[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
- From: Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:50:07 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <082801c1c07e$1e61c220$230110ac@pavilion9995>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
If you sell just your copy?
ok so tonight I go buy a CD.
Tomorrow I copy it to a minidisc.
Saturday I go jogging with my MD player and that MD.
My house burns in a fire while I am gone (and the CD is destroyed).
I get home and go "oh shit!" and I have not enough insurance.
I sell my MD player and the MD.
Did I do something illegal?
a.) It was legal to space shift it.
b.) I have ownership of one copy of the music.
If I sold the CD I am still "distributing" it, and surely that is legal.
what's the difference to sell the MD? I have one license to it, and I
sold it. I own that license, if they stop me from selling it, isn't that
like them stealing it from me?
-- noah silva
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Ernest Miller wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noah silva" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> > > >
> > > > If you have license to a copy, and the right to do what
> > > > you wish with your own copy, then that plan should work.
> > >
> > > The subtitles would be a derivative work and illegal. Copyright law
> > > prohibits copying. If you make a copy and destroy the original, you
> > > have violated copyright law.
> > I don't think so, not if you have a right to space shifting (transferring
> > to a different media). It is supposed to prohibit _illegal_ copying only.
> Spaceshifting is for personal use only. If you spaceshift a CD to an MP3 on
> a CD-R for personal use, you are probably protected. If you then sell or
> distribute that CD-R with MP3s on it, you will find yourself in violation of
> the exclusive rights of both copying and distribution.
> > > I agree that this makes no sense, which is why
> > > I advocate eliminating the "right to copy" as part of copyright law.
> > >
> > > > It is similar to a plan executed by someone who was fed
> > > > up w/ all the (unnecessary) sex in movies. He offered
> > > > a service whereby he edited a movie to make a clean version.
> > > > IIRC either the customer had to send in their copy of
> > > > the tape to be edited, or they bought a copy from him
> > > > (as they would from any other reseller) that he had already
> > > > edited. He did not _make_ copies, he edited existing
> > > > ones.
> > Yes, but editing is still copying, if you skip a scene, you are copying
> > from later in the tape to earlier in the tape, etc. For legal purposes
> > this shouldn't be copying because you have one lisence and you end up with
> > one copy.
> It is not actually clear how they are doing the editing on videotape. If as
> you suggest and is likely, they are copying on the same tape, they may be
> liable or they may not.