[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 15:06:34 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <20020228115057.C20313@babylon-5>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> I think we fundamentally agree on most points but I really do believe that
> the adherence of rights to the particular CD disc that was purchased is
> crucial to ensuring that first sale and fair use rights remain relevant. I
> believe that the studios' testimony in the DeCSS case regarding fair use,
> i.e. "Use a VHS copy for your fair use" derives directly from the view
> that a purchase of a DVD implies a license to a copy in the general sense
> rather than the purchase of a particular, specific copy with attendant
> post-first sale and fair use rights.
I think it implies:
a.) Fair use doesn't have to be of the same quality (which I disagree
b.) They are trying to present an argument which sounds reasonable but one
where they can pull the chair out from under us. (They will stop making
VHS tapes of most things before long).
> If the courts take the view that a purchase implies a license in the
> general sense then I think the studios arguments regarding fair use have
I think it implies _ownership_ of _one copy_ of the material, and rights
to do what I want with that copy including transfer, modify, and resell
> weight and may prevail. On the other hand I believe that if the courts
> take the view that the purchase transaction implies the purchase of a
> particular copy then I blieve that the studios fair use arguments lose any
> relevance since they do not apply to the particular copy that was
I don't think that a particular copy means a particular PHYSICAL copy.
If I pay and download my copy, then there is no physical copy I bought,
just ownership of one copy. I reject that one copy is more valid than
another just because it was commercially produced with a pretty label.
> > If I want to sell the MD or CD, I think they are both equally valid, but
> > the other should be transferred in the deal, or erased/destroyed. I am
> > reality is they are seperate, and will only become more so, as copying
> > becomes more practical and more of a normal activity. MD players are
> > quite popular in Japan. MP3 players are getting fairly popular here.
> As an interesting side-note, it used to be the case (and may still be for
> all I know) that if you were bringing software into Canada (say on a
> CD-ROM) the declared value was the value of the media only.
lol. That's what I do when mailing software internationally
because... software very quickly can devaluate, etc. The price paid isn't
nessisarily the value in my book. Also, the price depends on the market,
often I am sending or receiving something where there is no market for it
there per se. (hence the need to mail it). How much are my vacation
photos on CD-rom worth? They are worth a lot to me, but that copy is
> > They need to start going after people that break the law in individual
> > cases, unstead of people and products that make it easier. Yes it's less
> > efficient, but it's what they should do.
> Absolutely! That's difficult for them or not feasible? Too bad. They chose
> this distribution mechanism, they should deal with the unintended
> consequences of their choice.
> > -- noah silva