Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#71

Post by reissbaker »

brc wrote: post #59
kd0amg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not unreasonable - you don't own World of Warcraft you own a license to play it. The distinction being made here is not between holding copyright and holding a license. It is between owning a copy and holding a license.

But this is why the concept of the software licence was developed. It is explicitly developed so that you don't take ownership of the item in the same way you take ownership of a DVD or printed book. Holding copyright is not the same as owning an item. The parent comment is factually correct.

And yet, used game sales -- to specifically take on the parent's example -- are legal, much to the consternation of the game industry. The fact that they're legal is what prompted the development of online activation systems: to make an end-run around the resellers.

Whether they should be legal is a different and murkier question. And resale of digital music files is clearly pretty ridiculous, since you could just follow this plan for free stuff:

    1. Copy the file.
    2. Upload it to the reseller.
    3. Profit!

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#72

Post by jasonlotito »

earbitscom wrote: post #11
jasonlotito wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2. The same could be said of CDs and DVDs. Especially if you follow up with the license bit. Basically, if you can sell your CD licensed music, why can't you sell your other digitally licence music? If both are dealing with licenses, and you can sell one, the argument is you can sell the other. I agree, it's ridiculous, but I think it's that way mostly because of the RIAA's way of defining things.

If you can only sell the DVD but not the copy, then the original owner paid more for it, ends up with less value, and the new owner, if they wanted to sell it, would have the same issue. Further, you have to transfer a physical product, which at the prices of used DVDs makes very little sense and has a minor impact on the industry. Being able to sell a copy that costs nothing to make or ship is more damaging. It's no…

I understand what you are saying, but understand in this case, I think they are having their own arguments used against them. So, while we might want to apply logic, we have to use the logic they've been using for years now. And, to be frank, that logic doesn't always make sense.

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#73

Post by jasonlotito »

tedunangst wrote: post #24
jasonlotito wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good faith effort. It doesn't have to do it flawlessly. Same thing applies to physical media. How can you guarantee that I don't have access to the music after I've sold a CD. And while you might argue that their is a difference between CD's and digital music, the RIAA doesn't see it the same way. FTA: "the RIAA and MPAA have argued that purchasing a physical CD or DVD simply grants one a license to use the product r…

The physical medium is the key. The CD serves to identify the correct/original/authorized/licensed/whatever copy. If you can't identify the original, then actually you can't sell it (in the sense of it's not possible).

> If you can't identify the original, then actually you can't sell it (in the sense of it's not possible).

But if I can identify the original file given to me by iTunes, in the same sense that I can identify the CD, why can't I sell that original? Because of what I may/can do?

To ask it in RIAA parlance: If something gives me a license, should I not be allowed to sell that something?

And if you would answer no, I'd ask why can't I sell the CD?

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#74

Post by larrik »

nodata wrote: post #69
larrik wrote: post #3

It seems to me that deleting the original file is hardly good enough. I think that a secondary market for digital works is something that will just never work like it does for physical media, and that's something we just have to accept and move on with. My biggest worry is that ReDigi is going to end up losing a lawsuit that sets a bad precedent and makes future better technologies impossible. That said, the RIAA's o…

> and that's something we just have to accept and move on with. You haven't said why.

True.

It just seems hypocritical to me to demand that the RIAA and other old guard industries adapt their businesses to new technologies, and then sit here and complain we can't lend or resell digital copies the same way we can with physical ones.

It seems that the only way to enforce fair lending or reselling is with restrictive online DRM, and I'd rather have the technological freedom to use my files where and when I wish in return for a moral and legal obligation to not just hand other people's work out to everyone for free.

I should note that I am NOT one of those people who think that music should be free and artists should make it up with touring or with donations or whatever. Why? Because I like albums, and I don't like concerts that much. So, I'd (selfishly) much prefer a situation where artists are encouraged to record more and tour less, which honestly is not the situation with either the standard music contract NOR the apparent future of the web.

(Just to be clear, I'm not really anti-piracy. I'd probably own zero albums if it wasn't for Napster back in the day which let me try out all sorts of music and find what I like. I don't like the radio. Before Napster, I just didn't listen to music. I'm just not pro-piracy either.)

