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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights



If you sell just your copy?

ok so tonight I go buy a CD.
Tomorrow I copy it to a minidisc.
Saturday I go jogging with my MD player and that MD.
My house burns in a fire while I am gone (and the CD is destroyed).
I get home and go "oh shit!" and I have not enough insurance.
I sell my MD player and the MD.

Did I do something illegal?
To me:
a.) It was legal to space shift it.
b.) I have ownership of one copy of the music.

If I sold the CD I am still "distributing" it, and surely that is legal.
what's the difference to sell the MD?  I have one license to it, and I
sold it.  I own that license, if they stop me from selling it, isn't that
like them stealing it from me?

 -- noah silva 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Ernest Miller wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noah silva" <nsilva@atari-source.com>
> To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> > > >
> > > > If you have license to a copy, and the right to do what
> > > > you wish with your own copy, then that plan should work.
> > >
> > > The subtitles would be a derivative work and illegal.  Copyright law
> > > prohibits copying.  If you make a copy and destroy the original, you
> still
> > > have violated copyright law.
> >
> > I don't think so, not if you have a right to space shifting (transferring
> > to a different media).  It is supposed to prohibit _illegal_ copying only.
> 
> Spaceshifting is for personal use only.  If you spaceshift a CD to an MP3 on
> a CD-R for personal use, you are probably protected.  If you then sell or
> distribute that CD-R with MP3s on it, you will find yourself in violation of
> the exclusive rights of both copying and distribution.
> 
> > >  I agree that this makes no sense, which is why
> > > I advocate eliminating the "right to copy" as part of copyright law.
> > >
> > > > It is similar to a plan executed by someone who was fed
> > > > up w/ all the (unnecessary) sex in movies.  He offered
> > > > a service whereby he edited a movie to make a clean version.
> > > > IIRC either the customer had to send in their copy of
> > > > the tape to be edited, or they bought a copy from him
> > > > (as they would from any other reseller) that he had already
> > > > edited.  He did not _make_ copies, he edited existing
> > > > ones.
> >
> > Yes, but editing is still copying, if you skip a scene, you are copying
> > from later in the tape to earlier in the tape, etc.  For legal purposes
> > this shouldn't be copying because you have one lisence and you end up with
> > one copy.
> >
> It is not actually clear how they are doing the editing on videotape.  If as
> you suggest and is likely, they are copying on the same tape, they may be
> liable or they may not.
> 
>