Why is it legal to buy and sell used books/discs but illegal to buy and sell used digital files?
Why is it legal to buy and sell used books/discs but illegal to buy and sell used digital files?
this contradiction always confused me. either way the official company is "losing a sale" and not getting the money, right?
In theory, sharing a digital file can have a much greater impact than sharing a CD physically. Plus, you lose access to your copy of the CD if you give it to someone else. You can think of it like transferring a license for one user to a different user. There is no simultaneous usage.
I don't personally agree with this view, but I believe that's the argument.
I buy disc.
I rip contents of CD to computer.
I sell disc.
The amount of people who will duplicate their tapes and CDs would be lower than the amount of people who will duplicate their digital files.
Most of the time when a law sounds silly for banning something when alternatives exist, it's because people themselves are silly and don't actually go for the alternatives at the same rate as they would the banned thing. Ie gun accessory bans, ninja star bans.
Netflix's mail service was great for data hoarders.
Of those three steps, step 2 is the illegal one. (Assuming we're talking about music and not software.) Even if you never do step 3.
(Not saying things should be that way. Nor that it's not difficult to enforce. Only that as the laws are today, even ripping a music CD to your hard drive without any intention to share the audio files or resell the CD, even if you never listen to the tracks from your computer, the act of making that "copy" infringes copyright.)
Edit: Oh, and I should mention this is the case for U.S. copyright. No idea about any other countries.
which is eyactly why piracy isn't theft.
it can still be a crime, just don't call it what it obviously isn't.
It isn't piracy, either. It's filesharing.
See Richard Stallman, "Ending the War on Sharing":
When record companies make a fuss about the danger of "piracy", they're not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term "piracy" is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.
There are companies out there that do allow this for digital licenses. Arturia, an audio software and hardware company, lets you de-register and sell a license key to someone else, who can re-register it. They don’t charge any fees for it at all either, like some companies do. It’s not hard, most companies just don’t care about you as a customer.
Edit: Their license keys all include five seats too.
And that's why you don't own digital media but only a "usage license", because the original owner still has the original? Isn't it then fraudulent if the shops sell you the media, despite it being only a license? And shouldn't that be cheaper then?
Well, anyway, harr harr.
Can't you transfer a game to other people on Steam? They treat it like a physical item where after giving it away you loose access IIRC.
There's a few things about this
- Many times you don't own the digital good, you subscribe to it. No I'm not joking, that's why services can usually take it away at any time. You normally own "a licence to play it on a single PC" or similar.
- This isnt apples to oranges per se. Selling digital goods is fine, it's copying it. Similar to how photocopying a book and selling it would not be okay.
- It's important to note there is a narrative push by companies too. They spend lots of money putting videos on every DVD saying "downloading is stealing" because if society thinks piracy and stealing is the same, it helps them litigate and make more money.
- Your idea of a lost sale is a hard one, from a media company point of view, it's about making money. So if you can make people believe "a download is a lost sale" or "sharing a digital file is a lot sale" etc, then you can use that to sue individuals, isps, sharing sites, search engines etc and make more and more money while also having more power over your product.
if you live in the EU you own your digital purchases.
It's kind of not tested though.
If you've never been given the option to download it and save it and use it from there, how would you "own" it if the streaming service takes it offline?
If you can't transfer ownership of something, or have it past the lifespan of the shop you bought it from, do you really own it? I would say not.
You do not. Or we have a different definition for owning.
I'm in the EU. How do I download movies I purchased on Amazon?
Because the book and disc guys couldn't figure out a way to stop you back then.
Nowadays college books have one time codes for tests, and games will sometimes have codes included for inportant unlocks to force used purchasers to pay up.
I've not seen that in games for a while tbh. I think "Project Ten Dollar" died a death and was replaced with a constant barrage of micro-transactions and not so micro-transactions, sprinkled with FOMO dust.
One thing to keep in mind that may be relevant: copies of non-digital things are different than digital copies.
Digital (meant here as bit-for-bit) copies are effectively impossible with analog media. If I copy a book (the whole book, its layout, etc., and not just the linguistic content), it will ultimately look like a copy, and each successive copy from that copy will look worse. This is of course true with forms of tape media and a lot of others. But it isn't true of digital media, where I could share a bit-for-bit copy of data that is absolutely identical to the original.
If it sounds like an infinite money glitch on the digital side, that's because it is. The only catch is that people have to own equipment to interpret the bits. Realistically, any form of digital media is just a record of how to set the bits on their own hardware.
Crucially: if people could resell those perfect digital copies, then there would be no market for the company which created it originally. It all comes down to the fact that companies no longer have to worry about generational differences between copies, and as a result, they're already using this "infinite money glitch" and just paying for distribution. That market goes away if people can resell digital copies, because they can also just make new copies on their own.
it will ultimately look like a copy, and each successive copy from that copy will look worse. This is of course true with forms of tape media and a lot of others. But it isn't true of digital media, where I could share a bit-for-bit copy of data that is absolutely identical to the original.
