dslreports logo
MPAA: Letting Consumers Resell Videos Would 'Deter Innovation'
Recently the U.S. House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and the Internet held a hearing on the issue of "digital resales," or the ability for consumers to resell copies of films, games, music or other content they've already purchased. Needless to say, the MPAA testified that this shouldn't be allowed, as it would kill innovation in the content sector:
quote:
“A new government mandate requiring creators to allow reselling of licensed Internet content would undermine incentives to create, reduce consumer choices, and deter innovation,” Fried argues. "Forcing creators to allow resale of Internet content they license would either require creators to substantially raise prices or discourage them from offering flexible, Internet-based models in the first place,” he adds.
In other words, creating innovative, flexible, Internet-based models for content would clearly kill innovative, flexible, Internet-based models for content (or something like that). If you want to trade purchased content, the MPAA believes, you'd better stick to the offline world.
view:
topics flat nest 
wkm001
join:2009-12-14

wkm001

Member

The current model is flexible?

'discourage them from offering flexible, Internet-based models in the first place"

I call BS on that!

Ask the RIAA how sticking to a dying business model is working out for them.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: The current model is flexible?

If you ask them they will say it's working just fine...

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

Pirate515

Premium Member

Re: The current model is flexible?

said by battleop:

If you ask them they will say it's working just fine...

If anything, it looks like RIAA and most of its members finally woke up and for the most part decided to join the 21st century. As far as I can see, most major outlets that sell digital music tracks to own such as iTunes and Amazon offer DRM-free stuff. Yes, they still tag the tracks with purchaser's account info, so if you were to purchase something and then it ends up being traded on P2P, you might hear from RIAA, but technically, there's nothing to prevent you from sharing these tracks with others or playing them across multiple devices.

Streaming services, such as Pandora, Spotify, Beats Music and iTunes radio are still encrypted, but these are either free/ad supported or cost much less than purchasing stuff to own.

As of lately, MPAA has been the king of bitching and moaning about piracy. RIAA still does it as well, but not nearly as much as they did 10-15 years ago, and much, much less compared to MPAA.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

6 recommendations

Kearnstd to wkm001

Premium Member

to wkm001
the entertainment industry, If they had any more spin you could use them in place of the Gravitron at a county fair.

Kuro
@75.151.50.x

1 recommendation

Kuro

Anon

What wont deter innovation

Seems like anything useful or beneficial to the customer would deter innovation.

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH

1 recommendation

buzz_4_20

Member

Yes.

Why don't they give us a list of innovations that they are holding back.

Seems all innovations are from companies outside the MPAA. And are all just mirrors of what pirates have been doing for years.

NickD
Premium Member
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ

1 recommendation

NickD

Premium Member

Re: Yes.

iTunes probably wouldn't exist without Napster showing that people want only one song from an album.

diablo18926
R.I.P. Donald Lee Wise
join:2011-04-21
Friendly, WV

diablo18926

Member

I think I'd start

being scared of even selling genuine copies of anything anymore.

I sold my xbox 360 games in a yard sale last year but since this piracy stuff is getting so hot and heavy, I think i better not sell my genuine copies of DVD's or games anymore.

Yes their genuine but does that mean anything to the MPAA or RIAA? No they don't want to see companies that's being stolen from loose the battle against piracy with the help from them.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

3 recommendations

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: I think I'd start

The first sale doctrine has been around for years, and these clowns would like nothing more than to either take it away from you or convince you that it isn't real. Don't let them win. If you want to sell your DVD's, then do it. Stick your finger right in their eye. It's your legal right, so stand up for it.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: I think I'd start

I imagine this is why the MPAA sees some messed up perfect world where a video disc is somehow registered to the player its played on and you of course have limited activations before the disc is useless.

I know the console games industry tried this and they got kicked in the nuts for it. But movies and music do not have such a strong community on the consumer side of things.

kevinds
Premium Member
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB

kevinds to ISurfTooMuch

Premium Member

to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:

If you want to sell your DVD's

This is why I quit buying computer games

I only buy downloads if they are really cheap, like 80+% off

Bought a game a few days ago on Steam because it was $0.64, had it been normal price, no way

If I can buy a game and resell it, I might be more inclined to buy digital downloads, but if a digital download is the same price or even a little less than a 'boxed' console game, I'll buy the disk every time.

Already been burnt by buying software that, either the DRM management has been shut down, or more recently, software pulled from the Play Store, I can't even install it anymore.

