New laws stifle second-hand music merchants

From the Scientific American sidebar:

” NEW YORK (Billboard) – Independent merchants selling and buying used CDs across the United States say they are alarmed by stepped-up pawn-broker-related laws recently enacted in Florida and Utah and pending in Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

In Florida, the new legislation requires all stores buying second-hand merchandise for resale to apply for a permit and file security in the form of a $10,000 bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In addition, stores would be required to thumb-print customers selling used CDs, and acquire a copy of state-issued identity documents such as a driver’s license. Furthermore, stores could issue only store credit — not cash — in exchange for traded CDs, and would be required to hold discs for 30 days before reselling them.”

more->

Treated like criminals for wanting to exchange your old, well-loved and listened music for a newer, eclectic collection? Or maybe you came into a bunch of music you just don’t care for, and want to turn some junk into some treasure. There seems to be something wrong with that to me. I guess the problem they’re trying to address is the problem of illegal copying.

You see, you can easily buy a CD (used or new), take it home and burn it, and return it to the store as used- Sometimes even getting cash for it. It is currently against federal law to refund a person’s money if they return a newly purchased CD- they can only be exchanged for an copy of the exact same CD. This is to prevent the theft of music from vendors and distributors.

And that I understand, for those CDs come directly from an inventory. But when a person brings in used CDs, they are adding to a store’s inventory, creating something that wasn’t there before. Something that’s already been sold, accounted for, and made profit. If a store decides to take in a used CD (as they DO have discretion, remember), they do so because they think they can make a turn-around on it. Sell it for cheaper, yes, but also for a second time.

It simply looks to me like the government wants a piece of this action. It already has it’s hands buried deep in the profits made the first time around the CD is sold, so why not the second? I wouldn’t be surprised if the RIAA was behind this somehow.

These laws aren’t about illegal music distribution at all, they’re about taxing what was not before taxed. For good reason. It’s pawn.

I’m not sure I fully understand it all, but I do know it’s a bit ridiculous.