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#75

Post by superkarn »

nobody31415926 wrote: post #38
sliverstorm wrote: post #34

This just in, RIAA claims you do not own the food on your table, you only license it for consumption. (But really, would you be surprised? God help us if RIAA gets their hands on a patent for a wheat genome. It sounds ridiculous and sensationalist, but this is the RIAA.)

Seed companies do exactly this. You buy their seed to grow wheat, you have a license to grow the wheat but you can't keep any of it to plant next year. You have a license to use their wheat seeds but not use the copies the plant is making.

Some info

- http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0311/msg0... - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#76

Post by nobody31415926 »

jeza wrote: post #66
nobody31415926 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seed companies do exactly this. You buy their seed to grow wheat, you have a license to grow the wheat but you can't keep any of it to plant next year. You have a license to use their wheat seeds but not use the copies the plant is making.

This would be genetically engineered wheat?

No any wheat - otherwise any seed company would only ever make a single sale

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#77

Post by nmcfarl »

feralchimp wrote: post #57
leviathant wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is, the RIAA has been arguing in court that the royalties they pay the artists for MP3s are based off physical sales, rather than license based sales. They're playing both sides of the argument. Should artists get paid for downloads using the same rates they agreed to for physical media? Or should downloads be treated like licenses, and artists get paid according to that scale? See also http://www.techdirt.com/…

Fair enough. I'm not arguing that the RIAA aren't pushy to a fault, I'm just saying they happen to have a reasonable interpretation of legal precedent to back up their claim w.r.t. this particular online music service. Also, the "sale" vs. "license" debate is a many-more-than-two sided thing. At some level, we're always talking about licenses...purchase of a work does not confer to me all of the rights enjoyed by the…

> We owe society some answers that are more sophisticated and productive than "the old business model is broken, so it's okay to pirate until someone launches [new service from which I can get everything I want, when I want it, at a price that's easily affordable]."

I agree but these are hard questions. I've thought hard about this and I decided that the only legally and morally clear option for buying music was to go back to buying CDs only (and ripping them). Which of course means I've not had any new music in months, as that's just a pain in the neck.

I don't think mine is a good solution* but cases like this make you wonder if rights to own, or the like (eg: listen to in perpetuity), digital music maybe non-existent.

----

* And yes this is just as reductive as "steal everything"- but I couldn’t find any solid ground in between.

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#78

Post by larrik »

reissbaker wrote: post #71
brc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is why the concept of the software licence was developed. It is explicitly developed so that you don't take ownership of the item in the same way you take ownership of a DVD or printed book. Holding copyright is not the same as owning an item. The parent comment is factually correct.

And yet, used game sales -- to specifically take on the parent's example -- are legal, much to the consternation of the game industry. The fact that they're legal is what prompted the development of online activation systems: to make an end-run around the resellers. Whether they should be legal is a different and murkier question. And resale of digital music files is clearly pretty ridiculous, since you could just fo…

They definitely should be legal. Online activations should be forced to accept it, as well.

Especially when you consider that a lot of games go out of print and get impossible to find just months after release. Which is bad for someone like me who never pays attention to games that aren't already out, and may take years to get around to playing a game. Used games are often my only recourse.

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#79

Post by tobylane »

"For years, the RIAA and MPAA have argued that purchasing a physical CD or DVD simply grants one a license ... then the RIAA’s rights have been legally preserved."

Or the RIAA are wrong to make such an argument? They clearly heard the first sale doctrine, and made up words to make it not apply to them. Isn't this ever brought up in court? Or do the RIAA not like, and therefore not partake in, legal proceedings?

Re: RIAA claims you do not own your iTunes music purchases

#80

Post by nobody31415926 »

eliben wrote: post #67
nobody31415926 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since they presumably had access to Pasteur's book (even if it was in French) and so knew how to grow the correct yeast for beer - how did they manage to produce Budweiser and Miller ?

Even if you disliked the original comment, this one is trying to clarify a joke. Now a serious question - is humor discouraged on HN? Because it's not the first time I run into something like this.

Humour seems to track with sun position. When the sun is above GMT votes for humour go up, once it reaches GMT-5 to GMT-8 humour get's downvoted.
Post reply on HN