consequences for any particular industry and just concentrate on the underlying principle. How can it logically be correct that a party can prevent resale of their (intellectual) property if it's supplied on one medium but not another (and vice versa)?
This fucking site etc.
but there is some advantage to be gained from somebody buying a piece of hardware that has digital files already downloaded. whereas simply buying the digital files online "second hand" has absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the buyer.
to use a crap analogy, the difference is like paying somebody to push the street crossing button for you every time you want to cross, versus paying somebody to let YOU push that button every time.
if you were to sell a 'used CDR' that happened to include music, then you would be a pie-rat...
to send someone a "used" mp3, you need to effectively copy it. Either by sending it via email, sticking it on a CD or whatever.
I am not sure who would actually buy a second hand mp3 to be honest. I have never even paid for a new mp3.
No you can't have your 79p back you twerp.
They should start selling music in a physical format that you can keep in your house with artwork and album notes and stuff. That'd be good.
Having doctrine of first sale/exhaustion of rights being applicable or not applicable on the basis of the medium in which a thing (any thing) is supplied is clearly a bit silly.
... provided that the seller gives up all rights to software; i.e. software has to be removed completely from the vendor's computer - not ok to simply sell on one of the licences to use.
Seems pretty sensible and following the general principles, it seems to be that people (in the EU at least) would be able to sell second hand mp3s provided the seller removed the files from his/her computer (and ipod, external hard drive etc) completely.
Not entirely sure how big the market for second hand mp3s would be when a large number of people seem to get 'first hand' ones for nothing, however...
From that article: "The company lets users load old, unwanted tracks into an online music locker, where others can purchase them for around 69 to 79 cents a pop. In the meantime, ReDigi's special software wipes the songs off the seller's hard-drive, as well as any devices that sync with it. It also verifies that the original files were purchased legally to prevent users from pirating music and selling it "used" it for a profit".
What if the sellers backup the files on flash memory or a DVD or online or on external hard disk?
although the same is true for CDs.
and then listen to the mp3s, I'm basically killing children in the third world, aren't i?
though just paying your taxes or buying anything these days in the west is basically killing children in the ..erm.. developing world
is going to buy a secondhand mp3?
what kind of absolute nigel pays for mp3s, full stop?
Only to MP3 them and only listen to the MP3s while the CD and case takes up space in their house and is never touched?
And yeah, I feel free of everyday clutter.
I buy CDs then mp3 them and then listen to the mp3s out of the house (and use it as a backup) and play the CD in my house.
If you're not a collector and have space issues, Spotify etc is legit and so cheap that paying (the price currently being asked) for mp3s feels like an odd choice.
It's just you're incredibly narrow minded when it comes to anyone's choices but your own.
I'm not going into all the reasons again but all your arguments are simply your personal prejudices showing, rather than actual arguments against buying MP3s.
If I actually played CDs at all any more I would buy them. I still make exceptions for absolute favourite bands like Radiohead whose catalogue I always have tried to collect.
But you're the one who decided to insult me for not buying CDs so you're going to get the responses that match that. :D
But yeah, good way to sidestep having to back down.
there are actually people, and not old people either, that only understand about download music via itunes or a similar marketplace. if you consider there's a large group of people with that mindset, it only makes sense that this would be the logical conclusion.
funny thing is it's always people not THAT into music and you suspect they would gladly download from torrents if they even knew how.
my fragile little mind...
once I own an MP3, I can make identical copies of that MP3 & distribute them as widely as I wish. With a CD or vinyl record, I can't make an identical copy as it is a physical item. If I copy a CD for someone, the sound quality will be pretty much the same but they won't have the original CD cover, jewel case etc. So whilst people are happy to pay for a secondhand LP/CD as they want a physical copy of an original artefact, they aren't going to pay for a secondhand MP3 - if indeed there even is such a thing.
