[TestSpecimen]

I have also heard it is illegal, but to me it seems that if you say that you are selling the music along with the ipod then its just like selling cd's isn't it??

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcmyers /img/forum/go_quote.gif Feel free to keep discussing this, but like I said, I have been persuaded that it's illegal, so I'm not going to do it.

Do you think we could maybe convince you otherwise, then reconvince you not to do it again, um... in the first place?

 

[MrSomeone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not only is it illegal, but it's not even beneficial to your selling price. Every auction I've ever seen, including my own, the buyer preferred that the ipod be factory restored so they could put their own music on it. Feel free to offer it, but I doubt you'll find a taker.

I have to disagree. I left my music collection on my heavily used iPod that I had sold on eBay a while back, and even offered to format it if the high bidder requested, however, he/she preferred that I leave the music on. If I recall correctly if fetched a little over $200, which was way over what I expected (based on similar auctions previously).

At the time, I didn't think to consider of the legality of selling the iPod with music 'preloaded', but looking back, I see why it may pose a problem.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TestSpecimen /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have also heard it is illegal, but to me it seems that if you say that you are selling the music along with the ipod then its just like selling cd's isn't it??

No. Unless you're including the original CDs with the sale, it's more like making a copy of a CD on a CDR and selling that.

 

[D_4_Dog]

anytime you get that "this is too good to be true" feeling it's usually illegal. Wait.. but then that means my $>70 iM716s are.....

 

[rextrade]

Again, it's not clear that this is illegal as there have been no cases or legislation that addresses this. If it is legal to put the music on your ipod in the first place, then why would it be illegal to sell that ipod loaded with music after you want to upgrade? (Note that this is very different from doing this as a business, ie, buying an ipod and loading up with music for the purpose of selling it, which is basically pirating music--here I'm talking about a case where you are selling the ipod anyway). A similar question is whether you can sell your original cds after putting them on a hard-drive or whatever.

The RIAA's stance is that it is illega, but don't forget that the RIAA won't even concede that it is legal to rip music onto your ipod in the first place.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, it's not clear that this is illegal as there have been no cases or legislation that addresses this.

Except the United States Copyright Act.

Seriously, it's section 106.

 

[Mandrake]

At my university where I work, when you upgrade computers, the tech folks come to transfer your files, install programs, etc. But they will not transfer music files, even though it is to your own computer (from your own computer). Now, that might be b/c they doubt the origins in a university setting. But out of some 800 songs or so, only one came from a friend, and all the rest came from CDs I own. For some technical reason, my songs got transferred, but that the policy exists may in some way contribute to this discussion.

My hunch is that the university policy is over the top, but that transferring songs is not legit, unless you also hand over the original cds and/or the transfer rights (or whatever the heck) from Itunes or wherever (which I have never used, precisely b/c I don't want my tunes limited even for my own personal use, nor do I want my sampling limited. Plus I like lots of CDs (and books, esp, and DVDs on my shelves)

 

[funkadelic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, it's not clear that this is illegal as there have been no cases or legislation that addresses this. If it is legal to put the music on your ipod in the first place, then why would it be illegal to sell that ipod loaded with music after you want to upgrade? (Note that this is very different from doing this as a business, ie, buying an ipod and loading up with music for the purpose of selling it, which is basically pirating music--here I'm talking about a case where you are selling the ipod anyway). A similar question is whether you can sell your original cds after putting them on a hard-drive or whatever. The RIAA's stance is that it is illega, but don't forget that the RIAA won't even concede that it is legal to rip music onto your ipod in the first place.

I think you are confusing 'illegal' with 'likely to get prosecuted'. Just because a private individual is unlikely to end up in court doesn't mean that taking a copy of the music you own and selling the copy someone else is legal. Likewise retaing a copy of ripped music after selling CD's isn't legal either. It doesn't mean you will ever be caught/prosecuted, but it's still illegal.

