LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:09:44 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1016 bytes) , text/html (1434 bytes)
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 16:19:49 -0700

This article reports the appeals court decision in the ReDigi case.
The business of ReDigi is to find a way to sell and transfer to
another owner digital music files in a copyright-compliant way.  The
appeals court rules that they have not been successful and must
desist:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-12/secondhand-digital-music-sales-rejected-by-u-s-appeals-court

What strikes me about this is the emerging pattern whereby, in order
to sustain the business models of the analog world, digital books,
videos, and songs must be artificially constrained to have *less*
functionality than their analog forebears in at least some ways, ways
that are usually counterintuitive.  Does the shift (over the duration
of this lawsuit, as the article points out) away from downloading
purchased music to streaming services and the relative lower price of
digital over analog achieve a sufficient rebalancing of interests and
advantages?

Jim O'Donnell
ASU


ATOM RSS1 RSS2