Forcing some small rural network operator to allow YouTube to swamp their limited microwave bandwidth with cat videos
isn't what happens in the first place. YouTube doesn't just say "hey, this guy's getting cat videos forced down his internet connection today"; if that were happening, you'd find a lot more people siding with you, but the reality is that the ISP's customer is requesting the cat videos.
If the ISP only has enough bandwidth available to serve 128Kbps to each of their customers, they're perfectly welcome to sell that instead of the 5Mbps that allows that customer to request the cat videos and swamp the bandwidth in the first place. It's not YouTube causing the problem, it's the ISP's over -commission of their resources allowing users to cause the problem.
Restated yet another way, if the ISP didn't sell the remote-working customer more bandwidth than they could provide, there would be no problem.
Why are you defending the cause of the problem and insisting that solving it be someone else's problem?
If you want to stipulate that the 2nd Amendment is about keeping the government in check, there would be no regulations about automatic weapons
Much like the ones in your gun, the 2nd Amendment isn't a magic bullet. It still requires the people it's intended to protect to actually pull the trigger and prevent those regulations from being put in place. The 2nd Amendment didn't fail us, we failed the 2nd Amendment.
No, it'll happen when people who don't like (or own) guns try to take them away from people who do. It might look more like a slaughter than a war, though.
They absolutely can prevent transfer of a license.
Yes they can, but let's skip ahead slightly; I promise we're not going far and we're coming right back.
That's not where Disney's argument falls apart from a legal perspective.
Are you sure about that? After all, Redbox never obtained the license they're supposedly transferring because they never used the codes they are selling and, as you just said:
The license is obtained by entering the code into a website
Of course, then I read the rest of your post and realized that we're on the same side of this discussion. Still posting this because, well, you could have been ever slightly more right than you already were.
On this side of the pond, we have more guns than cars, but more people die from cars than guns each year. Gun violence still very much makes the news here, while it takes something exceptional for a car crash to get any coverage at all, even with multiple fatalities. But your ignorance is forgivable; you wouldn't see that angle from where you are.
A surprising number of guns are designed to shoot non-living targets. That doesn't stop anti-gun fanatics from wanting to ban them all, nor does it stop criminals from misusing them as weapons. I'm only applying the same logic to all knives as your kind apply to all guns.
Ever heard of a RAMSET? It's a gun that uses.22lr blanks to drive nails into concrete. Certainly not designed to kill, but you can make a trivial (and highly illegal) modification to one to allow it to fire actual.22lr rounds without having to be pressed firmly against a hard surface. Similarly, you can slice someone's jugular with a boning knife.
The design intent of the device means little in hands that are sufficiently motivated to harm others.
That's not what was implied. The post I replied to said:
But then that's not really a great argument for why a population of murder-crazy people should be allowed to have weapons designed to kill.
Nobody said anything about carrying them in public. That said, since you brought it up...
If I bring my lunch to work and that lunch happens to be a steak, I'm probably bringing a steak knife, which is a weapon quite designed to kill so, yes, I do need to carry one.
I probably don't need a gun for that purpose, though, so I probably don't need to carry one unless I might need to defend myself against a gun-toting criminal, in which case that steak knife may prove inadequate (and inaccessible if it's in a lunch bag).
Make it impossible for the criminal to carry a gun (hah, you can't) and you'll remove my need to carry one for defense.
We require people to be a certain age and and require you to pass a test that includes certain physical requirements, such as eyesight, in order to receive a license to operate one.
Good. Let's do that for guns, as well. That might actually have an impact on firearms accidents, without imposing undue burden on law abiding firearms owners like much of the current regulation.
we regulate what equipment needs to be on the car to be road legal, such as headlights, tail lights, mirrors, and so on
We do something similar with guns, as well, and it doesn't seem to have any effect. We do it to an even greater degree in California than what federal laws require and, really, California ain't some panacea of gun safety. One thing we do in Cali that I would like to see become federal law is the drop test; guns are loaded with blanks and dropped from various distances and in various (predetermined) positions; if the weapon discharges during the test, it can not be sold or imported into the state. The majority of "crap you can and can't have on your guns" regulations are feel-good measures that keep people from having scary-looking versions of rifles they can otherwise buy and legally posses a functional equivalent of; in other words: ineffective. The drop test requirement at least prevents one class of accidental discharge (and it's up to owners to prevent negligent discharges).
we regulate how much noise they can make
There have been a couple bills, relatively recently, attempting to do that for guns, as well. I'm all for it, as a suppressor is much more effective than ear plugs or muffs.
we regulate safety equipment, such as seatbelts, airbags, rollcages and many states have laws to ensure those seatbelts are used
Many states do the same for firearms. Again, see California and note above where I support those measures that are actually effective.
we have laws regarding distracted driving. we have laws regarding what substances can be in your body while you operate the vehicle.
