Posted on 02/13/2006 11:02:23 AM PST by nickcarraway
yup, likely true.
In the case of CDs purchased between 1983 and 2004, was this alleged licensing scheme disclosed to the purchaser?
The RIAA spent 1983-2004 laughing their asses off that they had discovered a way to get people to pay twice for the same music (LP and then CD). They did not protect the digital format and they CERTAINLY did nothing to protect their absurd post-hoc claim of a licensing contract, other than bribing a few congressmen.
I'd expect most isolated cases wouldn't even get investigated, let alone prosecuted. By contrast, those that make a business out of repeatedly reselling copies of music libraries would and should call attention to themselves.
that is also true, if this were truly a level playing field, the music industry should have been forced to provide CDs to people who alreaady owned LPs and casettes of albums - for just the cost of the media itself.
If you pay to download music, apparently, you're OK. If you make copies of CD's or LP's and put on your IPOD, you have to erase them when you sell the IPOD or sell them with the IPOD.
Same reason you can't make and sell all the copies you like of some CD you got for Christmas.
Whom are they even "talking" to?
Do they expect that everyone must stop what they are doing and listen to their stupid press conference?
Naturally, but that goes a wee bit beyond "not wiping an ipod."
I'm just not a big fan of Apple or their products. Since I don't buy downloads, iTunes is of no use to me. The cool thing about the RCA is how easy it is to use it on any computer (no software). I can D/L that days Rush show around 4:00, move it to the Lyra via USB, and use the FM transmitter to listen thru the car stereo on the way home. I'm sure you can do the same with an iPOD, but you need the software and an FM transmitter.
Sort of. They like to walk the line between license and purchase. Purchase isn't good for them because it falls under consumer protection laws and gives buyers certain rights, including First Sale. License isn't good because of the case you bring up.
Basically, any way that will destroy your rights at the time is the position they'll take.
Also, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think that's ridiculous. Because the person who sells the I-Pod has to buy new songs for download, right? Wouldn't that be kind of like selling a juke box and having to smash all the records/CDs?
Meanwhile, over the years, the music industry has gotten over in a sense simply due to technology. The older posters used to own LPs, which they then bought tapes for, which now they've had to purchase CDs. Not complaining, but why should someone have to buy the rights to listen to the same damn album or song three or four times within their lifetime.
I'm all for intellectual property rights, but the industry needs to focus on the "big dogs" abusing the system and not those that "make mix CDs" for themselves or sell I-Pods. Obviously they have to rattle the sabres a little bit...
There are loads of ways of doing that, although I'm not sure how they work with DRM music.
Call 555-5555
Good answer!
Bear with me; I don't use the technology; I still listen to vinly when ever I can; or CDs in the car.
You're saying that they can each use their OWN I-Pod to connect to each other's "libraries"; that they aren't PHYSICALLY swapping their I-Pods between each other? That wasn't what I understood.
I understood it to be each buys particular, unique music for their I-Pod, then swapped around between themselves.
Like my buddies & I would buy one album apiece, no duplicates, then swap them around between us, instead of each of us buying 3 or 4 copies of each album; we got more music for the buck.
Sure you can sell your CD's. Just like you can sell software, as long as you sell the discs, and erase it from your computer.
I've seen people selling computers with expensive editing and graphics software loaded and asking more than the computer itself is worth, but they are keeping the discs. Anyone is kind of dumb, IMO, to pay extra on that basis. They don't own the license to the software, and they could be busted, especially if they use the software for commercial work. The worst that would likely happen, except in extreme cases, is they would be told to stop using the software and remove it from their computer--meanwhile the seller has their money and retains the rights to use the software.
Technology has created a whole new world of problems with intellectual property and copyrights. IBM thought the fledgling Microsoft was nuts when they were negotiating the original contract to use DOS on IBM's PC's and Microsoft told them they didn't want to sell them a copy of DOS for each machine, but wanted a lower price for a "license" for each copy. IBM thought they got the better end of the deal, but by retaining ownership Microsoft has made Bill Gates King Midas, and the new age of rights and ownership was born.
Naturally, but that goes a wee bit beyond "not wiping an ipod."
Yes, it does. This, however, doesn't absolve the isolated case from still being technically illegal; it just makes it more a measure of personal integrity than risk of legal action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.