gotta love it. Game and music industry wanting money for any time something sells or changes hands, that would be like buying a car, then when I sell the car the dealership or manufacture of the car gets the money for that as well.
[citation][nom]mrjinwa[/nom]gotta love it. Game and music industry wanting money for any time something sells or changes hands, that would be like buying a car, then when I sell the car the dealership or manufacture of the car gets the money for that as well.[/citation]
Here is a concise example of the nonsense that goes on around this issue. A person reads an article (I assume), then reads some comments on the article (I assume), then somehow ignores the issue at hand (licensing of digital media) and spouts some irrelevant rant, which is basically a complaint about not being able to do something for free, or take money in a situation where they do not have right. Agreed, it is better to have more money, but by that logic, the best profession is being a bank robber. Should that be legalized?
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]Say you purchase a tune from an cloud store allowing unlimited streaming of that song, why shouldn't you be allowed to sell that access to another just like if you had a CD or a DVD?[/citation]
you dont buy the property thats free for you to sell, you buy a license to listen to the song asmuch as you want. Whether people like it or not, there exists an EULA in nearly every digital product. And people blibly agree to it without reading. In the EULA it says you are not allowed to sell the song without a licensing agreement. People agree to the EULA, then complain about not being able to sell it. And they cry when they get sued. Its a fact, the EULA is there. Same with a CD, you dont buy ownership of a song, and it clearly says on most CDs that you are not allowed to sell it.
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]you dont buy the property thats free for you to sell, you buy a license to listen to the song asmuch as you want. Whether people like it or not, there exists an EULA in nearly every digital product. And people blibly agree to it without reading. In the EULA it says you are not allowed to sell the song without a licensing agreement. People agree to the EULA, then complain about not being able to sell it. And they cry when they get sued. Its a fact, the EULA is there. Same with a CD, you dont buy ownership of a song, and it clearly says on most CDs that you are not allowed to sell it.[/citation]
Sell the license agreement, which I think was his point.
He bought something , maybe not a copy of the song but access to it, and he wants to sell what he paid for.
Fair enough, though it will be difficult to find out whether he had copies or not, which is why companies are moaning.
Tbh, if you want to sell in this way, then there should be some DRM to go with it to make sure that when it's 'sold', the seller will not be able to access the song.
I am going to have to look this up. I purchased a song that I thought I would like from the small snippet provided by Amazon MP3. After I downloaded the song and got to listen to the whole thing, I realized I didn't like it at all. It was a waste of $1 but I can't bring myself to delete it because I PAID for it.
Now, if I can go to redigi (which I am totally going to look up now), maybe I can get some of that money back by selling my license to them. I'll happily delete the song (because I always skip it any time it comes up on random play anyway), and I don't see any harm in that.
It's like when I was little and sold my old toys at a garage sale, or now, selling my old junk on ebay or craigslist. The tricky part here is trying to make sure that the re-seller (me) doesn't continue to keep the song after they "sell" it. If they did, THEN it would be pirating.
[citation][nom]DaddyW123[/nomNow, if I can go to redigi maybe I can get some of that money back by selling my license to them.[/citation]
You may or may not be able to sell that license depending on what you agreed to when you purchased the song. It could be just like a soda you purchase at a convenience store. You buy it, you drink half of it, then you feel you don't like it. Good luck returning it. You can return food at a restaurant after a few bites, but not at a convenience store. See, different places do it different ways. Your song snippet was your nibble. It could be that once purchased and downloaded, it is not returnable or transferrable.
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom] It is an amazingly complex situation (too complex in my opinion), and not one where a judge should pick one side or the other out of hand.[/citation]
It is the very function of the judicial branch to interpret laws. This judge was given a great deal more facts on the issue than any of the armchair lawyers here have and made a decision based on that information.
When you purchase a physical disc, you are purchasing the licensed content on a physical piece of plastic. When you sell that piece of plastic, you sell the rights of that content as well. Resaling any physical media is a resale of a content license and has been legal for many years. It would be illegal to still have that content in any form after the sale.
When you buy music online, you are buying that licensed content, but without a physical media. I fail to see why it's any less legal to resale that content license just because it isn't burned into plastic. You have still waived any right to own that media after resale. It's absurd to believe people are more likely to keep the digital media when they can just as easily copy a CD before selling it.
These matters are a grey area because legislators are trying to satisfy both their corporate masters and the consumers that eventually reelect them. They can't safely pick a side and create clearly defined laws on this matter.
I listen to music from youtube or check out music from the library. I'll hear a song on a TV show or a movie, google some lyrics, find the name and group, go to youtube, Voila! Check the library, sometimes, voila sometimes not.
EULAs are NOT law. Law always wins. Breaking a EULA entitles the company no recourse other then an easy way to terminate your service. They cant sue you for breaking a EULA, if you havent broken any laws.
For example if a sign a EULA that says i cant swear in a online game, and i swear. Ive broken the eula and they might terminate my service, but that's it. If however i hacked their servers,. ive not only broken the EULA ive broken multiple laws, and i can definitely be held accountable for those crimes.
I would be MUCH more inclined to buy a song/movie/game if I knew that I could sell it once I am done, or if I find that don't like it. Much the same as I am MUCH more inclined to buy a car, a cabinet, or a pair of shoes if I no longer need or want them. I believe this is a very good idea in the effort to curb online piracy. I'd even go so far as to say that people would earn more money if consumers were able to easily on sell their songs etc.
For those who say this is a bad idea because content creators don't get any profit once a song is sold second hand, then you should probably email the CEO of Toyota letting them know that they are involved in a very bad business practice, enlightening them to the fact that every time a car changes hands, they are losing valuable income. Hurry, every second counts.
I challenge anyone who disagrees with my statements above to come up with a logical reason why one should think differently.
If I bought a license to listen to a song, I don't own the song - right? Why can't I sell my license to another person? Surely, I must own SOMETHING if I "purchased" it. Last I checked, my right to listen to an mp3 I 'purchased' does not expire, but my interest in the song will.
Again, this is why I buy my media used. None of these companies benefits from my dollars directly, and it's 100% legal.