Posted on 03/20/2013 11:55:59 AM PDT by nickcarraway
It’s the same with beer: you don’t buy it, you rent it!
copyright means just that...You can’t copy my book and sell it. Owners of the copyright and publishers are paid by the unit.
Redigi will lose this case because they’re claiming their software does something it cannot possibly do. There’s no way to prevent people from keeping a copy of the song. there’s too many loopholes available in the technology. The concept itself is interesting and probably should be legal, but the nature of file based property is that all sales are copies, and copying is exactly what copyright law is supposed to control.
Who gives a care if it’s legal. Do it anyway. Copyright law is idiotic, and at least you bought it legally the first time.
If you buy an MP3 and listen to it in the, and there are passengers, you a breaking the law, because those passaengers didn’t pay the owners of the copyright for it. They are stealing the song.
So if I have a yard sale and sell some of my old books, the Association of American Publishers will consider me a “criminal”? Nice.
It really doesn’t matter that it’s a digital copy v. a physical one. Legally, the principle is the same. You should have the right to sell it. As long as they make a reasonable effort to make sure there is not a copy of it on the computer with a search program or something, that is adequate.
Even with physical CDs, there is no way to ensure you didn’t make a copy of the movie or CD prior to selling it.
There is simply no way to do so. There is no way to ensure you didn’t take a photo of every page of a book before you sold it.
The fact that it’s easier to make a copy with a completely digital copy is irrelevant to the legal principles.
Garth Brooks didn’t even want stores to be able to sell used CDs.
The ruling went in your favor. You can sell your books.
Barnes and Noble’s monopoly over school textbook sales at universities needs to be investigated. It’s called price fixing.
If you have and old MP5 you want to sell let me know.
Let me google that for you - Internet online book sellers.
Microsoft has argued that you buy a LICENSE to use their software, not the physical software itself and that you have no right of resale.
MS even used to shut down ebay sales of SEALED software if it came bundled with a computer and you are not an authorized vendor for the software title.
Bill Gates apparently doesn’t have enough money even though he insists that death panels are a good idea for the peons and that “you” aren’t paying enough taxes.
No, you could always do that under the "first sale" doctrine (a copyright holder gets to collect its royalty only the first time the copyrighted thing gets sold). No one ever disputed that so long as you bought your books in the U.S.
The issue in this case came about because textbooks are subsidized and/or price controlled in some foreign countries, so it created an arbitrage opportunity for people who could buy books overseas and re-sell them in the U.S. The specific issue before the Court yesterday was whether the "first sale" of a copyrighted item means only the first sale in the U.S.; the Court ruled (6-3) that a first sale anywhere counts.
Oh, yeah, I have the complete works of the Doodletown Pipers and Yoko Ono on H&K. Let me know how much you are willing to pay.
Yeah, it’s a pity you can’t just download an MP5 from PirateBay. Yet.
I don’t know if I buy that that arbitrage is so possible. If you buy a textbook cheaper in Thailand, and sell it for more in the U.S., you are adding a lot to the cost in transporting it. Sure, this girl did it as a one-off, but is there evidence this is cost effective for some large scale enterprise?
So, what, under your theory, selling of any used CD is now illegal because there could be a copy out there somewhere?
The question really becomes: Can copyright holders hold buyers to the license scheme? Because you do not buy a copy of a track off of iTunes, you pay a one time fee to license a digital copy of it, which you're permitted to do various things with (including burning it to a CD in some cases.)
Does that license survive scrutiny, or is it like every other attempt to use the forced license scheme: A sales technique that has no standing in the court of law.
I think Redigi has a long road ahead of them, but I don't think they'll lose out of hand. They've attempted to do due diligence, which is far more than any used CD seller anywhere does. That example could be what tips the scales in this case.
All I know is that the U.S. publishing industry thought it was a possibility, and spent a lot of money (way more than the amount of damages claimed in this case) to bring the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.