RE: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c)infringementcase

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

> No, think about it.  What if "the problem" is software and music companies
> wrapping everything in a "rental agreement" and no sale ever taking place?
> 
> Couldn't this really be consumer protection legislation?
> 
> And if we consider that they MUST be bound by the first sale doctrine,
> then it's even more benefit to the public.
> 
> Understand that rental is really just usury and is BAD for the
> public... that is to say, being able to rent a CD and NOT buy it hurts
> people.

This is true, but being able to rent it and/or buy it is a benefit.
You can rent movies, but you can still buy them.
You can rent CDs in japan, but easily still buy them.  (though I might
mention they cost more, like $30 each, I don't know if that is a cause or
effect of the renting).

>  They're out the money and, at the end of the rental term, are out
> the goods.  It's exactly the evil we see in Microsoft's .NET (and the
> reason nobody's interested in getting on board).

 How is microsoft planning to do this if the rental is illegal.

 I might add that blockbuster also rents software.. all sorts of video
games.  Is someone going to tell me that video games aren't software?!

As an aside, if the restriction [against rental] is in the first sale
doctrine, it would seem not to affect the origional owner.

 -- noah silva