[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'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:26:31 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Thompson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:19 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: 'dvd-discuss @ eon . law . harvard . edu'
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> On 2002.02.28 10:01 "Ballowe, Charles" wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Noah silva [mailto:email@example.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:50 AM
> > > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> > >
> > > 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?
> > This seems like a bad thing to be saying -- we don't want the
> > copyright mafia to start licensing all content that we buy copies
> > of. We want to own our copies and be allowed to do with them as
> > we please (and if i'm speaking for my self let me know). You own
> > one copy, first sale says you may transfer that one copy to someone
> > else, fair use says you may space shift it for personal use.
> > I see nothing wrong with the selling of your MD, but then again
> > I'm not a court.
> > -Charlie
> A possibly useful distinction that may apply here just
> occurred to
> me. As Charlie states, you have a license to one copy. You
> may space shift
> it for personal use (creating the MD for yourself is fine). You may
> transfer your one copy (selling someone your original CD is
> fine, though
> the status then of the MD is somewhat questionable). If the
> original is
> destroyed though, I don't see how your rights regarding the
> one copy (the
> original) end up being transferred to the new copy (the MD).
> The MD is
> _not_ the same copy as the original. There is no first sale
> attached to it
> since you did not acquire it as a result of a sale: you made the copy
> yourself. Keeping the MD for your own use when the original has been
> destroyed strikes me as absolutely fine, but selling that
> copy strikes me
> as not fine since it is not the copy for which you have
> rights post-first
> The thing that occurs to me though (as I somewhat alluded to
> parenthetically above) is this really calls into question the
> status of
> copies made via fair use but where the original copy has been sold as
> permitted under the doctrine of first sale. On the one hand,
> it seems that
> the copy you made for your personal use is yours in perpetuity, just
> without any attached first sale rights. On the other hand is
> seems like a
> practice of buying a CD, ripping it to MP3s for personal use,
> then selling
> the original would be perfectly legitimate. I don't
> necessarily claim that
> it would be ethical, nor that the courts would necessarily
> view it that
> way but it seems to me that if I were to do this then at
> every step I am
> doing something that is perfectly legal. Any thoughts?
If you sell the original, you are obligated to either
turn over to the new owner or destroy any "personal use"
copies you have made. You no longer have the rights to
the work that made the personal use copies legitimate.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!