Slashdot Mirror
Defending the First Sale Doctrine
The Electronic Frontier Foundation recaps two court cases pending in the U.S. which will decide whether you're allowed to re-sell the things you purchase. The first case deals with items bought in other countries for resale in the U.S., such as textbooks. An unfavorable decision there would mean "anything that is made in a foreign country and contains copies of copyrighted material – from the textbooks at issue in the Kirtsaeng case to shampoo bottles with copyrighted labels – could be blocked from resale, lending, or gifting without the permission of the copyright owner. That would create a nightmare for consumers and businesses, upending used goods markets and undermining what it really means to 'buy' and 'own' physical goods. The ruling also creates a perverse incentive for U.S. businesses to move their manufacturing operations abroad. It is difficult for us to imagine this is the outcome Congress intended." The second case is about whether music purchased on services like iTunes can be resold to other people. "Not only does big content deny that first sale doctrine applies to digital goods, but they are also trying to undermine the first sale rights we do have by forcing users to license items they would rather buy. The copyright industry wants you to "license" all your music, your movies, your games — and lose your rights to sell them or modify them as you see fit."
I guess this applies to used cars as well. Secondary markets alleviate economic inefficiencies in pricing...goodbye free market?
This is something that gets to the heart of what copyright is being turned into.
Initially, copyright is what the name says it is -- the [exclusive] right to make copies for distribution.
But as we have seen with things like "region coding" and the like, we are seeing attempts at controlling not just who can legally make copies, but who can legally have access to it. Information for one region cannot be legal in another region. In some circles, we call this censorship. In others, we call these trade barriers.
Big media:
Go ahead and do your worst. Branding like "DRM Free" and "Independent" have become the new "Organic" and industry labels have become the new "Toxic." Your disrespect of your customers/consumers is increasingly more recognized. Artists all over the world, using home computers and even iPads are creating content which is fun and entertaining. Small projects are becoming bigger projects and they don't involve you. So please. Enlighten the rest of the world by restricting them from having free access to your stuff and the new Organic entertainment out there will replace you.
I read the tags: eff yro copyright as: Fuck your copyright.
... the logical conclusion to the perpetual copyright dilema. You no longer 'own' anything, not even your own genome. You merely 'license' it for a time, with the license revokable at any time by the 'true copyright holder'.
And they wonder why there are Pirate Partys in most of the 'free world' these days. Perpetual copyright is evil, it locks away ideas that could have been used to make future ideas as an amalgam of current ideas.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
It is difficult for us to imagine this is the outcome Congress intended.
Congress intends to deliver whatever the hell their biggest campaign contributors want them to do. This is why we already have perpetual copyright in effect.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Really, I'm tired of all this crap. Go ahead. Do it. Kill your own economy, fight your own consumers and destroy yourself in an orgy of self-cannibilism.
As a non-American, I almost hope your courts make this stupid decision. Having an economic black-hole of IP-sucking nothingness floating where the United States used to be would be a great object lesson for our countries in not doing the same thing. It seems like logic isn't working, so maybe the object lesson is inevitable.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
"The first case deals with items bought in other countries for resale in the U.S"
That will lead to everything having a foreign copyright or being made overseas so that it can not be resold in the US where the consumer has the least rights and the corporation has the most rights (See Citizens United for an example)
"The second case is about whether music purchased on services like iTunes can be resold to other people."
If "Big Media" could they would force you to stream everything and to pay for that, you would never be allowed a personal copy, you would always be required to go to the source, so far the medium they used hasn't allowed that sort of control, but that is the goal.
They would also like you to store all your digital media in the cloud so they can tie in all your taste under one data set with your name on it, or more likely tied to your Facebook login.
After all Facebook is trying to be the primary data store for all its "users" (read: users = data sets with little to no rights)
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This also bears on inheritance. Someone with a music collection dies and their heirs cannot inherit that music collection because when Big Media gets ahold of the laws like this, their heirs have no legal right to the media
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
In the first case, Congress has the power to regulate imports. Ownership is irrelevant.