Little off topic, but yes, we need to be able to resell our digital copies, Steam is already kind of setup for this, just not stuff in the inventories.

Anybody want to start a "We the People", I'll sign
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to diablo18926

Member

to diablo18926
said by diablo18926:

I sold my xbox 360 games in a yard sale last year but since this piracy stuff is getting so hot and heavy, I think i better not sell my genuine copies of DVD's or games anymore.

A while back I was in a game store that carried almost exclusively used games. I bought some used computer games. When I got home I discovered that the first game I picked was a "Steam" game, even though it wasn't by Valve and this fact wasn't listed anywhere on the package. By a Steam game, I mean it has to be registered on Steam before you're allowed to play it, and once registered, it is forever tied to that account, making the physical copy useless to anyone else. Another of the games also had online activation with a different company.

I ended up returning them and the store understood why. I tried to do the legal thing and bought legitimate copies, but got punished for it. I should have just downloaded pirated copies of the games.
dra6o0n
join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON

dra6o0n

Member

Re: I think I'd start

It's much cheaper to buy the games online, seriously. Where as used game sells for a marked up to half of the original game's value, sometimes you find games on Steam sales marked down to 80% off.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul

Member

Re: I think I'd start

said by dra6o0n:

It's much cheaper to buy the games online, seriously. Where as used game sells for a marked up to half of the original game's value, sometimes you find games on Steam sales marked down to 80% off.

I have a moral objection to the fact that every game bought through Steam has a built in killswitch;

»www.geek.com/games/valve ··· 1327929/

I'm not going to pay money for a game that I need some company's permission to play. Not to mention needing Steam running in the background eating up a portion of the CPU for no other purpose other than to enforce Valve's DRM.

Plus there's the fact that Steam can retroactively change the minimum requirements for a game, because they keep updating Steam's requirements and the games that are tied to it won't run without it. At the moment, Steam still runs on XP, but what about when Valve forces an update and it starts requiring Windows 7 to run? What happens to all the games, that are tied to Steam, but which have problems under Win7? Is Valve going to personally patch each and every game that no longer works properly?

kevinds
Premium Member
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB

kevinds to dra6o0n

Premium Member

to dra6o0n
It is not cheaper to buy game downloads...

Yes, sometimes they go on sale, but so do the physical copies
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000

Member

I can see both sides of the argument.

The Movie/TV industry charges less (sometimes a lot less) for a digital version of a movie (or tv show) than if you bought it on dvd/bluray. If people could sell or give away their digital purchases that's less money in their pockets (assuming the people they sold/gave it to would of opted to buy it directly if the resale system didn't exist). If it dropped sales of a movie from 70000 units to 60000 units, then I could see them raising the price to compensate for the lost sales.

Realistically. I don't think it would make much of a difference. Whatever method they come up with for transferring a license would probably be more difficult than pirating. Thus people would pirate who already pirate and it wouldn't impact sales that much.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: I can see both sides of the argument.

The problem is that the same argument has been used against non-digital sales. Content owners have claimed in the past that used CD/DVD/book/etc sales impact sales of new items. They might be right, but First Sale Doctrine states that once I purchase X, I have the right to use X as I see fit, including selling X to someone else. Of course, my rights to use X as I see fit end when I sell it to someone else and their rights to use X as they see fit start.

(As a side note: This is how Netflix's DVD service operated even when the MPAA didn't like them operating. Netflix bought DVDs of movies and then rented them out. They didn't need to buy special "renter's copies.")

The MPAA has tried claiming that First Sale Doctrine doesn't exist on DVDs/Blu-Rays because you are only buying a "non-transferable license" for the video, yet this license seems tied to the disc (no replacement disc if yours is damaged), and they keep advertising disc ownership. ("Own it on Blu-Ray today!")

All extending First Sale Doctrine to digital versions would do is enable people to transfer their "ownership" of a digital copy to someone else. Yes, this might result in "lost sales" in that the person wouldn't be buying a fresh copy from the MPAA, but if you claim those are lost sales, then used DVD sales are "lost sales" also.

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH
(Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition
Ruckus R310

3 recommendations

buzz_4_20

Member

Re: I can see both sides of the argument.

