[Jason Dunn]

http://techdirt.com/articles/20041129/0316202.shtml

"NY Times reporter John Schwartz has an interesting article about how he learned so much more about a co-worker after buying the guy's iPod. There were still about 3,000 songs on the iPod, and Schwartz spent some time listening to many of them -- even discovering some bands or songs that he liked quite a bit (to the point of wanting to go out and buy the CDs himself). While it's interesting to see how listening in on someone else's iPod is a way to learn more about them, a much bigger question may be about the legality of selling an iPod with music on it. Sure, the seller can claim they're just selling the device, but considering that the recording industry freaks out if anyone shares a song for free, let alone profits from selling a song, it certainly seems like Schwartz' colleague, Kenneth Chang, has just opened himself up to a tremendous lawsuit. If the recording industry is going after people for sharing music for free, why not selling iPods full of music for just the cost of the iPod?"

This seems so cut and dried to me, it's not even funny - selling an audio player full of music is no different than selling a laptop or PDA full of installed programs that you paid for, then re-installing them on your new device: it's not legal. The New York Times article is whimsical and cute, and from a sociological standpoint I loved it, but the repercussions of this are going to be bad. Very bad. How bad you might ask? Here's my prediction: within six months, the RIAA will have one of their puppet US senators introduce a bill, or perhaps an amendment to a current bill, that will try to prohibit the resale of hard-drive and flash-based audio playback devices, period.

Forget about whether or not there's content on them - the RIAA will use this as an excuse to try and stop the resale of audio players. Remember, these are the crazy fools who tried to stop the sale of used CDs because they weren't earning royalties twice on them. :roll:

[Jason Dunn]

http://techdirt.com/articles/20041129/0316202.shtml

"NY Times reporter John Schwartz has an interesting article about how he learned so much more about a co-worker after buying the guy's iPod. There were still about 3,000 songs on the iPod, and Schwartz spent some time listening to many of them -- even discovering some bands or songs that he liked quite a bit (to the point of wanting to go out and buy the CDs himself). While it's interesting to see how listening in on someone else's iPod is a way to learn more about them, a much bigger question may be about the legality of selling an iPod with music on it. Sure, the seller can claim they're just selling the device, but considering that the recording industry freaks out if anyone shares a song for free, let alone profits from selling a song, it certainly seems like Schwartz' colleague, Kenneth Chang, has just opened himself up to a tremendous lawsuit. If the recording industry is going after people for sharing music for free, why not selling iPods full of music for just the cost of the iPod?"

This seems so cut and dried to me, it's not even funny - selling an audio player full of music is no different than selling a laptop or PDA full of installed programs that you paid for, then re-installing them on your new device: it's not legal. The New York Times article is whimsical and cute, and from a sociological standpoint I loved it, but the repercussions of this are going to be bad. Very bad. How bad you might ask? Here's my prediction: within six months, the RIAA will have one of their puppet US senators introduce a bill, or perhaps an amendment to a current bill, that will try to prohibit the resale of hard-drive and flash-based audio playback devices, period.

Forget about whether or not there's content on them - the RIAA will use this as an excuse to try and stop the resale of audio players. Remember, these are the crazy fools who tried to stop the sale of used CDs because they weren't earning royalties twice on them. :roll:

[James Fee]

Nothing in the digital music world makes sense to me. They throw away so much in sales to try and stop piracy that there is no way to stop.

[ChemNerd]

I find that conclusion both strange and illogical, but not suprising sadly. The RIAA while pushing things would be hard pressed to prevent this from happening. To prevent people from selling hard drives or used storage media is just plain and simple stupid. Will they TRY it like you suggest? I wouldn't be suprised. Will they get what they want? Not a chance in hell. Keep in mind I can still buy used CDs. I can buy used video games, used DVDs. No one has any right to tell me I can't sell a hard drive and no one ever will. If they do ever get that far it will be downhill from there. Next thing you know no one will be able to buy used memory cards for console systems because they'll have save files that will prevent people from seeing in game license branding and that's a no no. Seem far fetched? It is. Certainly more so than your topic, but if they do take that step will it still be as strange?

Also - the legality of selling the iPod is within question. If you sell it for the price you paid and then you repurchase all the music it is certainly NOT illegal. As for what it is now, I don't know - it's probably illegal - but so is recording anything on a VCR.

What would more likely be a real possibility would be digital managment - meaning that all songs will have ID tags and will not be allowed to be registered to multiple devices. Meaning if you sell your iPod all you have to do is change your license for where you can play the song. Possibly allowing for 2 copies to exist - one on your desktop and one on a portable device but both must share some ID code tied to the machine. Another idea is that when you place music on a portable device it is moved there - some form of copy protection to prohibt copying of that.

All those are truely bad ideas to me, but far more likely. The RIAA does not seem to care so much as to how they treat legal consumers. The MPAA is the same way - althought not nearly as insane (IMO).

In my opinion any form of DRM is fundamentally flawed. I have never aproved of any form of it because in the end it truely acomplishes nothing of good. People that are savy enough to copy media and such will find a way around it if they want to just give it a few weeks. All any form of DRM manages to do is alienate their legal average consumers such as the typical house wife - only hoping to make a backup of a DVD just purchased because she has 4 kids and we all know what sticky fingers do to things.... That VCR with a peanut butter sandwhich stuffed in it - you know what I'm talking about.

There are countless examples of these things gone wrong. The audio cds jamming mac drives only to be defeated with a Sharpie! The 6 months a certain game was delayed to copyprotect it with the offer of a reward to anyone who found a flaw - only to have it on the net less than a month after it was released. The list does truely go on and I hope that one day it stops.

And in the end, there are enough right winged people out there that will prevent people from invading their privacy to ever have something such as the sale of used hard drives made illegal.

If that day does come then I am ashamed.

Good day.

[Jason Dunn]

Thanks for the interesting post ChemNerd - I look forward to seeing more from you!

[TomB]

ChemNerd, interesting post. Part of the problem is people don't understand the concept of intellectual property and there isn't anyone out there trying to straighten things out who isn't biased as either a user or an owner. This is not good. Users who don't know any better take without realizing they are harming others and ultimately themselves. Owners are so crazed by these users, they are trying anything they can to protect themselves - making things even worse.

The answer is not meaningless laws and yet more DRM. On a one to one basis - the answer is INDIVIDUALS have to start thinking and living ethically. To say that DRM is pointless because people are going to take it anyway doesn't say much of us as a people does it? What a terrible place we have reached culturally when something we all love (music and lyrics) has lost enough of its value that someone would even dream of giving the work of THOUSANDS of artists away (150 hours of music), to help sell an MP3 player!

Of course there are plenty of gray areas in what the law says and what is fair. THAT is a failing of governance. Instead of churning out more and more useless laws, we need to know what the existing rules are and how to work with them. In areas that ARE black and white though - it sure doesn't help to read about people like Kenneth Chang in the Times. How sad for us all!

As far as videotaping that is one area we do have rules for and they are very clear in the USA. You can timeshift any program you want that is publically broadcast and not copy protected for your personal use as long as you don't archive the programs. This will all change next year, when broadcasters will start copy-protecting some broadcasts. The simple solution? Watch something else. If there are no viewers, copy-protection will die overnight.