The second case depends on whether the software is bought or licensed. There is plenty of precedent that software is licensed, not bought. That precedent is a large barrier to overcome. With iTunes, you probably agree that you do not buy and you do not own any of the songs long before you download them.
Don't expect a win for the good guys in either case.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
I occurs to me that there is an unintended upside, so to speak, to not being able to "reassign" ownership to the items covered by these two cases: it makes them an excellent place to hide your assets from your creditors / ex-spouses.
Think of it...
"Yes, your honor, I do have 20 million dollars worth of assets, but most of it is the form for European made antiques, acquired legally before the US Supreme Court ruling outlawing such sales, and so I am unable to liquidate them to pay my debts, thus the reason why I am seeking Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection," the man said, privately smirking to himself.
And so, either we really do own these things and can do with them as we please, or we don't own them and they become perpetually frozen assets that are safe havens for those trying to "hide" their assets.
... of trying to apply copyright and property like rights when applied to non-scarce information.
The reality is as long as human beings are greedy/territorial/assholes they will push their authoritarian agenda of trying to control what other people do for their own gain on others. As copyright and "intellectual property" stand now it acts as a back door dictatorship and is a subversive way to take away peoples freedoms. The whole idea of needing permission to use a product you've bought is nonsense, the whole idea of needing permission to REPAIR a product you've bought is nonsense. The whole idea of kids not being allowed to recreate older works and updating them is nonsense. Reality is the law is absurd and politicians cave to whoever throws the most money at them and forget everybody else, the thing they are most worried about is THEIR CUT and not much else.
We've seen the beginning of insane property laws in Europe when applied to steam games as "steam products", where you can resell steam games but steam gets a cut of the sold copy you sold. It's fucking ridiculous especially when you consider the cost of replication - in practice essentially zero. The whole end game of DRM was to prevent gamers from owning their games and being able to resell them. Europe is trying to half-hazardly come up with a solution but in practice it's still a god damn comedic clusterfuck when compared to the fact that you can get a "used copy" for free off the net. Piracy is a natural outcome of insane laws which were predicted at the beginning of copyright. Companies have too many rights and privileged and much of the public is too uninformed / unconcerned.
The following should be allowed under SANE laws fan remakes and ability to get source-code for games to fix and update them as well as games going into libraries as cultural works, as the laws currently stand a cubic ass tonne of abandonware/old stuff is just junked and it is done on purpose to control the market so companies 'don't have to compete' with their older works. Being able to shut down game servers/etc/take game code hostage on the other side of the internet is just bullshit.
Fan remake of chrono trigger discontinued
http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/
Freespace 2 open - exists because authors were benevolent enough to release it but it should be required by law that all game assets/source go into library an opened up after a fixed number of years so works can be fixed/updated to run on new platforms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhAR8rWPluQ
As it is corporations have it good with the ability to milk a finite amount of work for much more then it cost to make it which is a dead-weight loss for everyone elses creativity and energy.
"Not only does big content deny..."
It's cool lately to cast anything other than a mom and pop local business as "big ".
Hipsters may not like it, but mass marketing is what made most household good affordable for the middle and lower classes.
end of non dealer car service as well at the worse as well may even having rent a cars come with a fee to who made that car per rent as well.
It is difficult for us to imagine this is the outcome Congress intended.
They why did Congress put a provision into copyright law which specifically exempts foreign made items fron the right of first sale? It didn't get there out of thin air. This is obviously what they wanted.
The case involves a U.S copyright holder who gives a limited license to a foreign entity to sell books within that country. People who purchase such books in that country have all the first sale rights within that country, (depending on that country's laws). Even if the courts rule against the importer of the books, it will only apply to US copyright round-tripping via a foreign entity. Someone buying a product with foreign IP will have the same first sale rights to buy and sell within USA, like any Taiwanese student who buys these Eastern Economy Edition books to buy/sell within Taiwan. What these publishers are objecting to is, the books very specifically marked "not for sale outside Taiwan" are being smuggled in and sold in USA.