I believe we have similar laws for firearms on a federal level; I know for certain we have them here in California.
we regulate where you can drive and park the car.
We regulate where you can shoot and store a gun, as well, and I also support this.
we regulate how fast you can drive it.
I've never been to a range that didn't regulate how fast I can fire my guns, either.
we sometimes regulate how many passengers can be in the vehicle
Here in Cali, we regulate how many bullets can be in a magazine.
Most of the regulations you cite for vehicles have parallels for firearms; however, firearms have additional regulations for which vehicles have no parallel. Many of these regulations carry no benefit, while placing additional burden on law abiding gun owners. Those specific regulations are the ones I don't support; I'm not sitting here screaming "FREE GUNS FOR EVERYONE" like you seem to think.
There are between 270 and 310 million guns in the US, while there are 263.6 million cars in the US. Cars still kill more people than guns; if regulations work and, as you claim, cars are more heavily regulated than guns and guns are more dangerous than cars, well, that simply wouldn't be the case.
My point is that someone who has no experience with the subject matter might not have a qualified opinion. For example, it is my opinion that we should provide a basic livable income to all Americans; however, as I really don't have any experience with large scale economics and government assistance (welfare) programs I wouldn't call that a qualified opinion, nor would I expect it to hold any weight in any decision (or policy) making process.
See what I did there? Any asshole can have an opinion on any subject (this asshole certainly has many opinions on many subjects), but that opinion really only matters if the asshole in question has first-hand familiarity with the subject. In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to discount the opinions of people who aren't familiar with the subject; and that's all I'm doing here.
So you're saying, if he didn't want to carry out the mass shooting in the first place, the gun would have still made him do it? Of course that's not what you intended to say, but that's what you wrote.
In a way, the point you're actually making is correct; solving the cultural issues or getting rid of guns would prevent mass shootings. Now, consider which of those is actually an attainable goal and take that route.
Someone who knows they're going to die before they're done committing their crime (e.g. a mass shooter) doesn't care than an illegal gun will add 25 years to their prison term. They're not going to prison.
Take away legal guns and they'll just buy them illegally; which, by the way, is easier today than buying them legally due to the current ineffective regulation that needs to be repealed (of course only when we have something better to replace it with).
How quaint, you think the US isn't in a civil war right now and that poverty isn't everywhere. I'll grant you the point on drug cartels, if you'll admit they've got their lower-level networks here and those people are also armed.
But then that's not really a great argument for why a population of murder-crazy people should be allowed to have weapons designed to kill.
I need to be able to prepare food. That's a good reason, isn't it? After all, knives are designed to kill.
Which brings us back to fixing the people problem.
I'll also accept effective regulation, which is not what we have now (which needs to be done away with and replaced with something effective) if it's easier to buy a gun illegally than it is to obey the law. And that's the reality in the US, as I've been shown by friends and family in law enforcement.
A stricter prison term isn't going to scare off someone bent on dying during the commission of their crime, and that's just how the overwhelming majority of US mass shootings end.
There isnt really any logical reason to infringe upon law abiding citizens rights because there is a criminal class that may abuse the privilege.
More to the point, there's no indication that it's even effective. It's easier (and often cheaper) to buy a gun illegally today than it is to obey the law. That's not stopping anyone!
You aren't going to win that argument. You're absolutely right, but you aren't going to win. Every cop I know (local and state in a handful of states and a larger handful of localities; federal law enforcement; rookies, seasoned, retired, doesn't matter, all of them agree) says this. Every mental health professional I know says this. Every social scientist (not self-proclaimed "social scientist" but those with actual degrees in statistical analysis and human behavior related fields) I know says this.
Basically, anyone I can find who has any direct experience with the issue and any sort of credentials which might lend them some credibility seems to agree that guns are not the problem and there's some greater force making us want to kill each other in the US. Unanimously, and regardless of their status as a gun owner, anyone who's actually dealt with or earnestly studied gun violence and is qualified to understand human interaction and behavior agrees that guns would just be replaced with some other weapon if we didn't have them.
And think about it: what makes guns so powerful? There's nothing magical about a gun that makes it more deadly as the best available weapon than a knife would be if that was the best we had. A bit easier to kill with? Sure, and harder to stop with anything other than another gun. But a knife will kill you just as dead as a gun and, if we didn't have anything more powerful than a knife, someone with a knife would be just as hard to stop with anything but a knife.
So we get rid of guns. Then what? Knives take their place. We get rid of knives? Okay, then we've got people running each other down in vehicles. So we get rid of those, right? What next? You can sharpen a spoon into a weapon, we should get rid of those as well. Follow that to its logical conclusion and we find ourselves back in the stone age.
