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:
> 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).

Just like some video tapes that cost $89+ because they're intended ONLY to
be sold to rental outfits.  Videos only become available for
"sell-through" if they're assured certain sales numbers or if they didn't
move well in the rental market.

> >  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.

They're planning on doing it with LICENSING, but hopefully the courts have
started to see the light here and will prevent it... or make it such an
obvious contract that prospective Microsoft customers will just avoid it.

>  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?!

Yeah, that makes no sense to me, either.

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

No, it's considered an exception to first sale because the ability to rent
is explicit in first sale.  It applies to everyone.

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