Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Copyright/legality implications of selling a CD but retaining rip/copy (Read 12619 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Copyright/legality implications of selling a CD but retaining rip/copy

Reply #25 –
I think the most sensical way of handling this sort of thing is if you didn't buy something as abstract as "the album", but instead if it were handled more like the software industry handles things; licensing.  If you purchased a license that would legally allow you to listen to an album and possibly added other such liberties, such as ripping it to listen on devices that don't support CDs, listening to it in personal venues with others, etc... and these licenses could be purchased along with the material it's licensing (i.e. a CD or and iTunes download), this would clearly make more sense.  You're paying the artist (read: record company) for the rights to listen to the music, not for some abstract ownership of the disk or the bits.  It would thus follow that you could indeed rip copies and then sell off your album collection (provided your license allowed you to make copies).  However, if you didn't sell off the license to listen to those albums then you would still be allowed to listen to your copies and the buyer would be legally unable to listen to his/her recently acquired CDs (unless he/she already owned the needed rights or purchases them after the fact).

The only problem with this method is that it's slightly harder to enforce.  Also, for all I know, this is actually how it is some places.

Copyright/legality implications of selling a CD but retaining rip/copy

Reply #26 –
That's how I wish it was, though it certainly isn't here.


I guess in the world of downloads, local laws can become irrelevant - someone can sell you a licence under whatever terms they want, and try to enforce it with whatever technical and legal means they believe are necessary/practical.

If there were multiple providers, then consumers could choose on the open market what licence they were willing to pay for.

We have elements of that at present I suppose. Some of us still choose to buy physical media and ignore local laws. Other choose to pirate and ignore local laws.

Cheers,
David.

Copyright/legality implications of selling a CD but retaining rip/copy

Reply #27 –
Not much to say besides I’m enjoying spectating on the discussion, could ghost note please leave line-breaking to the reader’s internet browser, and 2BDecided is becoming quite the poet:
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
People have always stolen. People will always ste[a]l. Cassettes made it easier than reel to reel.

Also, if you’ll pardon the divergence: this topic reminds me of Cracked.com’s great article on forced artificial scarcity—which I recommend to people regardless of its topicality here—that, amongst other interesting issues, touched on the complexities created by digital distribution, this time in the context of e-books (which, unlike digital music, I don’t really like the idea of).
 

Copyright/legality implications of selling a CD but retaining rip/copy

Reply #28 –
OK then.

People have always stolen
People will always steal
Cassettes, they made it so much easier
Than dear old reel to reel




I like the link. Though I suspect paying for "nothing" has a far longer history.

Cheers,
David.