Greed:
That's the bottom line here.
Not being allowed to resell something you bought because it eats into sales of "New" sales is just that, GREED.
It would be like saying you can't sell a car to someone after you buy it.
It's like saying data on you cell phone is somehow different from tethered data.
It's not. It's just another way that companies are tying to screw over the consumer and try to corner us into a place where we can only buy brand new on the companies terms.
These are the same people that ban rainwater collection, ban gardens from front yards ETC.
They'd love nothing more than to pass a law that requires you buy their products above all others.

Remember when products used to be well made and lasted... well that's not very profitable is it? So now you don't see much of that.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

1 recommendation

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: I can see both sides of the argument.

said by buzz_4_20:

Remember when products used to be well made and lasted... well that's not very profitable is it? So now you don't see much of that.

We're running into that right now. We have an old hot water heater in our house. It's 18 years old and just now showing signs of dying. The new hot water heaters say they last for 6 years. So every 6 years I'll need to spend $400+ to put a new hot water heater in my house?!!! Home ownership is expensive enough without replacing a major appliance nearly twice a decade.

JonnyNewman
@76.16.77.x

JonnyNewman

Anon

Re: I can see both sides of the argument.

Replace the anode rod regularly. More frequently if you have harder water which you'll notice by the speed the rod is eaten away. These days, the tanks are thinner and the rods are the best thing you can do to keep the tank from deteriorating.

Hot water manufacters (there are really only two now) are using cheaper lower life and lower quality rods.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: I can see both sides of the argument.

Thanks for the tip. We do have big problems with hard water. Judging by a quick Googling, those rods cost around $10-20. That's a much better option than replacing a $400+ water heater every 6 years.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

1 recommendation

78036364 (banned)

Member

How would it work?

What's stopping me from just making 1000 copies and sell them and keep the original? If I sell a games disc or DVD lose access to that product. Seriously if one wants movie or game they wish to sell later buy a disc.

I will add though since they have no resale value and cost less to produce digital version should be priced much cheaper than the disc version

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: How would it work?

And what happens when no disc version is offered anymore?

Granted, the way we're headed, you won't buy your movies/games/music/etc. You'll rent them from the company for a monthly fee and failing to pay your monthly invoice will result in loss of access to the content you paid for.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

elefante72

Member

Re: How would it work?

Owning "IP" is going away. It will all go to a leased or subscription model. This is the way they get rid of first sale, if you never own the license grant to begin with. Software vendors (adobe, msft, etc) are already going that way and in enterprises they use a subscription or support model.

Once you do that, there is no need to lock said content to a specific device or where or when you see. Then real innovation happens.

There is lots of innovation to happen, however for this model to work content needs to be delivered from the cloud and that little pesky thing like caps makes this proposition a slow starter...

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Re: How would it work?

Oh yeah, innovation. Where you keep paying for everything over and over indefinitely, for life. If you miss a payment, well, you no longer have access to everything you've already paid for many times over. Huzzah.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned) to TechyDad

Member

to TechyDad
said by TechyDad:

And what happens when no disc version is offered anymore?

I'll worry about that when that day comes which probably won't be until when I'm old enough to collect social security

Granted, the way we're headed, you won't buy your movies/games/music/etc. You'll rent them from the company for a monthly fee and failing to pay your monthly invoice will result in loss of access to the content you paid for.

content that you paid less than PENNIES for.

Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium Member
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX

1 edit

Thespis

Premium Member

Re: How would it work?

How do you know it will be "less than PENNIES"?
EDIT: Mr. Guy retracted his post. LOL.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72 to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
Technically that is illegal. With IP for almost any type your are granted a license (right to use) for said IP with varying restrictions. If you transfer the license (disc, etc) through sell to another person at that point you do not have entitlement to that license and by that fact a right to enjoy the content any more.

In fact in copyright law strictly downloading is not the "illegal" part, its uploading (seeding, torrent, hosting) it that is the part that gets you in trouble.

As a society as we move more from production to service to IP we are going to need to come to grips that we are moving to a virtual world and people need to be compensated for what they create. I suggest these laws will become even more draconian rather than innovate our way out of the problem until all these middlemen get squeezed to death.

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

Flyonthewall

Anon

Re: How would it work?

As long as they take production cost into account. It may cost them 10 billion to make a movie (or 100 billion), but how much does it cost to make a download available for sale and feed that to the 7 billion people on this planet? NOTHING in comparison.

It's cheaper for them to actually provide a download than sell a disc, so they make MORE money. More profit.

They just want to head off any resales possibility down the line.

People will NEVER go for licensing a move like they do virus software or OS, since the product is not regularly updated or improved.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: How would it work?

