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

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Even the phrase "for home viewing only" sometimes needs interpretation. 
Somebody my mother knows made a big deal about having 10 or so people show 
up at somebody's house to watch a video tape of Christmas Story that 
somebody else brought to the house. When he heard about it he made a lot 
of noise that it was commercial viewing and they weren't licensed to show 
it. You are only licensed to view a tape in the privacy of your own home 
but not somebody elses......My mother's response was that he wasn't 
invited.

As stupid as this sounds, the general public is really clueless about the 
changes in copyright.

If you get a citation post it here.




Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/02/01 09:37 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] Implied License to Watch the Movie


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.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com