http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=new-laws-create-second-ha

Now things are getting interesting. The RIAA has hated the sale of used cds forever. There is no doubt that the sale of used cds has cut into the sale of new cds. The RIAA has no problem with a cds ending up as coasters, just don't get in the way of a new sale. I guess I can appreciate both sides of the argument on simple terms.

However, things are more complicated than that.

The RIAA has taken a slightly different approach with the popularity of music downloading (both legalling and illegally). Historically, music is a piece of plastic and that's how we define a "unit" or count it as a product. I'm cool with that. The "ownership" of mp3s is way more complex.

Now the labels are saying that the plastic isn't worth a damn thing.. Okay :confused:

So where does that put us with the issue of mp3 "ownership"?

With a cd, you either own the cd or you don't. If you no longer want to own the "rights" to music, you simply sold your rights to a friend or a used music store. It was a fair system. Granted, people unhappy with an album could sell it to a person who actually wanted the album. The RIAA does lose a sale on the deal, but it makes the most sense economically. Imagine if Ford banned the sale of used Taurus and Escort cars!

The new laws do not specifically say that a cd has zero value, but they make it a mega pain in the ass for me to recoup the value in those cds. If I can't sell my cds, they have no value. If a cd has no value, why the hell should I shell out $15 for a piece of plastic?

I think bureaucracy is shooting itself in the foot.

CD sales still make up a huge percentage of the RIAA's revenue, but it appears that this revenue isn't worth anything....wait

Brandon