There is one exception: reposted memes, they are losing pixels more and more. /s
You cannot endlessly duplicate digital data without some loss.
This assumes a conversion on each copy. That's not how digital copying works. We CAN share the same file indefinitely by copying the data without loss indefinitely. It's when you transcode/reencode the data that you introduce loss.
Physical media doesn't have the luxury of endlessly replicating itself via a simple copy and paste.
Distributing data to everybody is the only communism that works.
Endless replication, creates endless intelectual and creative wealth and diminishes financial wealth to zero.
It won't even diminish it to zero. Some people will still pay. Ya I could download games for free and play them but I want to support the teams that made them so they keep making them. I only get games for free if that is the only way of getting them.
Since when, you can do a perfect rip of a CD and burn an exact image of the disk loslessly thousands of times. Same for DVD and Blu-rays. If you are talking about a physical book, then yes, making lossless copies is more involved, but still technically possible with the proper equipment and knowledge.
If a copy isn't kept after sale, it should be legal. It's my understanding it is legal in the EU.
That is if you can sell a game you bought on Steam. Steam makes sure to copies aren't played at the same time so you can't keep your copy after selling it.
From my understanding, you don't "own" a game you bought on Steam, you just own the license to play it. The game file without modifications is protected by DRM, and only works when it's launched from Steam with a valid license. Notice when using the same account on two different PCs, Steam would force quit the game when you try to launch the same game from the other PC.
In a closed system like Steam, sure, it would be relatively easy to regulate the buying and selling of game licenses since you're doing it all under Steam's system. When Steam detects a license transfer or however they want to implement it, they can easily disable access for the seller and enable it for the buyer.
But if the game file is DRM free, then it's the same as downloading pirated movies, there would be no guarantee that the seller has no access to the game after selling it. No way to regulate it either. Hence, endless copies.
If they could, they would. Laws aren't passed because it makes sense, but because they benefit the rich.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
-Anatole France
Logically yes, downloading or a sharing a digital file is a "lost sale" - but as Aaron Swartz said - "lost sales" are also caused by Earthquakes, Libraries/DVD Rentals, Negative Yelp reviews, Market Competitors, and so on. Why just blame it on file sharing...
Legally speaking you don't own the digital files, you have a license but you don't actually own it.
That is no different with CDs, DVDs, etc. It’s written on all of them. It’s a limited license, which is why you can’t host screenings and charge people with your physical media.
It's in the name. Copyright. As in, the right to make a copy.
It's perfectly legal to sell a digital good as long as you don't retain it as well.
It's illegal to make a copy of a book and then sell that copy.From probably the most biased source possible: https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/limitations-on-a-copyright-owners-rights/first-sale-exceptions-copyright/
As they point out, most digital works are licensed, not sold, so there are terms and conditions associated with how you can use them.
So it's perfectly consistent, just grossly out of date for it's intended purpose of "make sure writers can make money selling their books without worrying that getting copies made will be pointless because someone else will undercut them and leave them with 1000 prepaid copies of their book that everyone bought cheaper".
We should have a system that preserves that original intent of "creators get compensated", without it turning into our culture gets owned by some random company for more than a lifetime.
Its legal in the EU. You can sell your windows key for example, despite the windows eula disallowing it
Because companies have money, and money makes laws.
because making a legitimate copy of a book is a lot more work
Both require a license and that license is revocable in both cases. It's pretty much impossible to enforce the legal use of physical media, so they don't. Rather, they go after those making copies.
If you ever want to REALLY own your media, make sure it is physical.
Usually, when the question is "why is copyright restrictive in these evil and/or dumb ways" the safe bet is that the the answer is "Disney."
It's not? I see digital files being bought and sold all over the place. 3rd party key retailers and even the digital goods earned within games themselves. It's only illegal for you to copy and sell copies of digital goods. If you have a way to sell the original thing and no longer have access to it, it's perfectly legal. It's just not many things let you do that.
Because they somehow don't consider that someone could have copied the books or discs before reselling them, but it immediately comes to their mind with digital copies riddled with DRMs
The legalese in the US (which might as well be everywhere as you need to have compatible copyright with the US to have a trade deal with the US, and your country is in trouble if it doesn't have a trade deal with the US) is basically that:
- If you buy a physical copy, you've become the owner of that one copy of the IP contained within. As the owner of that copy, you can do stuff with it like read it, display it, destroy it, or sell it on to someone else thanks to the First Sale Doctrine (but you can't do other things like copying it, unless it's a DVD as there's a specific exemption for the copy your DVD has to make to RAM in order to decode the DVD). There's nothing the copyright holder of the original can do to stop you exercising these rights.