Except that we won't be allowed to wield stones. Or sticks.
My friend, again, you are absolutely correct. But you need to realize that you're arguing against people who fear guns more than they fear people wielding guns; as though it's the gun who wants to kill them, rather than the person holding it. They won't ever admit that there's a people problem, because it would force them to admit that they, themselves, are flawed.
What they don't realize is, if we gun owners really were all killers, well, we know they can't fight back. The fact that we don't just take them out doesn't even register in their tiny little heads as an indication that most of us are the very same law-abiding, kind, gentle, good people they fancy themselves to be. Oh, and that without us, criminals with guns would own their asses.
They also seem to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters end up dead on the scene. Someone who knows they're going to die during the commission of their crime doesn't give two shits if using an illegally obtained firearm will add 25 years to their prison term; if they can't obtain the gun legally, they'll just buy one illegally instead. Being close to law enforcement, I know just how easy that is -- and, honestly, it's cheaper and less of a headache than going the legal route. Even if we get rid of all legal guns in the US, they'll still come in illegally from Canada and Mexico en masse. And yes, Canada loves guns every bit as much as the US.
But he was still right that more people die due to something nobody is calling to regulate than something we're clamoring to lock down; he assigned the larger number to phones rather than cars, and he got the gun deaths number wrong, but his point was still valid.
It's even stupider than that; it was his own post that he copied. He does love burning his diminished posting capacity by double-replying to my posts, though.
So you've read the entire 26 page order, then? You know, as I suggested you do when Disney loses. The judge ruled that Redbox can do what they're doing, which I said would happen, and he did so for the very same reasons I said he'd do so. By any reasonable definition of the word "right" as it applies in this context, I was right.
The Copyright Act gives copyright owners the exclusive right
to distribute copies of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 106(3);
Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Christenson, 809 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir.
2015). That right is exhausted, however, once the owner places a
copy of a copyrighted item into the stream of commerce by selling
it. Id.; 17 U.S.C. 109(a); Vernor v. Autodesk, 621 F.3d 1102,
1107 (9th Cir. 2010). In other words, once a copyright owner
transfers title to a particular copy of a work, the transferor is
powerless to stop the transferee from redistributing that copy as
he chooses. UMG Recordings, 628 F.3d at 1180.
There can be no dispute, therefore, that Disney’s copyrights
do not give it the power to prevent consumers from selling or
otherwise transferring the Blu-ray discs and DVDs contained within
Combo Packs. Disney does not contend otherwise. Nevertheless,
the terms of both digital download services’ license agreements
purport to give Disney a power specifically denied to copyright
holders by 109(a). RedeemDigitalMovies requires redeemers to
represent that they are currently “the owner of the physical
product that accompanied the digital code at the time of purchase,”
while the Movies Anywhere terms of use only allow registered members to “enter authorized . . . Digital Copy codes from a
Digital Copy enabled . . . physical product that is owned by [that
member].”
Thus, Combo Pack purchasers cannot access digital
movie content, for which they have already paid, without exceeding
the scope of the license agreement unless they forego their
statutorily-guaranteed right to distribute their physical copies of
that same movie as they see fit.
This improper leveraging of
Disney’s copyright in the digital content to restrict secondary
transfers of physical copies directly implicates and conflicts with
public policy enshrined in the Copyright Act, and constitutes
copyright misuse.
Accordingly, Disney has not demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits of its contributory copyright infringement
claim.
The judge hasn't ruled yet but has certainly indicated how he intends to rule in this matter. This is the court's way of telling Disney they've lost before the trial even begins.
Much of the parties’ briefing and argument focuses on Redbox’s
contention that Disney’s attempts to prohibit transfer of digital
download codes are barred by the first sale doctrine. For the
reasons stated above, the issues presently before the court can be
resolved irrespective of the first sale doctrine question. Indeed,
at this stage of proceedings, it appears to the court that the
first sale doctrine is not applicable to this case.
That's yet another point I made profusely in the prior discussion, and wouldn't ya know it, according to the judge who issued this 26 page order, I was right.
By Disney’s reading, no “copy” exists until a copyrighted work is
fixed onto a downloader’s hard drive, and Redbox’s purchase of a
download code therefore cannot possibly involve a “particular copy”
to which a first sale defense could apply. Thus, Disney contends,
this case is solely about the exclusive right to reproduce a
copyrighted work, and has nothing to do with the right of
distribution or, by extension, the first sale doctrine’s limitation
on that exclusive right.
