I can't share but I can buy?
October 9, 2007 8:37 AM Subscribe
Downloading/Sharing vs. buying used CD’s…What’s the difference?
Obviously money is changing hands in the second instance but isn’t the argument the music artist’s are not getting the money for their work? Isn’t the used CD market worse since money is changing hands and the artist’s get nothing.
Is the resale market considered OK because it has been done for so long?
I have never understood how this is not mentioned when we hear about these cases on TV.
Obviously money is changing hands in the second instance but isn’t the argument the music artist’s are not getting the money for their work? Isn’t the used CD market worse since money is changing hands and the artist’s get nothing.
Is the resale market considered OK because it has been done for so long?
I have never understood how this is not mentioned when we hear about these cases on TV.
Yeah, I recall news stories about the RIAA trying to push legislation banning used music stores, or at the very least requiring them to pay the RIAA for every sale.
Imagine if the book publishing industry tried this. Kiss your library goodbye.
posted by SansPoint at 8:56 AM on October 9, 2007
Imagine if the book publishing industry tried this. Kiss your library goodbye.
posted by SansPoint at 8:56 AM on October 9, 2007
By supporting the used market for music you make it possible to charge more for a new CD. So you're not supporting the artists directly but at least there is some positive effect for them.
posted by tomcooke at 8:57 AM on October 9, 2007
posted by tomcooke at 8:57 AM on October 9, 2007
As SansPoint, er, points out...In the eyes of the RIAA, there's little or no difference. Perhaps if there was one main difference it would be that the CD represent a single missed sale, whereas the file sharing represent, potentially, thousands of missed sales.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:06 AM on October 9, 2007
posted by Thorzdad at 9:06 AM on October 9, 2007
thorzdad has it. I think they're more concerned with the separation of the music from the shiny disc, and all the mischief thereafter.
(Maybe they should have thought of that before they got rid of vinyl.)
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:01 AM on October 9, 2007
(Maybe they should have thought of that before they got rid of vinyl.)
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:01 AM on October 9, 2007
I always thought it had to do with possession. If I sell you my CD, I no longer have it to listen to (assuming no ripping). OTOH, if I rip my music and distribute it to 10 people, there's 9 people from which I couldn't sell my CD who now have a copy whom otherwise would have had to purchase their own music.
posted by jmd82 at 10:11 AM on October 9, 2007
posted by jmd82 at 10:11 AM on October 9, 2007
As tomcooke pointed out, a used market adds value to the new product. It is easy to see this with cars. If I buy a used Camry, I am not "stealing" from Toyota. Buyers of new cars will pay higher prices if they can resell the car later, just like CDs. And CDs (the physical discs, not the data they hold) can be used in only one person's player at a time.
posted by reeddavid at 10:14 AM on October 9, 2007
posted by reeddavid at 10:14 AM on October 9, 2007
See the Case law section in the first-sale wiki link for some history, including the fact that book publishers had once tried prohibiting resale.
On some fundamental level, the answer to the question is "because the market hasn't yet adjusted to take into account the fact that it's selling data and not things."
posted by wemayfreeze at 3:08 PM on October 9, 2007
On some fundamental level, the answer to the question is "because the market hasn't yet adjusted to take into account the fact that it's selling data and not things."
posted by wemayfreeze at 3:08 PM on October 9, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
The *AA groups want to see this limitation overturned by a more friendly Supreme Court.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 8:40 AM on October 9, 2007