…you are selling the original purchased work not a reproduction. For example, you cannot sell your backup copy of a CD, DVD, or VHS if you lose your original media.
No, you're selling a reproduction of the work. If it's not the original tape on which it was recorded, it's a copy. If the issue at hand is "original purchased work", then by simply moving your files to someone else's computer, you can LEGALLY SELL a digital copy.
So why don't ReDigi just create an application for their users that actually transfers files instead of relying on users copying and then deleting the original? It should be easy to create an application that does actually "transfer" files bit by bit.
You don't own particular 1s and 0s on your media device. You own a right to access content legally. It's a prop for capitalism that underscores its growing absurdity and irrelevalance. It's needed to provide motivation for people with insufficient capital to toil even tho we are approaching a level of automation that will make this unnecessary and unworkable. It is maintained by stakeholders in the existing setup who aren't afraid to resort to state violence to maintain their social position.
So the judge said you're not allowed to own the 1's and 0's stored on your HDD or Flash memory. We have moved one step closer to you never owning anything, you will be only borrowing or renting it. And will have to pay ever time you use it.
Let see we could buy and sell, LP's 45's, 8-track, Cassetts, CD, DVD, and not that we are at the end of the road and the music industry do not see the next method of selling the same song to you yet again, you are no longer allow to set the mp3.
Read the court's judgement. The judge specifically says that he is following the copyright law and other court precedents, and is not trying to change the copyright law, because that's the legislature's job. Your argument is not with the judge, it's with Congress.
Regarding "we have moved one step closer to you never owning anything" and "you are no longer allowed to sell the MP3": you seem to be laboring under a misconception that you used to "own" your digital download, but now you don't. You never did "own" it in the sense that you could never resell it or transfer it to someone else, legally. Nothing has changed here. The court has simply reaffirmed it. Just because it happens to live as 1's and 0's on your HDD or Flash, doesn't change anything.
Yes, you can buy and sell used physical media containing recordings. Nothing has changed there either.
Read the court's judgement. The judge specifically says that he is following the copyright law and other court precedents, and is not trying to change the copyright law, because that's the legislature's job. Your argument is not with the judge, it's with Congress.
Regarding "we have moved one step closer to you never owning anything" and "you are no longer allowed to sell the MP3": you seem to be laboring under a misconception that you used to "own" your digital download, but now you don't. You never did "own" it in the sense that you could never resell it or transfer it to someone else, legally. Nothing has changed here. The court has simply reaffirmed it. Just because it happens to live as 1's and 0's on your HDD or Flash, doesn't change anything.
Yes, you can buy and sell used physical media containing recordings. Nothing has changed there either.
Actually that is not true, The Content owners tried to argue when this whole file sharing controversy started that consumers never owned the rights to the content on the CD or other physical media in the first place. Therefore they could not make digital copy only another physical copy under the copyright laws nor were you then allow to sell the original. Well this whole argument went down a rat hole real fast as you would image and the courts threaten the entire music industry is consumer fraud.
Content owner do believe you do not own and never owned the content, as such you do not have a right to resell what you bought. They base this on the fact the "one" original is in their possession and what you bought on a CD or other physical media is just a copy of the original. Thus you have no rights to the sell since they still retain the 'one" original.
They are using a similar argument with an mp3 they believe that every mp3 file is actually the "one" original, again we know is not true since most all mp3 file are crap copy of the actually 'one" original file which contains far more information than any mp3 sold today.
If content owners had their way, you would be required to pay them a fee ever time their content ownership changed hands no matter the media type. The court have tossed this idea thus the reason the Music industry does not want people selling their mp3 they have legal bough. There are plenty of not so popular mp3 i now have which I bough and I would love to sell for $0.50 if someone would want to buy them since I no longer listen to them.
Anyway I stand by my statement, we moving to a point where you no longer own things and are not free to do with it as you like. Why do you think the Music industry like subscription models over a sales model, again you never own it and when you stop paying every month you no longer get to use it.
You are all mixed up. Your facts are wrong and you are conflating unrelated points, and times in history.
In particular the issue of reselling physical media with copyrighted content has been settled for decades with the first sale doctrine, at least in the USA.
