I didn’t mean to make that subject line look like a doctoral dissertation. I was just wondering what peoples’ thoughts are on the “used” market for those digital files that have been purchased through download as opposed to those extracted from physical media. Or is there some fine print in the download agreements we all consent to without reading that prohibits such things? Not that I’m looking to do that sort of thing. It just occurred to me that there’s always been a healthy secondary market for physical media of all kinds, ever since they were invented, and I wondered if anything comparable will ever develop for raw data.
2 Likes
This is an interesting question and was addressed a couple of years ago:
2 Likes
I agree this is an interesting question.
If the current answer is: no, you can’t sell “used” music purchased legally as a digital download, I would say that’s a poor answer. Digital downloads that cannot be re-sold on the second hand markets have less value to the buyer compared to physical media, since physical media can be re-sold. If downloads were priced at 50% or 33% of physical, then the buyer is getting compensated for that lost value. Digital downloads are not substantially less expensive than physical media, though, so the value equation still favors physical.
Of course this all varies with legal jurisdiction, download platform, download format, etc. iTunes in the USA is only one context.
Ebooks are not priced significantly below physical books, but contain DRM. I am not aware of a legitimate secondary market.
The difficulty is an audio file is easily copied and what people want to “sell” will often be an illicit copy.
The same risk exists with physical CDs but at least they are selling something physical (we see people here ripping to a server and then reporting selling the CDs, or offering a server/player for sale advertising it comes with lots of music already loaded).
I do not have a fair solution.
2 Likes
You’re right, of course. The marketplace is designed, not for good-faith customers, but rather against would-be violators of copyright law. Why we can’t have nice things, and so forth…
2 Likes
It’s pretty simple. Read the T&C. Here are Qobuz, Clause 20.1.3
Send a file to someone else and you are breaking French law, and you agreed not to when you signed up.
2 Likes
I’ll have to make sure my wife understands that when I die, my music files can’t be given to anyone else, unlike my LP and digital discs. 
Philosophically Speaking…
The irony is that digital files:
- Don’t degrade
- Cost nothing to replicate
- And yet are treated as less ownable than a scratched CD from a pawn shop.
I think the root of this paradox lies in how the industry—and by extension our legal frameworks—views ownership versus licensing. When you buy a physical CD, you own that object, defects and all. You can resell it, trade it, lend it to friends or even donate it to a thrift store. That secondary market has been thriving since vinyl, cassette, and CD were first rolled out.
But with digital downloads, what you actually buy is a license to access the file. In most EULAs or Terms of Service (yes, those pages we never read), there’s typically fine print stating that you’ve purchased a non-transferable, revocable license. That clause effectively shuts down any used-market concept—no matter how ethical your intentions are—because the right to use the file can be revoked or limited at the provider’s whim.
From the perspective of music distribution labels, this model makes sense: labels want to maintain control over revenue streams, prevent file-sharing, and ensure that each listener pays for access. But it creates a philosophical tension: if bits never wear out, why can’t they change hands like banknotes or baseball cards?
2 Likes
I disagree MaryHorner.
To your first point, resistance to degradation is at best theoretical. In practical terms, the digital file must be stored on some medium. Whether it’s on HDD, SSD, optical disc or some other medium, it’s subject to the failure rate of that particular medium.
There’s always a ‘replication cost’ whether it be the cost of the copying application (software), physical medium on which the copies are stored or the electrical energy required to operate and maintain the medium.
Your last point is probably the most controversial. How do you define ‘ownable’? Legally speaking, you may own the media on which the files are stored but you do not own the ‘interlectual property’ embodied in the recording of the musical work. You are only licensed to play the media on your audio reproduction device. Strictly speaking you may not even duplicate the recording for backup puposes.
So from a functional point of view, I don’t think consuming music as digital files is any different than that as a CD or even as a vinyl disc.
I fully agree with you Mary!
They can’t be given away? Like in an estate? I thought the issue was selling them for financial gain. I’m wrong again. I will have to make my purchased downloads self destruct like a mission impossible message.
The only CD I owned that failed was when my house was ransacked by thieves. All my gear and speakers were stolen, and my CD rack was toppled over. Only one CD was damaged, but unfortunately it was the most vaulable CD in my collection. Mobile Fidelity’s Muddy Waters Folk Singer. $125