Hey guys, just thought id post this as i find something very contradictory with the record companies when you compare this with their stance on piracy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842851 According to this Redigi is being sued because record companies say you cant re-sell digital media. *FROM EMI* "It says that the only way to move music around involves making duplicates, and there is is no way to guarantee all the original owner's copies of the files have been deleted." Now hold on a minute - i thought piracy was STEALING not copying/duplicated therefore 1 STOLEN song = 1 lost sale. I think they twist the meanings of things so they can cling to the age old industry that is discs/records etc thoughts ? ideas ? EDIT - afterthought - hasnt the game/software industry been told the customer OWNS the license/product therefore they are entitled to re-sell it even if its a digital product. grant i know this is slightly different but it does have some relation to the above.
Piracy is to make diplicates of a product to circumvent its legal sale. So buying the product and making a back-up copy for personal use is OK, but making a copy to prevent having to buy one in the first place is not, as is the other end of that transaction: making copies to sell illegally for personal gain. EMI is arguing that when someone resells his digital track, there is no way of knowing or ensuring that he gives up its personal use/ownership of it, as would happen when he relinquishes a physical product. You can't sell your CD and keep it, but you can sell your MP3 file and keep a copy. To put it in more oldie-worldy terms: if you bought a CD, burnt a copy of it and then sold the original but kept the copy for continued personal use, that would be no different from selling the burnt copy and keeping the original CD for continued personal use: it would be piracy. So EMI, regretfully, does have a valid concern.
I see where EMI are coming from, but I think its harsh, especially at $150,000 per song. If they'd embraced the digital ways earlier on we wouldn't be going through all this mess. All this really shows is that copyright laws aren't up to the digital age, and need a complete rethink.
You are arguing against yourself here, if there is no way of knowing whether you make a copy of a CD or book and sell the original then the situation is the same as with digital copies, and as such they should be treated equally making the resale of digital music legal. Digital property needs the same rights as physical property, it cannot be right that you can make a product sell it and retrain all rights for that specific product. Much like the many digital distribution services also needs a rehash legally, it is much like if you by a board game and the one who sold it to you have the right to take it back at any point without explanation. Any company selling any product have a vested interest in keeping all the rights for themselves. If a car manufacturer could take back a car if you installed new loudspeakers in it without giving you a refund they would do so, and while STEAM and Origin do not have a history of doing that we have to think broader as these laws will have an effect on many different markets.
granted it piracy but its legal to sell your CD on ? so what makes this different all ive done is transferred the products in question to disc for continued use. theres no way to prove i havent made a copy of the original but music magpie isnt been sued is it. I can understand where they are coming from but since the same result can be achieved by legal means why are they suing Redigi ? The question they are mainly raising isnt about if you legally own the music but wether you keep a a copy afterwards. buy MP3 -> copy mp3 -> sell mp3 = illegal buy cd -> copy cd -> sell cd = LEGAL
Both of these are illegal, you can only sell the original CD if you destroy the copy you made. You have the right to have a copy of any music you own and so if you sell the original your copy becomes illegal.
How so? If there is doubt about whether the original owner still has the item after selling it ( ergo, a copy or the original ), then how is it legal to sell said item and maybe still have a copy? You have to PROVE that you haven't kept a copy for yourself, which is what EMI are saying, and thus it would be illegal until you have. And now you just contradicted yourself by saying exactly what I said; if there is doubt, then it is illegal- and since it is impossible to prove that the original owner has deleted their copy without going to their house and checking all their files & disks/HDDs etc, then the transaction should be ruled illegal. You can't have it both ways.... Spoiler Long live the TPB all the same though
So there is opposite burden of proof every time you have to sell something, you as a seller have to prove that you never made a copy of that DVD/book you bought in order to sell it ? Sorry but the cases where there are opposite burden of proof are extremely rare in law and as it would be almost impossible for anyone to prove that they have never copied the things they bought I cannot imagine this is the case. If TPB suspects foul play from the one they buy their songs from they have to cease the business with the specific customer and hereafter I would say they have a moral (if not legal) obligation to turn this information over to the police. You are messing a bit round in the situations here, if you as a buyer has a suspicion that the product you are about to by is either a illegal copy or stolen goods you may not by it, you are at no point required to ask for evidence as to if the product is legal. In the case here where the company has actually implemented methods to ensure the legality of the products there are no reason for anyone to suspect foul play and therefore it would be a legal purchase. So when I copy a CD to my MP3 player it is copyright infringement If I am not mistaken you are legally allowed to keep one copy for back up, but correct me if I am wrong.