Yet another example of the music industry struggling to adapt to a completely new marketplace - they had years to prepare & come up with a strategy, but instead they spent years trying to put the cork back into the bottle. Clueless.
is that when they license songs from artists, and invest in them, hoping to make money, most of what they are now doing is investing for the right to put a track on iTunes to be bought... basically other people want the right to do that, without investing more than the price of the file (which, if you base it on the cheapest place you can get it, is often free)
can you imagine the existential crisis some of these people must be having at the notion that all they're doing now is selling used mp3s, because once someone has played a track back once, it's no longer virgin snow... unless of course it's one of these tracks http://bronzeformat.com/ (this totally blew my mind!)
They're buying a curation service. If The Music Industry had any nous, or even the faintest grip on reality (which we know they don't), they'd be looking to harness that market in order to get a cut, rather than fruitlessly try to stifle it.
The 'used mp3s' themselves are worthless. But a loaded used mp3 player would probably command a marginally* higher second hand price than a blank one. Not by much, but the point stands.
People get paid (or at the very least see it as decent promo) to curate Spotify playlists.
Megaupload made money that The Industry was too stupid to harness.
*A share of 'marginal' and an encouragement of engagement with digital music is likely to be a much more constructive and rewarding/profitable approach than a lawyer-led lockdown.
Amazon don't run a curation service, they sell stuff. That stuff doesn't have to arrive physically by post.
so, no, they don't run a curation service.
But I never said that they did in the first place.
You'll have to explain to me why if someone buys a 'used' MP3 they don't actually get a file whereas if they buy a 'new' MP3 from Amazon they *do* get a file.
And further you'll have to explain why a site that's selling 'used' MP3s is merely the equivalent of a digital music museum rather than a place where you buy stuff.
Hyperbole kinda took over. My apologies. I can see why you thought I was going a little batshit mental there.
Someone who buys 'used mp3s' does in the literal sense buy the mp3, but the value is in the curation.
That's why I mentioned Spotify. The /bulk/ of the value of their paid service is in the convenience of their ad removal and delivery (i.e. mobile). Without that, many people would still be using unauthorised delivery services.
You seem to think something's value is only in it being a physical item.
A streaming service's value is definitely in its choice and method of delivery, but to say this is identical buying an MP3 file isn't reasonable. If the streaming service goes bust or changes its policies or loses music you wanted then that's different to you having the file and the ability to keep physical copies, etc.
i want in on that.
(you're welcome to ^this this post, too, sean)
is a bit bogus. Which is why I've always had sympathy for music "piracy". The record companies expect you to pay for something that doesn't exist in a physical form like a CD. It's never made a lot of sense and in the future, owning MP3s will disappear. We will either buy a physical product (CD, vinyl or whatever) or we will pay to just listen to music (via Spotify or whatever). We won't download MP3s. Future generations will find the whole concept of paying to download, store and own a file slightly bizarre. How can you own an MP3 file? And if you copy an MP3 file, how is this theft?
you don't have anything to take away as part of the standard ticket price. So you have bought something that has no physical presence like a CD or a record does. It's still worth buying.
is like listening on Spotify. I pay to have someone play music for me. At the end of the performance, I own nothing (although I have a draw at home where I keep 25 years worth of old gig tickets, something I regret about the new ticketless era).
there's a vision of the future;
when biotech is up to the speed that we can transfer our memories and experiences will live nation be petitioning to ban the sale of 'used' emotion pods?
Can't work out how publishers can justify charging almost the same price for a Kindle book as for the physical version.
Physical production (ie printing, binding, trimming to size, all that sexy stuff) of books isn't the biggest expense for most productions, not by a long shot. So removing them doesn't necessarily cut down the cost of publishing or help profit margins.
And whatever costs do go, others come in- e-commerce systems and servers don't maintain themselves. Not until some really boring robots take over the world, at least.
No-one has ever really been paying for the physical object, they're paying for the contents. Or rather, paying for authorization to access the contents.
I look forward to Cementimental replying "HERP DERP" to this later.
Some of us like a nice book to put on our shelves when we've read it to impress visitors with how intellectual & well-read we are. The Kindle, convenient though it is, deprives us of that pleasure. Though it does allow us to read porn on public transport.
