Re: [dvd-discuss] Implied License to Watch the Movie

["D. C. Sessions" <dvd(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Friday 02 November 2001 22:37, you wrote:
> I was reading a recent court decision and came across a citation to the
> following case which was interpreted as quoted:
> 
> Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990)
> 
> "Effects Associates stands for the principle that a seller grants a buyer an
> implied license to use a product for the purpose for which the seller sold it
> to the buyer."
> 
> First, can somebody with Lexis/Westlaw access grab this case and email it to
> me.
> 
> Second, this may be a great case to add support to our authorization argument.
> DVD's typically say "for home viewing only", this case would support an implied
> license to access the work for that purpose. This is a pseudo first-sale
> principle as well.

WRT software it's a killer first-sale argument.

The legal theory behind software licenses has always been that
the sold copy (the medium) had to be copied into memory for
execution, and that this fell under the copyright prohibition on
making copies.  Never mind that without this copying operation,
the software is totally unusable for any purpose that justifies a
price beyond that of a blank disk.

What Effects Associates does is make that particular copying
operation fair use, thus not subject to license.

-- 
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+