Simon

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Except the United States Copyright Act. Seriously, it's section 106.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkadelic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you are confusing 'illegal' with 'likely to get prosecuted'. Just because a private individual is unlikely to end up in court doesn't mean that taking a copy of the music you own and selling the copy someone else is legal. Likewise retaing a copy of ripped music after selling CD's isn't legal either. It doesn't mean you will ever be caught/prosecuted, but it's still illegal. Simon

No. Read Section 109 of the Act

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

If copying cds onto your ipod is "lawful", then you can "sell or otherwise dispose" of the copy.

I'm afraid the RIAA has done too good of a job of convincing people that any time the a copyright holder doesn't get paid for copying, that's a copyright violation.

 

[StevieDvd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. Read Section 109 of the Act Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. If copying cds onto your ipod is "lawful", then you can "sell or otherwise dispose" of the copy. I'm afraid the RIAA has done too good of a job of convincing people that any time the a copyright holder doesn't get paid for copying, that's a copyright violation.

I would hazard a guess that the definition of legal copy is in relation to the material purchased being a 'copy' as in a production copy of a master CD. An individual would be making a copy of a copy so to speak and therefore not a lawful copy.

You can sell on your shop purchased copy but not a copy of it. i doubt whther the US legal system takes that much of a difference to the copyright issue as other 'copyright civilised' countries/

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade /img/forum/go_quote.gif If copying cds onto your ipod is "lawful", then you can "sell or otherwise dispose" of the copy.

Again, I don't think that this conclusion necessarily follows from Section 109, because Section 109 applies to right established in Section 106(3). If you make a copy pursuant to some other provision of the Act (i.e., the fair use exceptions in Section 107), Section 109 does not apply to those copies.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. Read Section 109 of the Act Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieDvd /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would hazard a guess that the definition of legal copy is in relation to the material purchased being a 'copy' as in a production copy of a master CD. An individual would be making a copy of a copy so to speak and therefore not a lawful copy. You can sell on your shop purchased copy but not a copy of it. i doubt whther the US legal system takes that much of a difference to the copyright issue as other 'copyright civilised' countries/

I think that StevieDvd is right. Section 109 appears to be an exception to the general provision in Section 106(3) regarding distribution of copies. Section 106(3) provides the copyright holder with the exclusive right "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending ...." Section 109 is a codification of the first sale doctrine, which allows a purchaser to resell a lawfully-obtained copy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade /img/forum/go_quote.gif If copying cds onto your ipod is "lawful", then you can "sell or otherwise dispose" of the copy.

Again, I don't think that this conclusion necessarily follows from Section 109, because Section 109 applies to right established in Section 106(3). If you make a copy pursuant to some other provision of the Act (i.e., the fair use exceptions in Section 107), Section 109 does not apply to those copies.

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Again, I don't think that this conclusion necessarily follows from Section 109, because Section 109 applies to right established in Section 106(3). If you make a copy pursuant to some other provision of the Act (i.e., the fair use exceptions in Section 107), Section 109 does not apply to those copies.

No, Section 109 does not just apply to rights established in 106(3), but is "notwithstanding" Section 106(3), which means that you can just disregard Section 106(3) if it conflicts with 109. And, the first sale doctrine applies to other aspects of the act like fair use. For example, if I buy a book that has copies of passages from another book (via fair use), I can sell re-sell that book under the first sale doctrine even though that book contains material copied from another book (which, but for fair use, such copied material would be a copyright violation).

My point is that a plain reading of the statute does not at least prohibit you from selling a loaded ipod. Of course, the RIAA would argue otherwise, but why should I accept their legal interpretation over an unsettled legal issue?

 

[YamiTenshi]

From my reading of the statutes, it is not per se illegal to sell an iPod loaded with music. It seems that if a person under the First Sales Doctrine can sell an iPod with the music loaded, if the seller does not keep a copy for himself. Ex. Seller buys music off of iTunes and loads it into his iPod, but does not have any other copy of the files (not even back-up copies on his hard drive) he can sell that preloaded iPod to Buyer legally.

However, it is illegal to sell a preloaded iPod, if Seller keeps a copy for himself. Therefore, if Seller rips his own CDs on to the iPod, sells the iPod to Buyer, but keeps the CDs for himself, that is illegal.