Selling used CDs is still legal in America
Once again, the music industry overestimated the level of control they should be allowed to maintain over their copyrighted works. Just as when Sony invaded its consumers’ privacy by embedding software in CDs and when the five largest music distribution companies illegally corroborated to fix the price of CDs, the music industry has again violated the law. The United States District Court for the Central District of California concluded, via summary judgment, that the purported EULA included by UMG did not create a “license,” nor does it allow UMG to retain any control over the promotional CD. UMG gave away these CDs, and those who receive them are free to dispose of them as they see fit. Therefore, the court found, as the legal owner of the CDs in question, Mr. Augusto and Roast Beast Music broke no laws in selling these recordings, and may continue to do so.“Damn The Man!” The Ability To Sell Second-Hand CDs (Thanks, Steve!)At least we can still sell our old CDs… Right?
It depends. While Mr. Augusto enjoys the right to sell his legally owned CDs, questions arise in a number of states as to who can purchase them. The music industry, it seems, is foregoing lawsuits in favor of promoting preventative legislation. Recent legislation in Florida, Utah, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island has made it more difficult to sell used CDs in those states than it is to get a driver’s license. In Florida, for example, anyone attempting to sell used CDs to a retailer must present identification and be fingerprinted, and any retailer looking to sell those same CDs must apply for a permit and submit a $10,000 bond with the Department of Agriculture and Human Services. Thankfully, those restrictions do not apply to online or person-to-person sales.
the latest
latest episodes
Gilbert Anonymous: A $10,000 bond with the Department of Human Services and Agriculture? WTF is that for? Are they afraid we'll hire people to turn CD's into mulch?
IS there such a department?
Do you think they meant "collaborated" (worked together) rather than "corroborated" (confirmed or gave support to)?
OK, I can kind of see the logic behind requiring someone selling a used item to a reseller, only because pawnshops and second hand stores are where a lot of stolen items end up. However, I admit that's not what they're actually worried about here.
Argh, I meant that to say "I can kind of see the logic behind requiring IDENTIFICATION FROM someone selling a used item to a reseller".
It's nice to know that my paying for digital recordings is still on some level considered acquiring a good and not requesting a service.
What a great way to get me to buy CD's instead of pirating them from bit torrent! Everyone knows that the reasons the music companies are not making as much money as they used to are the two-bit music stores reselling CD's! Thank god they finally put a stop to that practise! I'm pretty sure there will be no piracy by tomorrow!
I regularly head down to my local music store and buy ten used CDs from their cheapo bin for $10. I have discovered some awesome music this way, and I know I'm supporting a local business.
Just to be clear here, in this case a gift or other transfer counts as a "first sale."
I think the laws for selling CDs ought to be the same as for selling things to a pawnshop (whether they are more or less draconian, I have no idea). At least back in the '80s and '90s when I was a student (pre-MP3), when people's dorm rooms got broken into, it was their CD collection rather than their TVs or stereos that got stolen because it was easy for a thief to just pile a bunch of CDs into a duffel bag in a few seconds and sell them with no questions asked.
I work in a used book store, and I can't begin to tell you the amount of stolen merchandise we see. We buy back DVDs and CDs in addition to books, but people will sell whatever they can swipe (even if it's obviously been grabbed from our dumpsters).
For this reason, we (and state law) require a state issued driver's license to sell to us. But while I could understand a similar justification being applied to fingerprinting, that strikes me as completely appalling.
One thing in this debate I'll be interested to see (and maybe someone can shed some light on this for me) is what your legal rights to digital files are. If I buy a used CD, burn it, then sell it back, I still own the MP3s. Is the record industry challenging this anywhere?
What if instead of buying the CD I check it out from the library? I do this, and I know a lot of others who do, but I'm wondering how long before (if they haven't already) the RIAA tries to police library patrons.
~8, you're supposed to delete/destroy any copies you still have when you sell on or otherwise dispose of the original work... and ripping CDs borrowed from a library or friend... well that is completely illegal... you can't get away with claiming you're making a backup copy there when you don't even own the original...
@manicbassman: Yikes. I'm especially surprised at the first bit. I guess I don't know the laws very well.
Oh no. What about my garage sale??? :P
If we could just find a way to make copy write laws *more* complicated... that would surely prevent consumers from downloading music...
Record companies getting mad over people selling promo cds, i get it, they were cds given out for free with the sole intent for them to be promotional . But are they seriously getting butt-hurt about people selling their used cds?
LA Weekly had a good feature on this topic recently:
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-09-25/music/who-will-stop-the-music-industry-gravy-train-confessions-of-a-promo-junkie/1
so does this have any effect on NFR software copies?
