[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

I won't disagree. Noah's question was "why WAS" this a problem. Is it 
really a problem? The RIAA thought "rentals...we could lose money" and got 
this bandaid put on the law but the MPAA said "we make too much money on 
videos we don't want to ban it". What congress didn't do was say "WHAT"S 
the difference? Media and content are irrelevant to copyright and must be 
treated accordingly. 

A shrinkwrap, pay for view, and rental society is not desireable. 

Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/02/01 01:21 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:     Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c)infringementcase

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Noah Silva wrote:
> First of all, what was "the problem"?  (obviously people renting 
> but why was this a problem?!
> <Pink Floyd's "Money" should be played in the background> MONEY

No, think about it.  What if "the problem" is software and music companies
wrapping everything in a "rental agreement" and no sale ever taking place?

Couldn't this really be consumer protection legislation?

And if we consider that they MUST be bound by the first sale doctrine,
then it's even more benefit to the public.

Understand that rental is really just usury and is BAD for the
public... that is to say, being able to rent a CD and NOT buy it hurts
people.  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).

     Jeme A Brelin
 [cc] counter-copyright