Most of us slashdotters work in the software industry and it is the Intellectual Property protection is responsible in large part to the size and security of our pay checks. Let use look at it objectively.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Get rid of copyright. Get rid of the notion of applying property rights to non-scarce goods. Any system of property rights (capitalism, communism, etc.) is designed with scarcity in mind.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
What on Earth can hundreds of millions of gun toting Americans possibly do to protect themselves from a corrupt government?
When it comes to reselling digital goods, I think that's a whole clusterfuck our legal system doesn't properly account for. How can the court rule one way or the other when there are no laws to interpret? And even if there is some law that applies, is it possible for the court the overrule it on the basis of absurdity?
For instance, if I managed to get a law passed through congress that stated that people must respirate using CO2 rather than O2, does a court have the power to void the law regardless of whether its constitutional or not?
The questions may seem rather dumb, but it seems to me that the nature of digital is so far removed from our normal interpretation of property that it cannot be treated as such. The main difference being that if I resell a guitar of mine, for instance, I no longer have that guitar. With software or digital media, I can just make a copy. If I can't make a copy (well, if it's difficult to make a copy) that's just because the software is designed that way. But the problem with designing software so that it cannot be copied is that it's a futile effort -- it goes against the nature of what software is. All that's needed is electricity and a storage device and you can make as many duplicates as you want. I seriously doubt it's possible to make foolproof DRM -- DRM reminds me of a dog chasing it's tail.
When it comes to the first case I think it's obvious which way the court will rule. There's no way a copyright invalidates the resale of an item. That's not what copyrights were designed to do -- they're purpose is in the name, to grant exclusive rights over copying (and selling) material. When it comes to the second case I think a false dichotomy is being presented. While I do find it questionable whether the first-sale doctrine applies to digital content, but I don't like the idea of 'licensing' something that exists on my HDD (even though, technically, it's all licensed). If it exists on my HDD or SSD it seems that I should be able to do what I want with it aside from make copies to resell (however, I see it solely as a copyright issue, fuck software patents).
I dunno, I guess all I'm saying is that this shit's way too complicated. It's one of many cracks that's forming in capitalism. I'm sure in John Locke's day the idea that property is an innate right sounded good (especially to those with property). But have we extended ownership rights too far? Do I really have the right to own an idea? Sure, but once I publicly express that idea, perhaps it now belongs to the public.
One of the most ironic parts of Atlas Shrugged is when the government abolishes patents and copyrights. Henry Rearden is pissed. I thought it was so funny that throughout the entire book the main characters are bitching and moaning about the government being all over their backs, but when the government actually grants more freedom to society, when the government decides to stop using the threat of violence to protect the coffers of the wealthiest in society, only then do they want the government to wield and assert its power. How can one advocate a philosophy that demands the public be given the least amount of restrictions on their freedom as possible, and at the same time insist that the government is duty-bound to enforce patents and copyrights?
If you really get down and examine what property is, both in a concrete and abstract sense, it exposes itself to be the big gaping logical hole in capitalism. In a concrete sense one's property is the things they have in their possession -- that includes the music and software on your HDD. In an abstract sense, property is what the government grants one a legal claim over and is willing to enforce that claim. Basically, the law doesn't reflect reality, it reflects an abstraction that conflicts with reality. We try to make reality adhere to the abstraction but that's not always possible. Because, in reality, one can only have total ownership over an idea by not expressing it. Once it's been expressed -- verbally, in print, or digitally -- it belongs to anyone who remembers it.
Probably none of this makes sense. I blame eggnog.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
In Omega v. Costco it was already decided that there is no first sale doctrine for goods manufactured outside of the USA. The case went to the Supreme Court two years ago but the court was split 4-4 (Kagan recused herself) so the lower (9th District) Court decision stood.