- If you buy a digital 'copy', you've not bought a copy, you've bought a licence to use one of the publisher's copies that they've given you permission to have on your device(s). They'll also have given you permission to do things like read it if it's an ebook or play it if it's a video game, but as it's their copy, not yours, you don't automatically get rights to do anything they've not explicitly permitted you to, and it's not in their interests to permit you to sell it on unless they think you'll pay enough more for a resaleable copy that it covers a potential future lost sale.
I'm sure plenty of publishers would love for the second set of rules to apply to things like books, and from a quick googling, it seems like occasionally academic textbooks have included a licence agreement instead of you actually owning the physical book, but I imagine that most publishers are concerned about bad PR from attempting this with a hit novel and also don't want to be accused of fraud for having their not-a-book-just-a-licence on the shelf next to regular books and thereby tricking consumers into thinking they were buying a regular book. EA attempted to double-dip over a decade ago with Battlefield 3, which included a copy of the game (with regular First Sale Doctrine rights) and a licence key for the online pass (which wasn't transferrable) and got bad press because of it. Newer PC games often come as a key in a box with no disk or a disk that only runs a web installer, so you've not got a copy of the game to claim you've bought and obviously only have a licence, and this seems to have caused less upset. This wouldn't work with a book, though, as you have to fill in the pages at the printing factory, and can't magically do it only after the user's got it home.
Just a small point on the first comment (and I wish I could find the article to refer to, but the internet is a giant void that buries things faster than a mudslide). There was a case where a game developer sued, and I believe won, against a homeowner who was selling one of their games at a garage sale because, even though they had the physical media, the EULA explicitly revoked transferral of possession and was, in fact, just a license, not ownership. I remember it vividly because it was the first time I had ever heard of someone claiming that someone did not own a physical object that they purchased in a store. Afterward, I discussed it with some of the used game retailers and found out that there were some games that they were specifically prohibited from accepting as trades for this very reason.
bourgeoisie lobby in the State
Pretty sure they tried to prevent the sharing and reselling of CDs at one point.
Look up the history of DIVX DVDs. Not to be confused with the DivX video codec.
“Reasons”
This may be a dumb question, but why can't crypto something or an NFT be imprinted on my copy of the album/picture/whatever so I could sell it and lose my access? It's this a function of no standardized marketplace for digital goods and services?
Because crypto is a joke and NFTs are vaporware. The concept is honestly laughable. Perfect example for NFTs, my company wanted to advertise that our service could help with the production of NFTs and my boss had put together the ad for it. I advised against it considering the BS and controversy associated with it. It became doubly apparent when I looked at the ad and saw that he had included several of the (in)famous NFTs that had been sold. I point blankly asked him if he had gotten permission to use them. He said no. Then I pointed out that the fact he was able to put them in the ad without asking and paying for the right to to the person who had spent millions on the NFT was exactly my point. NFTs are a scam. Thankfully he saw the light and dropped the whole nonsense.
As for the blockchain in general, it is unsustainable. It requires enormous amounts of power and computing cycles to maintain which gives it a massive eco-footprint and sucks resources needed by actual industries and individuals to support. If you started attributing it to all digital purchases, including resales, it would expand exponentially. It is fine in concept, and if it could function in a passive state somehow it might see usefulness as a purchase and resale history for digital media, but it can't. It requires many computers maintaining identical records in active communication with each other.
Very enlightening. Thanks! So there's still some big hurdle of what would be standardized to make resale of digital goods make sense otherwise it's impossible to police who does and doesn't have legit copies or who made a copy of the file, etc.
The theory probably revolves around there not being a transfer of the file as much as a copy paste of it.
Physical media can be copied but you need blank physical media to copy it to, in a purely digital eco system both the buyer and seller end up being able to have copies of the sold product, which effectively treats the seller as if they are a vendor of the product being sold.
Basically in a world built on copyright law, being able to buy and sell digital media the same as physical media looks a lot like someone scalping the original product to cut into the maker's bottom line. Megacorps eating it is pretty dope but it significantly diminishes an individual developer's ability to profit off their own work as well, especially when software development already encourages so much copy pasting to make software that should be working into software that is working.
Y'all don't really give a fuck about the actual musicians, do you.
In contrary. I do. But I fucking hate the whole useless, greedy industry that sits on the artists neck. I prefer p2p transactions so that the artists I like can keep producing more of their art.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
Because you rent them and not own them. It's also illegal to sell a book that you rented from the library. Or get a dvd from the library and then copy it. It's a measure they put into place so you're not allowed to duplicate the thing. Hence they don't grant you the same kind of ownership you'd have over a physical item.
Is it actually illegal? Has anyone in the US ever been charged for selling digital software they had legally acquired?
I believe selling and sharing ebooks is illegal too. So digital and physical contents is different