[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by MusicLover Do you really think he's telling the truth? I doubt it.

Yes, I think he's probably telling the truth. Some people have principles, believe it or not (I know it's a shocker to many folks). Also, at the price it sells for it's likely the buyer will want proof that their money is going to the EFF, as this will be seen more as a donation than anything else.

Clearly, this auction is a matter of both collecting a donation for the EFF, and an expression of the seller's principles, as well as a sort of low-key test of the transferability of online digital music. IMO, this thread and the responses many have posted here are dumber than the auction. Get a clue people, this isn't the first time there's been an "unusual" auction on Ebay representing something other than money.

 

[SBomm]

Thanks for doing the explaining fewtch.

 

[DanT]

It's now more than $15K but why not give it directly to EEF instead of buying the song. Is there anything special? He bought it from iTunes Music Store.


Edit. Ok I guess it make some kind of public notice.

 

[TimSchirmer]

Jesus... has head-fi really gotten this dumb?

The money he makes is going to be a donation to the EFF. I support the EFF and if I had money for philanthropy, i'd be bidding on that song too.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Clearly, this auction is a matter of both collecting a donation for the EFF, and an expression of the seller's principles, as well as a sort of low-key test of the transferability of online digital music. IMO, this thread and the responses many have posted here are dumber than the auction. Get a clue people, this isn't the first time there's been an "unusual" auction on Ebay representing something other than money.

Maybe some of us have a clue, but we just think this auction is an idiotic "test."

If you want to test DRM and the "transferability" of digital music purchases, why use the most open example of DRM on the planet? If you're really trying to test the boundaries of DRM, why not use one of the more restrictive implementations?

On a more practical level, it took a lot for Apple to persuade the music labels to allow them to implement such lax DRM. They did so on the condition that it was a trial -- the labels can refuse to renew the contracts after a year. Trying to provoke a legal confrontation (which is what this auction is trying to do) with the iTunes Music Store is just plain stupid. Not only is it the shakiest legal ground vs. potential legal battles with the more restrictive implementations of DRM; it's also stupid because it's just going to convince the labels that the lax DRM they allowed Apple to use was a mistake.

 

[archosman]

It's up to over $100,000...

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Maybe some of us have a clue, but we just think this auction is an idiotic "test."

Fair enough, just expressing my opinion on the matter.
Quote:

If you want to test DRM and the "transferability" of digital music purchases, why use the most open example of DRM on the planet? If you're really trying to test the boundaries of DRM, why not use one of the more restrictive implementations?

Perhaps because the more restrictive implementations actually can't be transferred (and still remain playable) without hacking the protection and thus violating the DMCA? It would be less than pointless to transfer an unusable file -- nobody would want to buy it, and the record labels wouldn't care.
Quote:

Trying to provoke a legal confrontation (which is what this auction is trying to do) with the iTunes Music Store is just plain stupid. Not only is it the shakiest legal ground vs. potential legal battles with the more restrictive implementations of DRM; it's also stupid because it's just going to convince the labels that the lax DRM they allowed Apple to use was a mistake.

Seems to me the auction is actually provoking the question: Do I "own" this file the same way I "own" a CD, and if so why wouldn't I have the right to transfer it the same way I would a CD? IMHO it's a reasonable question, and the issue deserves legal clarification. If digital files are legally untransferable it makes them look a lot less attractive as compared to CD, wouldn't you say?

 

[strohmie]

<<I just posted an eBay auction for a song I bought from the iTunes music store. It should be interesting to see how this works out. I only spent $0.99 on it but I bought the song just as legally as I would a CD, so I should be able to sell it used just as legally right?

[Update 09-03-2003 7:44 PM] Please don't bid unless you are willing to pay the money. While this is an interesting auction, it is certainly not a joke - that's the whole point. I'm fine with the winner donating directly to eBay the EFF [typo or freudian slip?], but may request some money to cover the cost of the eBay auction if it gets too out of hand and I can't afford it>>

What a flippin' idiot. There's no way in hell anyone's going to pay $16k+ for this thing. People are only bidding in the hope that they're not the last one to make a bid...it's like that auction for someone's soul a while back (that I believe was closed early).

Contractual obligation my ass. The last person will simply not pay the money, get repremanded by eBay, and this guy will get his money back for posting the auction. And the world will be no different for it.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by strohmie <<I just posted an eBay auction for a song I bought from the iTunes music store. It should be interesting to see how this works out. I only spent $0.99 on it but I bought the song just as legally as I would a CD, so I should be able to sell it used just as legally right? [Update 09-03-2003 7:44 PM] Please don't bid unless you are willing to pay the money. While this is an interesting auction, it is certainly not a joke - that's the whole point. I'm fine with the winner donating directly to eBay the EFF [typo or freudian slip?], but may request some money to cover the cost of the eBay auction if it gets too out of hand and I can't afford it>> What a flippin' idiot. There's no way in hell anyone's going to pay $16k+ for this thing.

On Sep-03-03 at 17:33:37 PDT, seller added the following information:
While I may have written a quips in the description, I can assure you that this is an actual auction. If you do not intend to pay what you bid, you should cancel your bid. I will be canceling low feedback bidders with a high bids and contacting high bidders. If you are a serious bidder I recommend contacting me to let me know that that is the fact, or you risk having your bid canceled.

 

[strohmie]

Heh, now that's just too much effort. And as I can see, the fake bids are dropping like flies. If this eBay auction actually had any merit the winning bid would be $.99 cents. At this point, it doesn't show anything.

 

[kelly]

I feel sorry for Apple. I'm sure the concept of making the digital properties transferrable was a discussion point at Apple but not something they could get approved by the license holders.

I do think the case has merit, though, and I'd like to see a court come down to spell out explicitly that intellectual property is transferrable and that intellectual property that is sold in an electronic manner must be transferrable for a nominal fee.

They will certainly fight this. They fought used CD stores. Video game companies fought used video game sales and rentals and computer game makers essentially won against the rental market.

I hope this guy has the proper backing to win the fight he's starting.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch Perhaps because the more restrictive implementations actually can't be transferred (and still remain playable) without hacking the protection and thus violating the DMCA? It would be less than pointless to transfer an unusable file -- nobody would want to buy it, and the record labels wouldn't care.

Trying to transfer "ownership" from a song purchased from the iTunes Music Store is just as much a DMCA violation as trying to "hack" one of the more restrictive impementations of DRM. Although that speaks more to the idiocy that is the DMCA than anything else

 

[redshifter]

from the auction:
"eBay's guidelines prohibit the sale of data on recordable media. I will work with the high bidder an acceptable delivery method that does not violate eBay's guidelines. Due to the nature of the auction the method of transferal is not known yet but it will not take place in a way that violates eBay's policies. As such it will not be delivered on CD-R or DVD-R."

i suggest he type out the 1's and 0's on paper and send the winner the encoded aac in book form. or is paper recordable media?

 

[strohmie]

Heh. Technically writing in a book would be "recordable media" though certainly not in the way eBay originally intended. I'd love to see if this guy figures out how to concretely transfer it off his computer ( and even if you delete most files, they're still there somewhere...

)

 

[imported_maverick_12]

Its auctions like these that reassure me of apple users stupidity level as a whole.