RIAA Opposed Second-Hand Music StoreAdded: Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > The Industries Of Records, Gaming, Software, Movies
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
There’s a new service out there, which watermark reads “The world’s first online marketplace for used digital music”. The service is named ReDigi and it has already captured attention of the music industry. The media reports about how the Recording Industry Association of America scoped the new service, sending it a cease and desist letter.
This past October ReDigi had launched a beta version of its new service. Aside from the fact that it allows you to buy your favorite tracks over there, ReDigi has introduced a rather new feature – users are now able to sell songs that they are not interested anymore. By doing so, users receive credit points with which they are able to buy new tracks later. Many industry experts believe that is a great idea. Indeed, the service underlines at some point that everyone’s taste in music can change, and few could argue with that.
According to statistics, majority of people only listen to less than 1/5 of their music libraries. This means that the rest 4/5 represents a whole lot of music that takes up space on the users’ computers. Then why not sell the music people don’t listen to, like they do with old clothes, benefit from the credit the service offers and purchase new music?
The service issued a press release in October, explaining that music files eligible for resale will be removed from the user’s computer and all synced devices. After this, the files are stored in the site’s cloud, and offered for sale online. Once the music file is purchased, both the track and license are immediately transferred to the buyer. Although the music industry expressed its discontent about the very idea of the activity that doesn’t bring it profit, the new service isn’t going to give up. ReDigi replied to the RIAA’s letter by saying that the service is not afraid of something like this. In fact, the activity of the service falls under the “first sale” principles stating that a legitimately purchased CD can be sold without restrictions. The question is whether this can be applied to digital downloading.
Actually, the Recording Industry Association of America doesn’t fancy the fact that the new service is making copies of tracks that they are trying to sell without having the required licenses. In addition, the industry also blames the website for using copyrighted album art.
November 23rd,2011Posted by:
Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011
|So now its against the law to sell shit you own... RIAA just need to SHUT THE **** UP and go to hell, They are morons, I'd love to meet the trash that runs it so I could spit in his face...|
|Unless I am not seeing things clearly, how is this any different from any licensed item purchased legally being resold?|
The end-user who purchased the licensed item may or may not have created copies for personal usage (and wisely so, given the fact that digital items have a good chance of becoming corrupt or damaged, so back-up copies are a wise step in protecting the initial investment). So what?! They are ALLOWED to do so!
When re-selling an item, whether digital or "brick-and-mortar", it is the license that is being sold. In the case of a digital item (movie, song, picture, program, etc.), as long as the original license is sold with the digital item and the digital item (if indeed a copy) is exactly identical to the original in terms of specs and bitrate, blahblahblah...., how is that any different?
Wouldn't it be more cost-effective for RIAA to develop solid and secure licensing for such digital items instead of trying to throttle/control the already-disenfranchised consumer?
At the very least, it would mollify and perhaps even instill within the consumer a sense of fairness and SOME appreciation for the people (consumers) who have lined and continue to line their pockets?
Wouldn't that be more conducive to the positive growth of a new age of media and business?
Or do I have my head stuck too far where it shouldn't be?
|all they will do is add a single user licence to everything saying that it's non-transferable (already commonly used in warranties), and that the resale is in breach of the terms of sale. That would make the seller, agent and buyer criminals (for different reasons) in the eyes of the law.|
It's a great concept, but it will probably fail.
|the next thing you know, you won't be allowed to sell your old car.|
its always the same in the US, corporations have more rights than people.
|posted by (2011-11-25 06:34:22)|
|so how is this any differant than buying a movie or game and taking it to a resell shop. They never give you the full price of what you pay just their adjusted valued, then they sell it to someone else why can this resell sight not do the same as a traditional stores... I do not see anyone going after companies that do resells in their store..but yes more than likely this will fail.|
|posted by (2011-11-25 09:40:32)|
|Surprise Surprise The RIAA doesn't like it. WTF do they like? No offense to any ladies here, but these SOB's are on the rag 365 days a year.|
|hahhahha. this is hilarious||
Most Popular Stories