Even in the case of a nicely bound book vs a less appealing one. I was just addressing the point that the physical medium is not generally what's being paid for - CD pricing is not based on the cost of materials + distribution, which is why it's irrelevant to compare the price of a digital download on that basis.
but of course they never do.
You could say that "anyone who claims downloading MP3s is stealing must logically also claim coping your friend's CDs collection is stealing" and that would make sense. What you just said doesn't.
If you buy a second-hand record then someone has in the past paid money for one copy of that record and they're simply transferring ownership of that record that they have bought to you. No extra copies are created.
When downloading MP3s you're multiplying the number of copies and no extra money (or perhaps money in the first place) is being paid for the product. Thus making it analogous to copying a CD somebody owns but not to buying a second-hand record. I hope that makes things clearer for you.
the process of copying makes it not stealing because it isn't denying the original purchaser/owner access to that original copy
I was just saying that Cementimental's analogy doesn't really work and that there isn't a logical continuation between the two positions.
which was to the tune that the copying=theft brigade usually make the logical jump that what is being stolen is the revenue of the copyright holder when their wares are illegally downloaded rather than purchased
which is clearly absurd and that logic falls apart
With second-hand someone's purchased a copy and doesn't want it anymore. Which is different from both someone purchasing it and making extra copies or someone not purchasing it at all.
Which is a clear enough difference for it not to follow that one needs to be okay or against both in order to be logically consistent.
and download the MP3 versions for nothing...
Which is slightly different again.
what I mean is
The ONLY logically passable way that you can imagine illegal downloading as stealing is in the sense that it denies revenue from the copyright holder(usually this is 'the artist' in their argument) so what is implicit in their argument as THE STOLEN ITEM IS NOT THE MUSIC BUT THE REVENUE.
To extend that argument would require them to back the notion that, under the same logic, selling goods 2nd hand is stealing.
There is NO logical consistency to thinking that an illegal download is STEALING of The MATERIAL ITSELF because it does not deny the original owner access to or use of that original material.
But they can also quite reasonably think that, once someone has bought a product, they have the right to sell it on without thinking that it's logically okay to take a product that nobody's paid for without the consent of the people who've produced and are selling it.
I'm with Epimer in that "copyright infringement is stealing" is clearly a reductionist argument anyway and obviously not everyone who is against illegal downloading would equate it with stealing for the reasons you state.
But nonetheless that is not the ONLY logically passable way you can think about it.
if it is not the mp3 itself that is stolen
and it is not the musical content that is stolen
and it is not the revenue that is stolen
what is stolen?
I have absolutely no argument with the transferal of ownership and 2nd,3rd,4th, used market of anything. If it can be bought then it can be sold. Plenty of things are sold that the owner got for free. Plenty of things are copied that the owner got for free.
But in terms of what people actually mean when they say it, there is a logical consistency. You seem to be basing this argument around the fact that people always use words with the exact semantic definitions they're looking for. Most people aren't that eloquent.
The ONLY logically passable way that you can imagine illegal downloading as stealing is in the sense that it denies revenue
that is not the ONLY logically passable way you can think about it
so, I said;
but stealing has a legal definition of permanently denying access to or use of
if it is not the mp3 itself that is stolen
and it is not the musical content that is stolen
and it is not the revenue that is stolen
...and I don't get your reply
are you saying that people don't understand that 'theft', 'stealing' etc have legally defined parameters
that people who saying downloading=theft really mean downloading=wrong based on their own moral compass
People who say downloading is theft generally mean downloading is illegally obtaining something for free without the consent of the people who made it.
Which isn't quite the same as stealing but they haven't made that distinction.
I mean, you wouldn't steal a car would you!!11??1!
I don't think the music industry is in any way immune from non-specific use of language.
because I think the entertainment industry is FULLY AWARE and willfully misleads the public into giving some kind of moral equivalency between downloading a dvd and stealing a car for instance
they seem to honestly believe (or at least act in a way that suggests they believe) the logic of revenue being STOLEN due to copying and downloading and now they extend that logic into courtrooms with this case to prevent the 2nd hand sale of digital files
people on DiS selling CDs have literally outright said they've done it and I wouldn't be surprised the same people posted whining about 'illegal downloading' elsewhere on the boards.