I still want to know how much profit they are making off these films when the films themselves never seem to turn a profit. (See: Hollywood Accounting)
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: How would it work?

said by TechyDad:

I still want to know how much profit they are making off these films when the films themselves never seem to turn a profit. (See: Hollywood Accounting)

yes yes profit is evil. corporations should make shit just to be nice to people. How dare they make money. do you work for a corporation. How long would you have a job if it didn't make a profit?

Anyways it's pretty simple take production cost. add about 30% for promotion. Take US box office and divide by 2. Take international box office times by 15%. Add US box office and international box office. Then subtract that from production/promotion cost. That would give you an idea.

let's take a movie from this year that's no longer playing in theaters. Captain America 2.

Production cost $170 mil. Estimated promotion cost $57 mil total $227 million

US box office $260 mil. Studio take $130 mil
International BO $454 mil. Studio take $68 mil

Total studio take $198 mil

So just by box office alone Capt America 2 has lost $29 million. of course there is DVD sales and rentals, rights fees for cable, streaming etc, licensing money from toys, posters, clothing etc etc

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

2 recommendations

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: How would it work?

I think you misunderstand "Hollywood Accounting." This isn't a "profits are evil" thing. I have no problem with companies making massive profits on great things they made. This is big studios claiming that movies they made - movies which grossed huge numbers - actually lost money. Usually when directors or others whose payment is tied to movie profits start asking for their money.

The famous recent example was when the studios claimed they didn't need to pay Peter Jackson and others because the Lord of the Rings trilogy lost a ton of money despite having pulled in around $3 billion in box office revenues.

So the studios are saying both "these movies aren't making money so there's no profits to share with the people who help make the movies" and "if customers can sell their digital copies, we won't make profits and the people who make movies won't innovate." Translation for both: "We want to keep all of the money and don't care about either the people who actually make the movies or the people who buy the movies."
TechyDad

1 recommendation

TechyDad to elefante72

Premium Member

to elefante72
Actually, I believe downloading is illegal also. The problem is that it is nearly impossible to enforce. If I were from the MPAA and wanted to prove that you downloaded a movie, I'd need to get one or more ISPs to give me their log files and possibly customer records. Obviously, the ISP wouldn't do this without a court order. The court would need some clear proof before approving this. Even after all of this effort, I might be able to sue you for one illegal download.

Instead, the content owners have focused on the uploaders under the theory that taking out a few big uploaders will a) scare the smaller ones away and b) reduce the availability of content for the downloaders to get. (Whether this tactic is successful or not is another discussion entirely.)

Of course, there's much confusion about upload/download in the media and it doesn't help that someone can think they are downloading a file and, thanks to BitTorrent settings, also be uploading it at the same time to someone else. They get caught for the uploading but think it was for the downloading.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: How would it work?

Yep. And it is much more clear-cut when someone is illegally distributing content (whether for profit or not) than just possessing a digital file for what could be only the duration of the download.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to elefante72

Member

to elefante72
said by elefante72:

Technically that is illegal. With IP for almost any type your are granted a license (right to use) for said IP with varying restrictions.

Why exactly is it that "IP" receives such generous protections, but that these don't apply to any other type of product?

If I build and sell a computer, why don't I get to dictate what the buyer can use it for, and forbid them to resell it? If I paint someone's house, why don't I have the right to come back later and remove that paint if I feel they've violated my terms and conditions? If I sell someone a defective product and it causes damage to their home, why can't I absolve myself of all liability like software companies can?
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned) to elefante72

Member

to elefante72
said by elefante72:

In fact in copyright law strictly downloading is not the "illegal" part,

Bullshit.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
said by 78036364:

What's stopping me from just making 1000 copies and sell them and keep the original? If I sell a games disc or DVD lose access to that product. Seriously if one wants movie or game they wish to sell later buy a disc.

Such a system will need a whole new level of DRM. You see, first they have to break the computer's functionality by making it so that you can't copy the files. Or that the copies won't work. Then they have to add a special mechanism to transfer this broken functionality to someone else.

It's like first making you wear an airtight helmet so that they can sell you air, then adding a special tube so that you can share your air with someone else.

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

1 recommendation

tc1uscg

Member

But what about...