Other than that you NEVER had resale/transfer rights to content. And digital downloads or ripped/copied content are JUST CONTENT there is no physical media.
Comments
Originally Posted by NasserAE
…you are selling the original purchased work not a reproduction. For example, you cannot sell your backup copy of a CD, DVD, or VHS if you lose your original media.
No, you're selling a reproduction of the work. If it's not the original tape on which it was recorded, it's a copy. If the issue at hand is "original purchased work", then by simply moving your files to someone else's computer, you can LEGALLY SELL a digital copy.
3) I didn't say it is legal.
That's sort of the argument at hand…
So why don't ReDigi just create an application for their users that actually transfers files instead of relying on users copying and then deleting the original? It should be easy to create an application that does actually "transfer" files bit by bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
So the judge said you're not allowed to own the 1's and 0's stored on your HDD or Flash memory. We have moved one step closer to you never owning anything, you will be only borrowing or renting it. And will have to pay ever time you use it.
Let see we could buy and sell, LP's 45's, 8-track, Cassetts, CD, DVD, and not that we are at the end of the road and the music industry do not see the next method of selling the same song to you yet again, you are no longer allow to set the mp3.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Read the court's judgement. The judge specifically says that he is following the copyright law and other court precedents, and is not trying to change the copyright law, because that's the legislature's job. Your argument is not with the judge, it's with Congress.
Regarding "we have moved one step closer to you never owning anything" and "you are no longer allowed to sell the MP3": you seem to be laboring under a misconception that you used to "own" your digital download, but now you don't. You never did "own" it in the sense that you could never resell it or transfer it to someone else, legally. Nothing has changed here. The court has simply reaffirmed it. Just because it happens to live as 1's and 0's on your HDD or Flash, doesn't change anything.
Yes, you can buy and sell used physical media containing recordings. Nothing has changed there either.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Read the court's judgement. The judge specifically says that he is following the copyright law and other court precedents, and is not trying to change the copyright law, because that's the legislature's job. Your argument is not with the judge, it's with Congress.
Regarding "we have moved one step closer to you never owning anything" and "you are no longer allowed to sell the MP3": you seem to be laboring under a misconception that you used to "own" your digital download, but now you don't. You never did "own" it in the sense that you could never resell it or transfer it to someone else, legally. Nothing has changed here. The court has simply reaffirmed it. Just because it happens to live as 1's and 0's on your HDD or Flash, doesn't change anything.
Yes, you can buy and sell used physical media containing recordings. Nothing has changed there either.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Actually that is not true, The Content owners tried to argue when this whole file sharing controversy started that consumers never owned the rights to the content on the CD or other physical media in the first place. Therefore they could not make digital copy only another physical copy under the copyright laws nor were you then allow to sell the original. Well this whole argument went down a rat hole real fast as you would image and the courts threaten the entire music industry is consumer fraud.
Content owner do believe you do not own and never owned the content, as such you do not have a right to resell what you bought. They base this on the fact the "one" original is in their possession and what you bought on a CD or other physical media is just a copy of the original. Thus you have no rights to the sell since they still retain the 'one" original.
They are using a similar argument with an mp3 they believe that every mp3 file is actually the "one" original, again we know is not true since most all mp3 file are crap copy of the actually 'one" original file which contains far more information than any mp3 sold today.
If content owners had their way, you would be required to pay them a fee ever time their content ownership changed hands no matter the media type. The court have tossed this idea thus the reason the Music industry does not want people selling their mp3 they have legal bough. There are plenty of not so popular mp3 i now have which I bough and I would love to sell for $0.50 if someone would want to buy them since I no longer listen to them.
Anyway I stand by my statement, we moving to a point where you no longer own things and are not free to do with it as you like. Why do you think the Music industry like subscription models over a sales model, again you never own it and when you stop paying every month you no longer get to use it.
In particular the issue of reselling physical media with copyrighted content has been settled for decades with the first sale doctrine, at least in the USA.
Other than that you NEVER had resale/transfer rights to content. And digital downloads or ripped/copied content are JUST CONTENT there is no physical media.