Re: For the last time

I think you have made assumptions in the process I have described.

An individual buys a CD. He changes the format by converting it to a mp3. He
sells his CD. He uploads the mp3 (gives away) to a peer-to-peer site. He
destroys the mp3 image on his computer. This is the end of this individuals
involvement.

Where has this individual moved outside the parameters of #2 below? If the
distribution rights of the copyright holder are null after the initial sale,
how has the process above exceeded #2?

I am not reflecting upon the morality or current legality here.

Wes

"Jeremy Weissenburger" <jweissenburger@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C220D96A.1052E%jweissenburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 3/16/07 10:52 PM, in article
45fb57fa$0$30094$e656108c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Wes" <flattopnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Then why did Napster run into problems? It seems that #2, as you have it
phrased, would allow someone to copy the work, give it away (upload to a
peer-to-peer network), and as long as the product was originally
purchased
by the uploader, copyright laws no longer apply to the artistic work. The
only way that this would be against the law is if the uploader did not
purchase the original artistic work.

Using the same idea, it seems that I would be allowed to copy sheet
music,
novels, artistic prints, etc.... to my hearts content.

No, that is different. He is not copying the CD and then putting the
files
for upload for other people to get free, or shared the files with other
people.

Using the analogy you have, it would be like buying sheet music,
photocopying all the pages and then selling the original.


<capolk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ihdlv2lilidscpuceinrh5kt6dhh8mamuu@xxxxxxxxxx
Since Idiot-Boy started it up again - and since the seven or so people
I've told about this feisty little "debate" have pretty much to a man
laughed their heads off at the idea that somebody could possibly think
otherwise, I'm going to point this out in this form one more time :

1. Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers
believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in
one format and putting it into another format, for personal,
non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is,
making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is
considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax
decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond
Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance,
burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

2. The first-sale doctrine is a limitation upon copyright that was
recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified
in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine of first
sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a
particular, lawfully made copy of the protected work without
permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution
rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy
is sold.

Until any of you can find the phrase - anywhere - that says - or
comes remotely close to saying : "IN CASES WHEN FAIR-USE COPIES HAVE
BEEN MADE, THE RIGHT OF FIRST SALE DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES" - there
can be no further argument on the topic.


--

"Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny." -- Frank Zappa



.

Relevant Pages