Unfortunately for EMI, there is this ruling from EU court in the Oracle vs UsedSoft. Sure, if they want to test the legal system, then they can sue them, but when it reaches EU court of justice then it will be an exact copy of the above ruling. A digital licence to a copy of program versus a digital licence to a copy of file should be (and probably will be) considered in a same way. So if they will push it really hard, companies like the one above will migrate to EU as "safe haven".
I think you've missed Nexxo's point a bit. EMI's concern is more specific than the broad subject of whether or not transfer of digital media should be legal, it's with how ReDigi is attempting to transfer it. As it says in the article, there's no guarantee that the music being sold is actually no longer in the possession of the seller. ReDigi's software deletes the file from the seller's hard drive? Keep a copy where the software isn't looking (or physically can't look such as a disconnected external hard drive). It opens the door for the supposedly legal sale, not just sharing, of files which are still being rampantly pirated. The case really puts into question the feasibility of the EU ruling and should spawn some interesting ideas on failsafe file transfer methods, for better or worse.
And where is the difference between that and Oracle DB for example ? Sure, you won't have support for that Oracle DB anymore, but you will still be able to use the software as before... In a same way as if you are a bad guy and you keep the music you "sold". Unfortunately for music publishers, licencing for home users is not easy as before when you had a choice between good quality CD audio and bad quality cassette tape. For example in Portugal, file sharing for personal use is legal ("According to the prosecutor it is not against the law to share copyrighted works for personal use, and an IP-address is not enough evidence to identify a person."). So what now, will music studios stop selling music in Portugal now ?
I'm not sure if the risk of that happening was even brought up, or if it was ignored as not being the focus of the case. If you happen to know, being more familiar with the case it seems, then I'm always ready to learn. My understanding is that the ruling requires the owner to delete/remove/be denied access to whatever they're selling, a transfer of the one copy to the best of the technology's ability, resulting in a single usable copy under a new owner. This case seems to come about because of EMI's belief that such a process isn't happening, and that files are potentially being copied instead of being truly transfered. Of course, it'll be up to the court to find whether such copying is actually happening, or has the potential to happen, or whether the ridiculous $150,000 a song holds. Interesting decision, but then again Portugal seems to have a good track record for trying potentially great laws that other jurisdictions wouldn't consider. Stopping selling to Portugal would be like developers ditching PC, you're guaranteed to sell nothing if you don't try.
Depends where you are. In the UK at least there is no 'fair use' provision in copyright law and you are breaking the law by copying a CD to MP3 or backing up a DVD.
your missing the point one method assumes your innocent and therefore the selling of the original is perfectly legal (even if you copied it which is illegal). The re-digi lawsuit according to EMI assumes you're dirty pirate and have performed illegal activity so the re-sale should be illegal to start with preventing said crime. EMI cannot have it both ways, the only difference is ones a physical method and the other digital the end result is the same so how can one be legal the other illegal ?
So you are all running round with old school CD players in stead of MP3 players XD Here at least you are allowed as many copies as you wish, as long as it is for your personal use, though in practice you are in trouble if you are caught with several copies as it would not be considered realistic to be for personal use. Ok think I got you now, but again everything is based on innocent until proven guilty so making laws that assume everyone guilty would be insane..... but I wouldn't put anything past the entertainment industry if they could get a law passed that assumed that everyone owed them money they would do so.
So, wait a minute, EMI says that they don't trust their own customers to be legal citizens and delete their old files after resale? Well how can we be sure that EMI are being completely legal in their sale of the music in the first place? Maybe they kept a copy of that Rasheeda song I just bought? What if all the music we've bought from them was actually an illegal copy, rather than a unique file/license? I feel they should be subjected to the same paranoia and stupidity they're projecting onto us and their sale of music stopped to prevent piracy. It's the only way to be sure. [/conspiracy theory]
Not good news for anyone really. As others have said, they don't seem to mind us selling CD/DVDs, even though we can easily copy them? But the reason we can't sell mp3s is because we can copy them?
Because we can copy them more easily --and in fact do do as a matter of course. When you download a track, you will store it on your PC, a backup on your NAS, a backup on the Cloud, and a copy on your MP3 player or smartphone and/or tablet. Copies all over the place.
And you can do the same with a cd? Very easily now? I have just as many copies of my CDs as I do MP3, more infact since I've got the original CD aswell.
