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

[Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Noah silva wrote:
> I suppose that's true, since I can sell any particular copy of GPL (or
> whatever) software that I like.  It's just.. would people be willing
> to buy it for very much? ;)

In the days before cheap bandwidth and well-funded archives, the Free
Software Foundation kept things going by selling tapes of GNU Emacs... at
a hefty price (though, not considering what you got and who was usually
paying).

> If renting is still legal, and not a first sale, then couldn't
> companies like adobe effectively get around this by offering their
> software only for rent (say the sale price to rent it for a term of..
> 100 years).

Renting ISN'T legal.  Doesn't matter if you're the copyright holder or
not, Congress has passed a law saying that rental of computer programs and
phonorecords is strictly prohibited.

So Adobe would be breaking the law if they turned their model to a rental
business.

Come to think of it, maybe that is "the problem" Congress solved.  Perhaps
we've been too hard on this law.

It doesn't protect the companies, it protects the public from getting a
"rental" and no sale of their music and programs.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org