[chucksmash]

> As a buyer, why would I buy an iTunes movie from someone else and not from iTunes?

Because it is the same thing, but cheaper.

> And as a seller, why would I sell it at a lower price than what it is on iTunes?

Because otherwise people won't buy it from you, they'll buy it from ITunes.

Even if the lower price doesn't make sense for digital media that aren't degraded through use, lower price (that lets you recoup, say, 90% of what you paid) would be needed to make people go through hassle of not just buying it "new."

[Avicebron]

True, and if the market economy was working as it should. Then if enough people were selling old digital music at lower prices, Itunes would have to lower their prices. Essentially what their doing is anti-competitive.

[adrianN]

You could even imagine an automated system where you buy a song for some two cents and then sell it back after you're done listening to it for a one cent. You could have users make their collections available on a market place and pay them some fraction of the profits you make.

[scarface74]

Music bought on iTunes hasn’t had DRM since 2009

[mattl]

Depends where you’re based. Japan had DRM on iTunes for some time and also DRM-free songs on iTunes were a paid upgrade globally for a while too.

[terinjokes]

The ability to upgrade was only available for songs purchaseable as DRM-free on iTunes. I still have tracks in my library with the DRM because the distributor went out of business, making it impossible to upgrade.

[mattl]

Oh wow. Which tracks?

[shockeychap]

The only problem with this is that with physical media, there's an intrinsic amount of "friction" that prevents gaming the system. It's not convenient to, for example, have five people buy and share one set of DVDs. The hassle of moving the disc around (which gets dramatically worse with distance) incentivizes people to buy their own copy. But digital buying and selling would make it rather easy for one person to "sell" their movie to a friend for next-to-nothing and then "buy" it back when they want to use it. And we can be a thousand miles away with no problem.

There are ways to correct this, such as imposing reasonable floors on the sale price, or not permitting the sale of a title for something like 30 days after a transaction.

I'm just saying that these things would need to be factored into any proper solution, ideally via legislation.

[denton-scratch]

> There are ways to correct this

Those aren't "correcting" anything; the internet came along and stole their lunch. What needs correcting is the business model.

[necovek]

Loaning a copy to a friend, which is what your example basically is, should also be protected by consumer laws.

[shockeychap]

If you're talking about loaning a physical copy of a movie to a friend, sure. We have to make arrangements to get the "thing" from one location to another.

Surely you can understand that freely "loaning" digital copies - with none of the friction involved in physical media transport - would de-incentivize purchasing by others.

If you want that, fine. But that will jack up the price of movies, since a lot fewer of them will be sold.

[samdcbu]

We already have exactly this system for library e-book lending. There is a queue of people on the waitlist for a book and once loan period for the current reader is expires it is automatically loaned (no scare quotes because it is in every way a loan) to the next person in the queue.

I don’t see why the same couldn’t be done for other forms of media. Movies, albums, maybe even software licenses.

This system will likely result in a fairly minor decline in VOD revenue due to fewer individuals purchasing their own digital copy because they are once again able to loan works to others and take advantage of the same sharing of works that was taken for granted with physical media. If someone borrows a friends license to a movie to watch it once instead of being forced by the studios to buy or rent their own copy then there will be some lost revenue but I think that revenue only existed in the first place because of the walled garden scheme of owning nothing that exists right now. I also think if VOD licenses actually had value and guaranteed longevity they would be more appealing to consumers.

[shockeychap]

I don't disagree with any of this. The mechanisms that ensure that only one person at a time can consume the content in question provide appropriate friction to mirror most of the limitations of physical media.

I'm not a fan of the walled gardens of streaming and the you-own-nothing credo that goes with it. I'm just saying that we need to be fair to all sides with the solution.

[necovek]

Even with non-streaming media, I invite you to share a 5GB movie with a friend of yours without any "friction". The best you can probably do is upload to your personal "cloud" (20 minutes? what's your uplink speed?) and share a link for them to download (what's their download speed) and then move it to whatever device they want to watch it on.

Sharing credentials on streaming services has happened exactly because it is the most seamless way to do it.

[necovek]

With streamed digital copies, one can limit simultaneous playback. Simply "loaning" it in a service where you select who do you loan it to will add friction, and considering how any little friction (instead of torrenting or getting BR disks) is keeping people on streaming services anyway, it's unlikely it would move the needle too much.

[cxr]

> Simply "loaning" it in a service where you select who do you loan it to will add friction

Interesting observation! Digital-only copies traded in a form not comprising the embodiment in a physical "vessel" allow for a theoretically efficient handshake-and-exchange process, but in practice, there's lots of friction involved.

Grievance: "Hey, you can't do that! It's too easy!"

Response: "Easy? Have you ever used an app with a 10-foot UI that's controlled by a TV remote?"

See also: <https://xkcd.com/949/> ("File Transfer").

[frankfrankfrank]

The friction you are overlooking would be, e.g., the platform to sell the media and the likely cost to do so. Not only that, but you are also not aware of the fraudulent price that is charged for the media now precisely because the market is a monopolistic fraud. If movies were priced at what they are really worth, they would be some … and easily significantly … lower lower price, e.g., $.50 rent and $2 to buy.

If you want to evaluate how much the movies/content is really worth, just take the price you pay for a streaming service and divide it by the content you consume.

For example; $5 month, divided by 80 hours of viewing (which seems low for most) and you come to $0.06 per hour, or about $0.12 per movie. Using this conservative estimate, are you going to bother selling a digital movie for less than $0.12? No. But that is precisely why the industry has monopolized the market and added DRM, because they want to keep their fraudulent scheme going to deprive people of their earnings.

But what it’s really about is, as instituting a new form of slavery where you are given everything for “free” just like like slave of all other eras, but you are deprived of far more at a far greater intangible cost for it.

[antoinec]

I'd be curious to see if a system like that exists already for some kind of digital asset: secondary sales for something that is not limited in quantity, and can still be bought from the source at a higher price.

[carlgreene]

VST plug-ins have a pretty robust secondary marketplace. See kvraudio.com

[apetresc]

Certain NFT marketplaces have this characteristic.

[LegitShady]

@antoinec

steam does exactly this. you can sell on steam and pay steam their cut, or sell steam keys elsewhere for the same or more money without steam taking a cut.