There already no first sale doctrine for foreign goods in California and the rest of the 9th District.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
What is a gift but a $0.00 sale? Posted on December 25th? Clearly, copyright law is merely the newest means for the Grinch to steal Christmas.
Would you like a new restriction?
I would fight it with conviction.
Would you comply just to obey?
I would revolt and say, "no way!"
Would you resale a copyrighted box?
I'd say, "It's blighted with a pox!"
Would you ignore wrapper licensing?
Can blind men be found infringing?!
Would you strip off protected bits?
I'd rather deal in counterfeits!
I do not like less rights and corporate SPAM,
-Signed, Estranged Nephew of Uncle Sam.
We don't need new textbooks each year or sooner for most topics and other stuff like some parts of tech books need more online stuff as tech moves fast and on line can be updated faster.
“citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it. Many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognize and reward.” Source
So this is good news, the more Ye Average Americans hit their nose against the Great Wall of Copyright, the better. Our job is to show them that this is not "just the way it is" but that there are viable alternatives.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Next year, the EFF has to start a 'don't gift that copyrighted product' campaign right around Black Friday. Kids having their presents ripped out of their hands by agents of big media, Santa Claus being led off in handcuffs, etc.
Have gnu, will travel.
The copyright industry is trying to apply the properties of physical objects, into the realm of digital bits where object distribution is not bound by physical limits. Add to that they want there cake as well, by having said non-physical objects be bound by physical borders in a border-less environment.
This should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention to the current state of copyright. That these two cases have made it to SCOTUS, just means the courts are forced to play the hand, with Congress in tow, ready to scrape up the muck with whichever way their decision favors. If it favors big media, see the Internet explode in backlash with Congress being lambasted by every industry in existence. If it favors first sale, see big media down play it and blast Congress with bullhorns and checkbooks and testicle trophies. There's no third option here without contradicting state case law, or slapping international copyright agreements in the face.
Stay tuned kiddies! This is where shit gets interesting!!!!
1.) Spend a few hundred $ setting up a corporation. .mp3 under the auspices of said corporation. .mp3 for $3
2.) Buy an
3.) Sell the corporation and rights to the
4.) ???
5.) PROFIT!
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I find myself unsure of how the SCOTUS might rule on either of these cases. If they rule so as to effectively destroy First Sale Doctrine, what are our options? Legislation? For any companies that take advantage of the new rules, can we organize and either compete directly ourselves, boycott the companies in question, or find existing competitors and persuade them to make adhering to First Sale Doctrine a selling point?
An unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court will not mean the end of resale, even for imported items. It will mean the grey market (sale of items imported from other countries without the blessing of the manufacturer) will become illegal, but items bought from authorized resellers in the United States will still be able to resold.
I rather suspect the Supreme Court will be sharpening their knives and splitting this hair very fine, ruling against the importer but failing to provide guidance otherwise.
The only way this will turn around is a buyer's revolt. Nobody really "needs" what Big Media and Big Content are selling. Like-to-have, yes, but need: no. Just get a big enough block of consumers to stop consuming until this craziness stops and things will eventually change direction. However, given that the Comsumer is a teen-age girl with too much money and serious peer pressure issues, this will happen about the same day that leaders in this country start leading again. As long as the money keeps rolling in, the Bigs don't give a rip how the 10% of people who know how to use their brains think - it doesn't matter to them. So, we'll keep on heading down this road and eventually you won't even be able to license something for more than a one-time use. Everything will be on the juke-box, pay-per-play business model.
Were well on our way to a revolt that they never dreamed could happen.
Even the Chinese peasant will be in the fight.
Even the gates of hell are going to coward in fear.
BuyAmerican will be a greater force than paying for a License and never be able to sell something that was non-American.
Can you say defacto isolationism?
What it actually determines is if the first sale means the fist sale made anywhere in the world or the first sale in the US. It makes little difference where it was manufactured.