C-whats? C...D's? Seriously, CD's have been dead to me for years now. No, I don't torrent all the latest albums. I listen to a few songs on the radio but if I really wanna hear something I just youtube it.
We all the know the big bad RIAA has trackers on every mp3/album torrent but they can't stop anyone from ripping music playing through their computer. Wah, Wah, Wah.
I actually feel worse buying a used CD than I do pirating it. My logic is that if I'm paying someone for the music and the artist isn't getting a share, that's the worse case scenario. What I'd rather do is download the music and if I like it, mail off a check directly to the artist with a note saying, "Hey I downloaded your stuff and liked it. Here's money."
Didn't someone design self-destructing CDs a while back? Why don't they just use those. I'm sure the reviewers wouldn't complain if the CD was only listenable for 48 hours after opening. Since the reviewers aren't paying for the CDs in the first place, it's not like they're losing money. And even if they try to sell it unopened, who's gonna pay much for a 48-hour CD.
For non-promo CDs, sometimes buying them used is the only way to find older CDs. And what about vinyl? If selling used CDs is illegal, then selling used vinyl should be too. And movies and games and anything else that you can buy used. What about furniture? How about clothing? Why is it OK to deal in used clothing, but not used music?
I understand wanting to keep people from selling promo CDs in some way. The music distributor paid the cost to print and ship those, and they expect to recoup the cost of that when people buy the retail CD later. So if someone buys a promo CD, they're not helping to recoup the cost of making that promo CD. But it should be the distributor's responsibility to figure out how to keep people from selling promo CDs. Make them with special tracks that have random spots of noise in them, or an occasional voice saying "this is a demo" in the background, or use self-destructing CDs, or even just suply SASE's with them so that the reviewer can send them back. Many might do that. But the point is, it should be up to the distributor to do what they feel is best to encourage people to buy the retail CD. Making it illegal to sell used CDs in general is just wrong.
#10- the library CD -> MP3 question is actually pretty interesting. If the library owns the CD, that copy of the CD belongs to the public, right? It was paid for with tax dollars, available for checkout, etc. And if you combine that fact with the rule from the Diamond Multimedia case, you could make a good argument that you have a personal right to rip a library CD to MP3 so that you can listen to the songs on your iPod (or your Diamond Rio, heh)... at least while you have the cd in your possession.
But what happens when you return the CD? I think the RIAA would argue that you would be required to delete those MP3s.
But from the public policy perspective, libraries exist to disseminate information to the widest possible audience. Have you ever put your name on a wait-list at the library for a new book, or asked them to put a book on hold? Making digital copies of books, or of CDs (or DVDs for that matter) would increase availability of library materials, and help libraries to better serve their public. If libraries could post digital files directly instead of requiring patrons to take possession of the physical copy, it would serve their customers even better.
Of course, it would also effectively kill iTunes.
I am not currently aware of any RIAA lawsuits against public libraries for loaning CDs- the optics would be pretty bad, don't you think? But that hasn't stopped them yet...
If I new I could never resell a CD I would never buy one again.
I work at a music store, and any promotional CDs that are "not for resale" are given to employees.
The record industry is a giant ripoff.
The prices are high, the trend-window short, and the music is generally bad once you look past the hype.
Kick your addiction to the record industry. There's free and legal classical music for download across the internet.
an easy way to defeat this arguement is that no buying or selling take place - the participants of the exchange 'gift' one another simultaneously or 'find' the stuff wished to be exchanged. (a CD, cash, turnips etc.).coincidence is no proof of causality.admittedly a semantic trick, but so are all the record companys so called selling rights.
What better way to further promote the CD than to sell it? =)
Made in DNA
In Norway it is actually, or at least was last time I checked, considered fair use to copy music for friends or relatives. The general rule of thumb is that it is illegal to make something publicly available, but sharing a copy with a friend is fair use. The music industry is of course going spare and claim this is just fair as long as the copy is analog.. But I seem to remember the same debacle over cassettes/LPs as well.
Personally I haven't bought a CD for over five years. I'd much rather buy over the net, preferably directly from the artists.
industries trying to control the natural flow of the market like this, in such an authoritarian manner, will never have much success in my view. Users will always find a way around things. And if anything, it makes people more inventive looking for new loop holes.
Also - theres always the lawless internet. What about amazon and other Used CD sites- they sell used cds, and can't exactly id and fingerprint everyone!!
I stopped buying music when RIAA declared war on its customers. I urge everything else to do the same. Boycott is the only response that will make them take notice. I can always read a book, watch TV, talk to my friends or otherwise spend my time in a way that does not enrich the people who are saying they still own what I purchased. I don't reward the terrorists of the audio industry.