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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 1:37 PM
> To: Openlaw DMCA Forum
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c)
> infringementcase
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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).

... neither?  I would suggest that the higher pricing of the
CDs-for-sale is a marketing strategy to encourage rental.

The same thing used to happen for VHS tapes.  Some movies
were "priced for sale" at around $20 and some were "priced
for rental" at around $99.  Few people wanted to fork over
the $99 so they rented those movies instead.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!