Once the produce is legally sold in the US, first sale rights apply no matter where it's made or who holds the copyright. But what's undecided is whether the first sale in the US is legal if the previous sale was in another country.
The actual issue at stake is whether copyright/trademark/other IP licence holders have the right to licence something to different manufacturers in different countries effectively backed up by trademark law. There's a certain aspect of consumer protection here as well. Consumers see value in official products, fashion clothing being an example. Cheap foreign imports are seen as not the same thing. Often there are genuine differences that will not be immediately obvious to the purchaser, and that the purchaser will be able to rely on the domestic manufacturers reputation.
If this goes the way Slashdot seems to want, nobody will gain. The publishers' low margin sales in other countries will simply be stopped because a company doesn't like to compete with itself. US customers won't be able to get cheap imported textbooks, but now the people in the countries the textbooks were imported from won't be able to get them at a price they can afford.
Assuming that the justices do the right thing and give us the right to sell e-goods to others, then next fight is going to be where we are allowed to sell them. If your friend wants to sell you a song from his iPod can you just give him $2 in cash and transfer it to your iPod ?
I can see Apple wanting to force you to use iSecondHandMarket which creams off 30% of every sale. I should be able to sell any e-good on any market that I choose and from any device to any other device (eg buy on iPod, sell to someone else who has an Android something). Once Apple is prevented from forcing use of iSecondHandMarket it will then charge a 30% administration fee .... this is going to run and run.
(Apple just for way of illustration, others will be just as evil.)
You OWN the content you buy on DVD or Blu-Ray, etc. and the content producers actually acknowledge this in their advertising. When was the last time you saw or heard an ad for a movie on blu-ray or DVD? What do they say? Do they say "License it on Blu-Ray or DVD today?" No, the advertisements say "Own it on Blu-Ray or DVD today!"
They explicitly acknowledge that you OWN that copy (it is NOT licensed, it is SOLD). It is the distribution rights you do not get with that copy of the media that you own. You can resell that one copy you bought (and if you've made backups which are defensible under Fair Use you must either destroy the backups or transfer those backups with the original when you resell it) if you want. You just cannot violate copyright by making copies to distribute.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It can be trademarks, too. Due to a relatively recent law provision, in Russia you cannot import trademarked goods that you legally acquired (even used ones!) for sale as a business unless you have a specific license from the trademark owner for that. The result is hugely inflated prices for imported goods. At the moment consumers can buy stuff from abroad online for their own use, but I'm afraid that won't last long too due to greedy bastards in the government, parliament etc.
So the multi nationals want to turn all consumers into rent slaves, you own nothing you merely rent it from them never knowing when your masters decide the change the rules and take what you rent away.
When I buy media, on CD, tape, DVD, or legally record it from a public recording, I do so under a perpetual license to time- and space-shift it indefinitely. I may pro-actively or retroactively reproduce an item I've purchased as I deem appropriate. And as long as I don't illegally distribute or broadcast protected works, there's nothing 'they' can do to stop me.
I still buy CDs and DVDs from Barnes & Noble at around $11, and rest easy about scratches and theft from then on.
And I conscientiously never burn something I haven't bought. The thing about fair use is fair's fair.
There were many deeds that barred property from being resold to blacks or other restrictions on future use.
The same was tried with stocks, country club memberships and other intangible property.
Many wills and chairity donations have been used other than intended by restrictions.
The Supreme Court of the US said such clauses are null and void.
In the case of the textbooks, it was because of the licensing of the books in those foreign countries forbid their resale outside of them.
Way to not include that tidbit...
I can't even say, what I want to say, the fucking oath breakers have fucked everything up full spectrum, you can't even fight them anymore.
