Music label goes to court to stop you owning what you buy off them

So the media industry wants us to purchase their product and yet not have any right of ownership of the item(s) we buy. I suppose this case will determine if we actually own the digital media we buy, or just rent it.

I really hope this ends up going somewhere.

"Potentially this court could decide if consumers have any rights at all over their digital music, books or movies," said law professor from the University of California Berkeley School of Law Jason Schultz. "It could completely redefine the contours of the digital marketplace."

Link

The real money is in tours, not music sales, which is why bands like Phish, Dave Matthews, don't care if you record and share concerts so long as you aren't selling them for profit. It gets the music out there encouraging people to see the band live.

Of course this doesn't work for one hit wonders and shock artists like lady kaka. No one wants to see a crack head like kei$h@ live so they have to be fascists with their music.

It sounds so nice at first for the consumer to be able to re-sell a digital media that he has purchased...when it's only a double edged law to go against digital piracy.

"Rights"

reply to post by Lord Jules


I was about to say that most artists don't even care anymore and it's easy to see why.
I'm an artist myself and I don't plan to go by any record label, I just want to distribute free or donation.

Real artists don't care about money!

pfffth... the industry can get stuffed.

I'll continue to download from free sites or make donation direct to artist as dont listen to the mainstream rubbish and would rather support the independents instead of the damn mainstream #.

The music and software industries are about the only industries in which you don't actually own what you buy. You are just given the right to use it.

Imagine if when you buy a car, the car company still owns it and just allows you the right to drive it. It is well within the law for them to withdraw the purchase (render your car inoperable/take it back).

In that case, people would pirate cars, too.

How long would the likes of Universal, Warner et al last if no one purchased anything, if it is made explicit that you do not own it, why would people purchase it, they'd soon go bankrupt

Looking at the huge money coming from computer games subscriptions and micro transaction in the games for digital equipment, that the customer never really owns.

I bet the music companys are looking at the insane profits and thinking "damn, why didnt we think of that", sell the public somthing that reminds ours in every way, more like leasing it... GENIUS!

Also: if i buy my music from these clowns and put it on my ipod and i die, does my son enherit a reset ipod, or my music too?

Originally posted by Biigs
Also: if i buy my music from these clowns and put it on my ipod and i die, does my son enherit a reset ipod, or my music too?

When your son plugs the hypothetical ipod into his computer to put a song on it, he would have to delete all of your songs off it.

This is a war the consumer won't win because there is no real drive behind the effort.

In a nutshell, exactly how does one fight back against an overbearing and fat-handed entertainment industry? Well, you could cease to patronize their product... or in other words, boycott them. But the very word 'boycott' has been so negatively stigmatized by the corporate that most consumers are afraid to even speak it, much less act on it. We have been trained to ignore the fact that boycotting a product (or products) is exactly the tool meant for registering dissatisfaction with any business.

Beyond that, there really aren't that many who would take up such a challenge because... well, the next movie or album that popped up that we really, really wanted, we'd break down and buy it anyway. Game, set and match - we lose.

SOPA would have walked all over the US Constitution and the rights of the consumer had not a few big name web entities stepped up to the plate with heavy wood, threatening the kind of retaliation that meant something to the knee-jerk bureaucrats. The consumer was not even in the game... and really, never has been.

I don't like the music-industry. So, I use free creative commons music off Soundcloud and Jamendo instead. Creative Commons means that the artist has set certain restrictions on the sharing of the music so he can make money off it. But, he gives it away for free. It's a new model that requires a bit of reading to understand.

For those who hasn't realized this yet: Profit ruins music. Music today is mostly made for children that is susceptible to marketing. And the entertainment industry wants new legislation so they can censor the net. Don't give the industry your support if you don't like what they are doing.

Not a chance!
you can not just add more copy rights.
you have to put them on the CD.

they will lose badly.
and this make it harder for them to stop pireting.

Sony set the bar for this when they sued George Hotz over hacking the PS3. Their argument was that when you buys a PS3 you don't actually own it, you are renting it from Sony.

I thought it would only be a matter of time before they do the same with music and video.

If it's the case with a physical object that you purchase, it would be easier with digital media.

'Ownership' is dead.

I have several thousand albums and CD's are they going to pay me storage for the space they take up?? They need to come up with some kind of return for your money back if were just leasing