Fun with last.fm API

I am currently writing a program in python (using pylast) to analyze my last.fm plays and other data. I'm not sure currently everything I want it to do, but I would eventually like something that will chart plays over time for artists, tags, or all tracks over time. Normally, I wouldn't have posted something on it now, but to get my API access credentials from last.fm, I need to link to a site, so I will update this post as the project develops.
Music and Math ftw.
http://www.last.fm/api/account

EDIT: Here is my first Project: Tag percentages

An interesting case of digital property

Apparently, there is a new site called ReDigi that allows users to upload their unwanted, legally-acquired music tracks for credit, and resell these "used" tracks for less than most retail digital music stores. Apparently, they have an algorithm for determining if a track is the original file  I hadn't heard of this site until Ars Technica did an article on the RIAA's expected negative response. They are currently demanding ReDigi cease and desist, pay restitution, and delete all content from their servers.

The interesting part here though is the legal philosophy. ReDigi claims protection under the right to sell provision:

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
Copyright Act, Section 109(a).

 The RIAA claims that in the process of acquiring the files from end-users, ReDigi is making a copy of the file, and therefore engaging in copyright infringement. Let's look at the actual technical level as to what is going on. When you move a digital file from one place to another (on different computers or the same, and independent of the technology used to transport), the data is read from the hard drive and copied into memory. It is then copied from memory to its destination, and then deleted from memory, and then deleted from the original hard drive location. Thus, the RIAA is technically right in saying that ReDigi is making a copy of the file. However, this same process occurs anytime you work with any digital files. Under this argument, Apple commits copyright infringement every time someone buys a track from their website, and the end user does every time they listen to the track or copy it to their device. So the question is, in a digital world, what constitutes a particular copy?

When a user buys a track from Amazon, he is the legal owner of the particular copy. If he were to send a copy to a friend, that would be unauthorized distribution, and the recipient would not have legal ownership of the file. However, it would be highly unreasonable to claim that copying the file for personal use, such as moving it to other devices or playing it do not fall under fair use, considering that is why he bought the track in the first place. Do the same rules for transfer of ownership apply to digital objects the same way they apply to physical ones? According to the copyright law referenced above:

“Phonorecords” are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “phonorecords” includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed. Copyright Act, Section 101.

Digital music files are not "material objects" and thus cannot fall under the Copyright Act, and thus, presumably there is no law regarding the transfer of ownership of digital files. Should these rights still apply? The RIAA's biggest legitimate concern is that it would be impossible to prove original ownership of files. This is because it is much easier to forge digital files than physical objects. If you placed meta-data in the file with regards to ownership, this could easily be removed, manipulated, or forged. You could protect these files with DRM software, but I have already discussed at length how this only hurts the legitimate owners, is easily overcome, and therefore drives people to piracy. Furthermore, I don't think we socially expect this right (and by socially, I mean the digital society). Admittedly, when I first heard of what ReDigi was doing, I laughed, because it seems absurd to think that you can prove legal ownership of data in a society like the internet where the entire goal is the spread and reproduction of data.

So, in a way, I guess I am actually defending the RIAA for once. Let me close with my thoughts on how the case should actually go, however. The RIAA has a case not in terms of their claim that by uploading files to their servers that ReDigi is making illegal copies, but instead in that there is not legal justification for the transfer of ownership of digital files. However, ReDigi should not be held responsible ex post facto, and the dying record industry certainly does not need restitution, and should not be able to dismantle a legitimate business the way they are trying.