What you going to do, fill out a petition? (asking permission for your fuckin god given rights!?)
email your oath breaker? (they reply with template answers, ignore your subject, and use eWARFARE to filter your ass out by zipcode)
write your oath breaker? (Staffers intercept, message circles the toilet)
protest? Arrest, charged with terrorism, jail, more lost rights
Start a militia blog? Get spied and raided
Start a TV show? Get spied and raided, treated like Luke or Tim?
Talk to the Corporate owned media? (profit agenda, censorship, spin, lies -- all called journalism and the cops give them press passes)
De-Activate the US government and re-make it from scratch as per the US Constitution - Nope unconstitutional COG fucks the day, Continuity of Government
Now they're publishing lists of people names address and guns.
Still no banksters arrested.
Fuckers are begging for a Civil War! Meanwhile the civilians can't communicate or group together (AT&T/ISRAEL/NSA spy) to push these fascist fuckin oath breakers out.
We are living in a FASCIST dictatorship. The only thing missing from view is the Trains and Ovens, but this isn't the past, this is the technotronic future, they have invisible shit to kill ya now. Genes, Germs, Radiation, Aerial Spraying, Geo-Engineering, Microwave, Sound, Food Supply GMO, Water Supply (Fracking)
Obama shouldn't be president, he should be in a fucking max security prison, along with EVERY Senator who voted for Patriot Act, NDAA and the rest of the unconstitutional fucking shit.
I warn who the fuck ever reads and stores this shit. Making it so we can't speak our minds is leading to a Civil War. Let there be no question who is the fucking piece of shit in this war. You made it so we CAN'T TALK. If there's no talking then there's no dialog, and if that's the case what makes it any different than our government behaving like a well armed train robbing gang held up in a cave on a hill. But it's worse than that, this gang made it so our weapons aren't effective.
What I am saying is, the US Constitution is done. It's a matter of time before Obama (or next piece of shit president) turns into a fucking Hitler 2.0.
I bought a Soda Stream and when I opened the box there was a piece of paper saying that you are licencing the soda stream technology, not buying it. I looked and there was small print in a pargraph on the side saying the same thing. I think it said it was a transferable licence and that you could only use it for the purposes intended by soda stream.
This is the first attempt I have seen that a kitchen appliance is being sold with the idea that you are not buying the appliance, and will never own it, just licence it. That strikes at the heart of the 'buying' something at the store. This is an attempt at a business model that maintains control of your carbonated water maker in perpetuity. I look forward to the test for this business model in court.
And where the FUCK did these "Flag this comment as inappropriate" buttons come from?
They've been here for quite a while now, you're just now noticing them?
This a joke? What the hell happens if I push it?
An administrator or editor will look at it. If it's spam or something equally distasteful, it goes to -1 or is removed. It's nothing to worry about. Rather, worry about the hit to your karma from posting offtopic flames like, er, you just did.
Free Martian Whores!
Why there is a campaign to convince consumers that they should quit their right of owning a file ?
There is no good reason why any license shouldn't be transferable to any other "qualified" licensee.
Software purchased "for academic use only" should be legally transferable to anyone else who can buy the same license.
There's no reason in principle to extend this to other types of licenses/permissions that are at least in part based on payment of a fee for the license/permission itself:
For example, if my driver's license is good for 3 more years and I move out of state and get a new one, I should be able to "sell" my remaining 3 years to anyone in my old state who is qualified to renew his license until 12/26/2015 or beyond. He would still have to pay a nominal fee to cover the paperwork and other costs of renewing his license plus any pro-rata amount for any mandatory extension beyond my old license's expiration.
Think of it as "sub-leasing" for the "payment" portion of a license.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
But let me download it as many damn times as I want. Otherwise I defacto own it.
When you press the "Flag this comment as inappropriate" button that comment ends up on a big list that the editors go through each day. Usually it's filled with user comments that other users don't like, and sometimes theories that we're deleting comments. We try to respond to the conspiracy theories and ignore the complaints about not liking posts for one reason or another. That's what the moderation system is for. Every so often however someone uses the button for it's intended purpose, which is to quickly downmod the worst trolls and to identify spammer accounts so we can ban them. The button is to make sure the gnaa crowd stays at -1 and to keep the spammers out of discussions. Feel free to continue to be inappropriate.