Anyway yes I was referring to the idea that it takes sales away from the artists which clearly second hand record sales do too (actually in most cases neither do of course tho but that's another argument)
the law could be that the rights in a product are non-transferable. i.e. you buy a record, you buy the licence to listen to it. You can't onsell that licence; if a new person wants to own the record they must obtain a licence from the copyright holder.
(Obvs this is not what I think, but I'm just pointing this out)
I'm broadly an advocate of respecting copyright, when reasonable, but some things are total non-starters. One of those things is cracking down on second hand physical sales.
Anyway, seeing as you're only posting for devils advocate purposes on behalf of no-one, and because I know you love it when we get to the analogy stage of a thread...
Imagine if an architect tried to stop you selling a house they had designed saying that only you bought the right to use the design on that one original location.
And " it's a license not a sale" shenanigans are pre-empted by the software license thing.
For Europe, anyway.
but the problems with enforcing copyright generally don't make you against that.
...in certain situations, which are only part of a broad range of scenarios that copyright can be applied. Not that I'm saying that a law shouldn't exist just cos it'd be difficult to enforce - there's gotta be some realism. If a law can pretty much never be enforced in a certain circumstance, the sense in having that particular law tends to fade away.
I fucking hate being on the same side of an argument as copyright violation = theft types.
Both of those terms have specific, defined meanings and conflating the two is a lazy way of dumbing down the discourse with an attempt to steal the moral high ground by making a false equivalence with something that most people instinctively feel is wrong.
I feel a bit better now.
people who mostly buy music second hand have probably done more damage to independent record stores than people who download music 'illegally'
A physical sale is made with the inherent knowledge that a second hand market exists.
Any business plan until recently has always been able to take that into account.
^This is true for legit second hand sales where the listener sells a physical copy and can no longer listen to or once sold. It does not account for people ripping a CD and then selling it, which is simply a function of developments in technology and can only ever be accounted for as much as snide downloading can - i.e. it can't.
You buy something, you sell it. That's how trade in physical things works. (Even as a broad defender of copyright, I've no time for the 'no resale' thing on legit physical copies, and no serious aren't had ever been made to enforce it).
The second hand market killed nothing. The only time the second hand market could ever be claimed to be a detriment to a business model is when the ability to rip CDs arrived.
*no serious effort has ever
there's no reason you should be able to sell it to a friend, /necessarily/, either. If your friend wants to own an album, they could obtain a licence from the copyright owner by purchasing a legitimate copy, not by illegitimately getting your licence on the cheap when they would otherwise have to pay full price to the copyright owner.
See: the CDPA 1988, for example. And Community-wide exhaustion of rights.
I'm not sure what my point is.
Of course you could distinguish between those things, but I'm saying in principle, why would you? (As a record company, given that copyright legislation is essentially drafted for their benefit).
But the difference between the two is that in one scenario the transferral of rights/media deprives the seller of continued use (although of course this might not be true in a practical sense) and the other doesn't.
That distinction's important because it affects whether or not exhaustion of rights applies, which the EU is generally pretty tough on preserving as a fundamental principle, despite the fact that it seriously disadvantages rights holders expressly for the benefit of consumers.
Because creating that distinction allows for the consideration of the opposing (economic) desires of the consumer and the rights holder.
but no-one has ever bothered because it'd be an exercise in futility.
(I notice you use the word 'friend', which puts us firmly into home-taping-is-killing music territory. Which is not what was being talked about.)
if I want to donate my mp3s to charity, i'm going to hell?
but what a fucking brilliant idea
6 likes on Thisismyjam.
One careful lady owner.
Plays every time.
Kept on a fully virus-checked and defragged hard drive.
Comes from a Metallica-free household.
Full set of receipts and follow-up spam email from from original seller.
First to hear will buy.
Report this thread