General discussion

Locked

Buying/Selling an iPod could get you busted

By jdclyde ·
Been reading up on article dealing with ipods and mp3's.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-01-23-ebay-ipods_x.htm
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7315.cfm

(just a few of the articles I found. I ignored blogs)

If you buy an ipod preloaded you can be charged with recieving stolen goods.

If you sell an ipod, you are suppose to either clear off all the music from the ipod, or make sure you don't have a copy saved on your computer.

If you ripped your own mp3's off of cd's, you are actually suppose to send the cd's with the ipod as you have given away your right to that music.

Where will the music industry realize threatening their clients is not good for business?

I heard this on the radio and it sounded so crazy, I just had to look it up. To my surprise it is all over the net.

What will be next?

And can you believe people are stupid enough to pay 99 cents for ONE song as a down load? duh!

I have my ipod shuffle, but only because it was a door prize at a voip seminar! I NEVER use it and find the samsung mp3 players I bought my boys for Christmas to be much better, and twice the storage for only $30 more AND have a display.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

55 total posts (Page 5 of 6)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

both are good.

by NZ_Justice In reply to hey.

But not angry X-(
and not with a smile ]:)

maybe ]

Collapse -

But when they are set up on the wall like that

by jdclyde In reply to And you, as a result. . . ...

you just can't help but knock them off!

The only reason I didn't post that same post is because you beat me to it....

Collapse -

Max, An insight into a consumers attitude

by mjwx In reply to I don't get the consumers ...

?If I buy a piece of music?

You don?t ?buy? a piece of music anymore. It?s more like you rent this music for an unspecified period of time. You don?t own the music you just own the right to play it, a right which can be taken away from you at any time. The piece of music is not yours to sell on despite the fact you paid for it, nor is it legal for you to have a backup copy in case the original becomes damaged. As I said this sounds like a rental agreement not a purchase which is why I and many others don?t want to ?buy? music.

?And who would create a piece of music to make a lousy 99 cents??

Someone who wanted to make music not money. But I suspect this point will be lost on you.

The artist (in this day and age I use this term loosely, very loosely) only receives 10% of the purchase price of the song/album, 20% goes to the writer. So if an artist lets take the Foo Fighters for example, who write and perform their own songs would only receive 30% of the purchase price at best under a standard contract. A great deal of the Foo?s money would come from touring which the record companies have less control over.

The Foo would probably not be under a standard contract as they have some measure of control over their own fate (in the industry) as they are an old and quiet popular band, but this is beside the point, they are an example of a band not a contract. For artists that cannot achieve fame on their own (Brittney Spears, Kanye West, 50 Cent and the list goes on). Without the recording industry to ?make? these people someone with actual talent might make it.

Now Max I want to single you out but think for a minute, how much money would you make if you could guess what would be popular? Now how much more money could you make if you could control what is popular? If I?ve thought of this it?s an absolute certainty that someone else has too, perhaps someone in a position to actually do it?

To everyone except max, you will have to forgive my anti-recording industry rant, but there are so few good acts these days (this goes for movies too).

Collapse -

Actually, on a few points

by jdclyde In reply to Max, An insight into a co ...

no, the music you purchase can NOT be taken away from you.

Yes, you CAN make backups for your own personal use, provided you don't distribute a copy of it to anyone else.

Never could stand the Foo.

As for contracts, many a bad breakup has been because of getting robbed in their contracts. got to break up and form under a new name, of course they can't play any of the old songs as they don't often don't own the righs to their own music.

Collapse -

RE: Actually, on a few points

by mjwx In reply to Actually, on a few points

"no, the music you purchase can NOT be taken away from you."

Maybe, but not through lack of trying.

"Yes, you CAN make backups for your own personal use, provided you don't distribute a copy of it to anyone else."

This is exactly what DRM is trying to prevent. If everybody made backups the *IAA would loose a great deal of profit by people not buying their favourite album/movie 7 times. The RIAA have said that you don?t need backups as there are ?replacements available at affordable prices? (quote is straight off their web site www.riaa.com site was down when I was posting).

"Never could stand the Foo"

Theres no accounting for taste :)

Cheers
Mike

Collapse -

buying a copy

by rob mekel In reply to RE: Actually, on a few po ...

of a piece of music that you already own.

Nice going, that's what I call greedy!

Rob

Collapse -

A clerification for MAX

by jdclyde In reply to Buying/Selling an iPod co ...

I can't speak for others, although I will anyways.

My complaint isn't about the legality or not, or looking to get something for nothing.


It is about a failed business model.

How much has been wasted in trying to digitally protect the music from duplication only to have the protection defeated by a marker?

Now with musicians starting to distribute direct and leaving the big companies out of the loop, they more than ever should be looking for ways to make happy customers, not scare away the ones that are left.

itunes and such are big business and I don't remember if it was amazon or Barns and Nobles, but they are getting into this as well.

You can spend your time and money trying to force compliance with the rules, of you can change the rules and make it so it isn't worth someones time to bother to steal the product. You get more people sampling more music, and if it is atractively marketed and priced right, people will go out and buy that product.

Yes, they legaly can nail you for theft. Will they really gain or lose by that effort?
(no, not talking about big pirating organizations)

Collapse -

I Think You're Missing The Point

by Bad Boys Drive Audi In reply to Buying/Selling an iPod co ...

At first, it sounds outrageous because it's an "us" versus "them" deal, but really, what's changed? How is this any different than selling a CD that you purchased a year ago? Let me explain...

Let's assume that a year ago, you bought a music CD. Under the current law, you're able to legally copy that CD for backup purposes. However, if you decide to sell that CD to someone, you are legally bound to do one of the following:

a. Hand over the backup CD to the buyer.
b. Destroy the backup.

In the iPod scenario, if you sell an iPod with music, there isn't a difference - you must either forfeit the music altogether. By keeping a copy of the music and selling the other copy with the iPod, you are in effect saying, "I'm going to sell this CD that I purchased, but I'm going to keep the backup copy!" That's illegal under the current statutes, and the RIAA is perfectly justified in their effort to sue you.

I do believe that the scope needs to be narrowed a bit. Yes, if the seller of the iPod keeps a copy of the sold music, he/she is in clear violation of the law. The buyer, however, may or may not have knowledge of the unscrupulous acts of the seller, and it is questionable whether they should be liable for any "damages". If I were sued by the RIAA, I would certainly mount this issue as my defense because it's not like I was buying a hot watch off the streets - I legitimately paid for a product (the "iPod") from a reputable dealer (eBay). There wasn't any "mens rae", meaning that there wasn't any culpability, which is required by statute as an element of a crime. If I bought a car off of eBay, and it arrived at my house with a trunk full of heroin, should I be arrested and tried for drug smuggling? Certainly not!

I think that the people who are ensnared in this mess by the RIAA, simply because they purchased an iPod with music contained within (without their knowledge) should counter sue the RIAA. Having a few judgments go against them in that capacity will ultimately force them to re-evaluate their strategy; or at the very least, narrow their scope.

Collapse -

Sounds nice and all

by jdclyde In reply to I Think You're Missing Th ...

but the average joe on the streets doesn't have the time or money to fight a big legal battle, and the music industry DOES. Money buys you justice.

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

Collapse -

RE: Sounds nice and all

by Bad Boys Drive Audi In reply to Sounds nice and all

You attach your counter suit to the original filing. Since you're already in court as a defendant, it will cost you very little to counter sue. You're likely to be able to retain a lawyer who is eager to go after the RIAA - for the publicity and possible payout.

Back to Community Forum
55 total posts (Page 5 of 6)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums