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

[Bruce Thompson <bruce(at)otherother.com>]

On 2002.02.28 10:01 "Ballowe, Charles" wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:50 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> >
> > 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?
> 
> This seems like a bad thing to be saying -- we don't want the
> copyright mafia to start licensing all content that we buy copies
> of. We want to own our copies and be allowed to do with them as
> we please (and if i'm speaking for my self let me know). You own
> one copy, first sale says you may transfer that one copy to someone
> else, fair use says you may space shift it for personal use.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with the selling of your MD, but then again
> I'm not a court.
> 
> -Charlie
> 

Hi,
     A possibly useful distinction that may apply here just occurred to 
me. As Charlie states, you have a license to one copy. You may space shift 
it for personal use (creating the MD for yourself is fine). You may 
transfer your one copy (selling someone your original CD is fine, though 
the status then of the MD is somewhat questionable). If the original is 
destroyed though, I don't see how your rights regarding the one copy (the 
original) end up being transferred to the new copy (the MD). The MD is 
_not_ the same copy as the original. There is no first sale attached to it 
since you did not acquire it as a result of a sale: you made the copy 
yourself. Keeping the MD for your own use when the original has been 
destroyed strikes me as absolutely fine, but selling that copy strikes me 
as not fine since it is not the copy for which you have rights post-first 
sale.

     The thing that occurs to me though (as I somewhat alluded to 
parenthetically above) is this really calls into question the status of 
copies made via fair use but where the original copy has been sold as 
permitted under the doctrine of first sale. On the one hand, it seems that 
the copy you made for your personal use is yours in perpetuity, just 
without any attached first sale rights. On the other hand is seems like a 
practice of buying a CD, ripping it to MP3s for personal use, then selling 
the original would be perfectly legitimate. I don't necessarily claim that 
it would be ethical, nor that the courts would necessarily view it that 
way but it seems to me that if I were to do this then at every step I am 
doing something that is perfectly legal. Any thoughts?

	Cheers,
	Bruce.