Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights

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

> 
> Hi,
>      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 
> sale.

I have to disagree.  I didn't obtain just a physical media, I obtained the
copy of music.  If I copy it to the MD, I have two physical copies, but
only one legal copy.  This is ok since, what am I going to do, listen to
both copies at once?

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
transferring my right to a copy more than the physical media.  I blank CD
is worth about $0.16 retail at microcenter this week, that's not what I
paid for, I paid for the music.  If I sell it, I am selling the
music.  Content owners may like to tie the media to the content, but the
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.
 
>      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?

I think that when you sell your right to your copy, that includes all
physical copies you made, including all backups, etc.  If it isn't this
way, I think it certainly should be, or it would be unfair on the content
producer's side.  I could buy lots of CDs, copy them to CD-R and then sell
them at the used Cd-store.  I would think this would be illegal, as well
as unethical.  It's just that the solution the MPAA has (no copying at
all, you have to always use the origional media, in an approved player) is
also unacceptable.

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.

 -- noah silva 

> > 	Cheers,
> 	Bruce.
>