Copyright Violation

[richlevy]

The thing that AA's really want to eliminate are the fair use and first sale doctrines. DRM's on downloaded songs technically violate 'first sale' doctrine, so I'm sure in the fine print somewhere is a note that you are 'leasing' and do not own, your iPod copy of the song.

[melidasaur]

Originally Posted by richlevy

The thing that AA's really want to eliminate are the fair use and first sale doctrines. DRM's on downloaded songs technically violate 'first sale' doctrine, so I'm sure in the fine print somewhere is a note that you are 'leasing' and do not own, your iPod copy of the song.

I don't think fair use is applicable here - fair use is something that is mostly used by educators in handing out photocopies of articles or using a movie for class room viewing - and educational and limited purpose.

This is all an issue of licensing and not copying - no copyright is being violated because they aren't copying things and then selling the copies. They are merely transferring, providing a service and giving you the copy, in hopes that you don't make further copies at home. And that is the answer straight from the lawyers mouth .

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by melidasaur

I don't think fair use is applicable here - fair use is something that is mostly used by educators in handing out photocopies of articles or using a movie for class room viewing - and educational and limited purpose.

This is all an issue of licensing and not copying - no copyright is being violated because they aren't copying things and then selling the copies. They are merely transferring, providing a service and giving you the copy, in hopes that you don't make further copies at home. And that is the answer straight from the lawyers mouth .

It is probably more 'first sale' than 'fair use'.

BTW, read the Wikipedia on 'first sale', it has this little gem.

Microsoft was countersued in Microsoft Corp v. Zamos (Case: 5:04-cv-02504) for violating the Clayton Act. In Microsoft v. Zamos, after unsuccessfully trying to return legally acquired unopened copies of Microsoft Software purchased at a student bookstore, as specified in the Microsoft EULA, Zamos sold the software on EBay for a profit of $140.00 . Microsoft investigators sent a message to Zamos, through eBay's website, asking whether the disk containing the software included the phrase "not for retail or OEM distribution." Zamos confirmed by return email the same day that the disk did include the phrase. Microsoft then sued Zamos claiming that "Microsoft has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable damage to its business reputation and goodwill as well as losses in an amount not yet ascertained... Defendant's acts of copyright infringement have caused Microsoft irreparable injury." and sought legal fees and the profit from the sale.
Zamos responded on Jan 3, 2005 by countersuing Microsoft with Clayton Act charges and further charged that, "Microsoft purposely established and maintained a sales and distribution system whereby rightful rejection and return of merchandise that is substantially non-conforming is either impossible or practically impossible due to the ineptness of its employees, unconscionable policies, malicious intent and deceptive practices," thus engaging in fraud and violating the Consumer Sales Practice Act.
Microsoft offered to drop the case when local Ohio papers carried the story. Zamos however refused to drop the case until Microsoft apologized and paid for the cost of copies of legal documents at the local copy shop. In March 2005, Microsoft and Zamos agreed to a settlement, which included a non-disclosure agreement with regards to the settlement terms.

Way to go Mr. Zamos!

edited:
Here's a better link to the Zamos story.

To this day, Zamos's greatest critic remains his girlfriend. "She thinks it's wrong to sue anyone ever, and that I should have just gotten out of it as fast as possible, but I have a different view of the legal system," he says. "I think it's the only real way to effect any change. There are a lot of problems with this country, but at least I can defend myself in a court of law, which is saying a lot."
Zamos ponders what would have happened if he hadn't put up a fight. "I would have just declared bankruptcy, gone to grad school, and moved in with my girlfriend, like I was planning on anyway," he says.
When asked if he'd ever consider being a lawyer, Zamos answers, "Are you kidding? I hate this stuff!"
He plans to go into pharmaceutical research.