Do they say "License it on Blu-Ray or DVD today?" No, the advertisements say "Own it on Blu-Ray or DVD today!"
That's an excellent point however you haven't considered a few things.
The first is who is advertising. I pretty confident that it is that in most cases it is not the actual copyright holder making that statement - instead it is a retailer who cannot sell you ownership of the work. I agree it is sloppy and should cause some theoretical legal headaches for the copyright holders were someone sufficiently motivated to pursue the issue but it isn't an actual offer from the copyright holder to transfer ownership of their property.
The second and more important thing is that they can simply say they are offering you ownership of the license on DVD or Blueray. They say "own it" which is probably purposefully vague. "It" can very easily be interpreted as a license.
Let the original printer of the money retain ownership of the value of cash through each successive use of the cash.
Licensees are granted the entertainment value they get from the presence of bills in their wallet.
If two licensees agree to exchange cash for objects/services, they get to enjoy those things, but the ownership is assigned to the money printer.
We can call it a "right to enjoy" law.
Isn't that a customer-wins scenario? If the seller later says there was no license, then you must have bought it.
This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.
Thanks for the response, #5.
Just checking. For a moment there I thought I heard jackboots. Turns out some of my Stormtrooper extras left the set and were upstairs raiding Mom's refrigerator (I'm sure the Hobbits had something to do with it).
Happy Holidays.
Base 13.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
SALE: Permanently transferring ownership of property from one party to another.
RENT: Allowing use of property for a specific amount of time, with the period of time either being defined or open-ended. Ownership is not transferred. Usage rights are allotted in exchange for reimbursement based on one or more variables.
LICENSING: Allowing use of property by one party from another for a specific amount of time.
This all being said, if I BUY something, I own it and can do as I please with it. I can re-sell it just as I do my car/house/boat etc. However, I cannot buy a car, duplicate it, and then sell multiple copies of it. I can, however, make copies of it for my own enjoyment. Yet, if I pay another party to develop a custom product for me using my engineering, I retain all the rights to the product. EXAMPLE: I pay Company A for time, research, development, and testing to develop a new kind of shaving cream. Even though I did not develop it, Company A was acting as a paid agent or contractor to develop it for me. Company A does not gain the rights to the product, unless I was reckless and just gave them a pile of my money without any documentation or a contract.
A license is nothing more than permission to use something, and nothing more. If products are licensed, the licensing party grants permission for another party to do something specific with property that is under ownership of the licensing party. When the license expires, you no longer have permission to do a certain thing with the property. Since permission to use something is taken away from you, the revoking property needs to take back what they previously licensed.
When you rent something, you do not purchase any property. You are paying for the use of property, and must return it when you are finished using it, or break the rental agreement (which is conditional use).
When you buy a CD or DVD, you buy a copy. Like buying a newspaper, you can do anything you want with it physically, do anything you want with the printed content (so long as you do not engage in commercial distribution), you can photo copy an advertisement or article for your own personal enjoyment, as well as incidental enjoyment of others (such as posting a Dilbert cartoon in your humble cubicle, which is primarily for you to enjoy, but you cannot control the enjoyment of others who might see it on their own) that is beyond your control.
When you buy a copy, you own not only the physical medium, but also the data contained on it. Since the data on such things is stored in a physical manner, you own the data contained on the specific item you purchased. You cannot duplicate the item and sell it, because only the physical rights to that specific copy was purchased, and not the distribution rights to the song. Ask a record company for the prices to purchase a song on a CD from them, and then ask them for the price to distribute that song. You will get two very different numbers.
If a company is going to SELL products while LICENSING their use, then they need to buy it back when it is done being used.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Well, I will not be buying anything from Wiley & Sons Company.
Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, & spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.