Oh, so when blockbuster and the like were "reselling" previously viewed purchased movies, they were violating the law? Why not put in a stipulation that as a consumer, I can hold said license for as long as I want, then, when I'm ready to relinquish said license, I allow the holder to purchase the license back (refund) or release rights of the media allowing the consumer to recover review spent on holding the license. This can go back and forth and as long as the MPAA doesn't force movie makers to produce content on rewritable media, I'm not selling the movie, I'm just recovering my cost of what I paid for the packaging and the disc itself (this could be applied for cost of the data used to download said content). Pretty thin but at least I tried.

Evergreener
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO

Evergreener

Member

Whatever

I haven't been to a movie theater in 5 years now and I may rent a feature-length Hollywood movie once every six months or so via iTunes. Netflix gets some money each month, primarily for access to their selection of Documentaries, but that is about it.

The MPAA needs end their witch hunt and focus on delivering better content that folks want to pay for and better ways to deliver it when folks want to watch it.

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

1 recommendation

Flyonthewall

Anon

Really stupid of them to think this.

Guess selling your car should be halted too, they'll stop making better cars. Homes should be for life, no sales, they might stop making design advances....

They are really getting out of hand now and someone should slap them down.

It's one thing for them to get all pissy about people taking stuff without paying for it, but once it's paid for they don't own that copy anymore, and if I want to sell it to someone, or (likely worse in their minds) give it away, they have no more right to it. They've been paid for that already. My CD should be able to change hands infinitely, and if I want to loan it out that's my right to do so.

Man they really need to step into the 21st century with the rest of us, just like the promo at the front of the movie says "21st Century Fox".
posthaste
join:2001-05-20
Champaign, IL

1 recommendation

posthaste

Member

Detering Innovation

In other words, people won't work, or "create," unless allowed to continue making obscene profits.

The pigs feeding at the Hollywood trough are eventually going to have to accept less.

••••
mikesco8
join:2006-02-17
Southwick, MA

mikesco8

Member

The problem with thier greedy viewpoint

If they sold digital content at a much reduced price from the physical media, since it has no ownership transfer rights, they do not have to ship or manufacture a disc, or have to inventory it, or take up retail shelf space, it might make sense.
However I find it relatively easy to purchase physical media at a much lower price, especially when the content gets to be a few years old, I can often buy a bluray for $5-$10 which often includes a digital copy while they still want full price for the digital only version... How does this model make any sense? Why should any of us support the digital model? While I will occasionally pay for a disc to digital transfer, I refuse to buy any movies as digital only.

•••

kevinds
Premium Member
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB

kevinds

Premium Member

DRM

I really hope this is allowed soon,

This is the reason I avoid digital purchases as much as possible...

I never would have started buying the Assassin's Creed series, had I not been transfered my brother's copy of the game...
jgNJ
join:2008-05-20
Hightstown, NJ

1 recommendation

jgNJ

Member

Re: MPAA: Letting Consumers Resell Videos Would 'Deter Innovation'

So can a car manufacturer then say you can't sell your car? How about a home builder? Can they prohibit you from selling your house?

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

The MPAA seems to be unable to tell its friends from its enemies.

Assuming I sell my copy of whatever digital good I purchased, It would be the same as having a DVD or CD and selling it to a friend. Assuming I made a copy of said digital good, before selling it, then that's *one* extra copy floating around, and should be regarded as an acceptable loss.

At the other end of the spectrum you have file sharing sites which are distributing 1000's of copies an hour, and the MPAA is freaking out about single copy transfers? Assuming I was a talking head at the MPAA, I would probably be looking at ways to keep people buying legally, not motivate them to go straight to file sharing.

But that's overstating the obvious.
EQ

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: The MPAA seems to be unable to tell its friends from its enemies.

How would you copy the license?

Take for example, a Steam title. If you "sold" you copy to someone else and the license was transferred to their steam account, it wouldn't matter if you still had the files for the title on your hard-drive or even backed up on a DVD. It wouldn't work.
KrK

KrK

Premium Member

This law is urgently needed....

The first sale doctrine needs to be strengthened and applied to "License" purchases.

If I wish to sell my "license" to someone else and transfer my rights to that "IP" then the companies must be forced to support this.

kevinds
Premium Member
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB

kevinds

Premium Member

Re: This law is urgently needed....

This law is urgently needed....
The first sale doctrine needs to be strengthened and applied to "License" purchases.

If I wish to sell my "license" to someone else and transfer my rights to that "IP" then the companies must be forced to support this.

Anyone up for creating a 'We the People' petition?