[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c) infringementcase
- To: Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c) infringementcase
- From: Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:14:26 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0111021113420.19515-100000@sparcy.internal.lan>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Noah silva wrote:
> Well.. define sham. Non-profit corperations don't turn a profit, but
> their members get paid. You could open a corperation that pays out
> all it's revenues to its employees... am I mising something?
There are different categories of non-profit organization. I have no idea
what the limitations are for who can and cannot rent computer programs and
phonorecords.
> (also, this doesn't apply to videos? Those are "licensed" to
> blockbuster?)
Yeah, this still bugs me. I can't rent a copy of, say, Elvis Costello and
the Brodsky Quartet doing The Juliet Letters on CD, but I can rent the
video.
I can't rent a CD of the soundtrack to Jonathan Demme's Robyn Hitchcock
concert film, Storefront Hitchcock, but I can rent the DVD.
Just nonsense. Why does "phonorecord-with-pictures" get a different
treatment?
> Again, you could sell and accept returns minus a "restocking" fee
> instead.
Right, that's my idea (well, the shop-down-the-way-that-sells-porn's idea,
anyway).
I think that'd be fine.
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme@brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org