iTunes non-transferrable.

[Sxotty]

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5072842.html?tag=fd_top

So basically they say that they are not sure if it is illegal, but only impracticle. I wish they would have gone thru with it if only to deterine what our rights are with respect to digital media. I find it humorous, that if they do not allow the right of first sale, all the arguments saying that file sharing is the same as shoplifting the CD lose all credibility in the process.

On another note this article is interesting
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60350-2,00.html

 

[Bigus Dickus]

if they do not allow the right of first sale, all the arguments saying that file sharing is the same as shoplifting the CD lose all credibility in the process.

That's quite a leap there. There exist other cases where your right to resale an item you bought through retail means is waived, so this wouldn't be unprecedented.

If the descision is indeed that you can't resale the downloaded material, then that should be made explicit in the terms of purchase and should in response affect your judgement of value of the product being offered (i.e., the knowledge that the product has zero resale value might lower your valuation of the product).

How that relates to shoplifting and pirating music... I honestly have no idea. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on how you made such a radical connection?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

How that relates to shoplifting and pirating music... I honestly have no idea. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on how you made such a radical connection?

My thoughts exactly...I was scratching my head on that...

 

[Natoma]

This should not be an issue at all for Apple if it really is just technical. They say that the music is tied to a particular apple account and if the person wants to resell a track they have to give away their account. All they have to do is decouple the content of the apple account from the account itself, much in the way paypal is situated which allows the easy transfer of money from one account to another.

Frankly I'm surprised they didn't think of this when they first setup the service. It was bound to occur at some point.

 

[Sxotty]

Frankly I'm surprised they didn't think of this when they first setup the service. It was bound to occur at some point.

I am sure they did think of this but for 2 reasons they did not want to

1) They don't have to deal with RIAA lawsuits hassles
2) If tunes are non-transferable then they could hypothetically sell more.

My comment was related to the fact that people said downloading music is the same as stealing a CD. Once you buy a cd you can resell it. Once you buy music online apparently you cannot. Thus it is not the same as stealing a CD, b/c if it was, it would be the same as buying a CD when you bought them online and downloaded them.

Further as BD stated (Ithink) they should tell you in the terms of service that you cannot sell them. I actually think that it would be awesome to be able to sell them b/c they lose value only relating to the bands popularity. The actual product does not degrade (like scratches on a CD). Anyway I will see what comes of this.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

My comment was related to the fact that people said downloading music is the same as stealing a CD. Once you buy a cd you can resell it. Once you buy music online apparently you cannot. Thus it is not the same as stealing a CD, b/c if it was, it would be the same as buying a CD when you bought them online and downloaded them.

Right, except that when you steal a CD and buy a CD, you wind up with the exact same product in your hands. When you steal online content (kazaa) and buy online content (iTunes) you do not wind up with the same content. Further, that stealing online content and stealing a CD have the same end effect on the manufacturer is independant of the license you agree to when purchasing the same... not sure why you think the two should be tied together.

In short, your logic makes no sense, your argument is ridiculous, and if you don't like the restriction of not being able to resale iTunes songs, don't buy songs from iTunes - that simple.

 

[Sxotty]

B.D. it would be good if you tried thinking about what people type istead of irrationaly attacking random things.

In short, your logic makes no sense, your argument is ridiculous, and if you don't like the restriction of not being able to resale iTunes songs, don't buy songs from iTunes - that simple.

1st I really don't care whether you can resell them or not
2nd why would you not end up with the same thing, an mp3 of a song.


I was simply stating that I found the situation interesting wrt our rights and digital media. Reselling games is another example when you can just copy them and resell them for a minimal loss on ebay. This of course is legal (selling the game not keeping a copy), and I think it should be, but I also see why people are worried about it.

You see I actually think it is interesting to see how our system adapts to new struggles of consumer rights. Another interestnig thing is civil liberties vs. the patriot act.

One of the funniest things to me has been the alligning of far right and left groups against the patriot act.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

2nd why would you not end up with the same thing, an mp3 of a song.

Isn't it obvious? When you steal a song from kazaa, you end up wth an mp3 you can easily enough sell to give to someone else. When you purchase a song from iTunes, you do not. The content may be identical, but the license attributes are not. The license can't be separated from the content of a product... you purchase (or steal it) under a particular agreement (or lack thereof), and that attribute remains tied to the product.

Think of it like buying two side by side pieces of property. They may look the same, be the same size, have the same view, etc. However, imagine that one has a covenent attached to the deed. You cannot purchase that property separately from the covenant, and that covenant places restrictions on the way in which you may use that property. Just because you now own the property doesn't mean you can do whatever you wish with it... you agreed to a set of limitations from the outset.

So, though the two side by side pieces of property might in every other qualitative and quantitative way be essentially identical, the covenant attached to one renders them functionally quite different. Buying a song from iTunes and ripping a song from a CD you purchase likewise are functionally different products, even if the content is identical (and, since downloading a song from kazaa is akin to ripping it from a CD, except illegally, it is also functionally different than purchasing one from iTunes).

Make sense?

And I still think iTunes should make this policy very explicit, just as covenants attached to property are made very apparent to a purchaser before the final transaction takes place.