Slashdot Mirror
Forcing some small rural network operator to allow YouTube to swamp their limited microwave bandwidth with cat videos
isn't what happens in the first place. YouTube doesn't just say "hey, this guy's getting cat videos forced down his internet connection today"; if that were happening, you'd find a lot more people siding with you, but the reality is that the ISP's customer is requesting the cat videos.
If the ISP only has enough bandwidth available to serve 128Kbps to each of their customers, they're perfectly welcome to sell that instead of the 5Mbps that allows that customer to request the cat videos and swamp the bandwidth in the first place. It's not YouTube causing the problem, it's the ISP's over -commission of their resources allowing users to cause the problem.
Restated yet another way, if the ISP didn't sell the remote-working customer more bandwidth than they could provide, there would be no problem.
Why are you defending the cause of the problem and insisting that solving it be someone else's problem?
Watching your country tear itself apart is probably the most entertaining thing your country can offer humanity.
Yes, and we even started by giving you the internet on which to watch it happen. Please don't forget that.
If you want to stipulate that the 2nd Amendment is about keeping the government in check, there would be no regulations about automatic weapons
Much like the ones in your gun, the 2nd Amendment isn't a magic bullet. It still requires the people it's intended to protect to actually pull the trigger and prevent those regulations from being put in place. The 2nd Amendment didn't fail us, we failed the 2nd Amendment.
No, it'll happen when people who don't like (or own) guns try to take them away from people who do. It might look more like a slaughter than a war, though.
Would that mean I could return it if I don't agree with the terms, so long as the envelope is unopened? If so, I'm all for it.
They absolutely can prevent transfer of a license.
Yes they can, but let's skip ahead slightly; I promise we're not going far and we're coming right back.
That's not where Disney's argument falls apart from a legal perspective.
Are you sure about that? After all, Redbox never obtained the license they're supposedly transferring because they never used the codes they are selling and, as you just said:
The license is obtained by entering the code into a website
Of course, then I read the rest of your post and realized that we're on the same side of this discussion. Still posting this because, well, you could have been ever slightly more right than you already were.
1/3 isn't a majority, let alone a vast one.
On this side of the pond, we have more guns than cars, but more people die from cars than guns each year. Gun violence still very much makes the news here, while it takes something exceptional for a car crash to get any coverage at all, even with multiple fatalities. But your ignorance is forgivable; you wouldn't see that angle from where you are.
A surprising number of guns are designed to shoot non-living targets. That doesn't stop anti-gun fanatics from wanting to ban them all, nor does it stop criminals from misusing them as weapons. I'm only applying the same logic to all knives as your kind apply to all guns.
.22lr blanks to drive nails into concrete. Certainly not designed to kill, but you can make a trivial (and highly illegal) modification to one to allow it to fire actual .22lr rounds without having to be pressed firmly against a hard surface. Similarly, you can slice someone's jugular with a boning knife.
Ever heard of a RAMSET? It's a gun that uses
The design intent of the device means little in hands that are sufficiently motivated to harm others.
But then that's not really a great argument for why a population of murder-crazy people should be allowed to have weapons designed to kill.
Nobody said anything about carrying them in public. That said, since you brought it up...
If I bring my lunch to work and that lunch happens to be a steak, I'm probably bringing a steak knife, which is a weapon quite designed to kill so, yes, I do need to carry one.
I probably don't need a gun for that purpose, though, so I probably don't need to carry one unless I might need to defend myself against a gun-toting criminal, in which case that steak knife may prove inadequate (and inaccessible if it's in a lunch bag).
Make it impossible for the criminal to carry a gun (hah, you can't) and you'll remove my need to carry one for defense.
We require people to be a certain age and and require you to pass a test that includes certain physical requirements, such as eyesight, in order to receive a license to operate one.
Good. Let's do that for guns, as well. That might actually have an impact on firearms accidents, without imposing undue burden on law abiding firearms owners like much of the current regulation.
we regulate what equipment needs to be on the car to be road legal, such as headlights, tail lights, mirrors, and so on
We do something similar with guns, as well, and it doesn't seem to have any effect. We do it to an even greater degree in California than what federal laws require and, really, California ain't some panacea of gun safety. One thing we do in Cali that I would like to see become federal law is the drop test; guns are loaded with blanks and dropped from various distances and in various (predetermined) positions; if the weapon discharges during the test, it can not be sold or imported into the state. The majority of "crap you can and can't have on your guns" regulations are feel-good measures that keep people from having scary-looking versions of rifles they can otherwise buy and legally posses a functional equivalent of; in other words: ineffective. The drop test requirement at least prevents one class of accidental discharge (and it's up to owners to prevent negligent discharges).
we regulate how much noise they can make
There have been a couple bills, relatively recently, attempting to do that for guns, as well. I'm all for it, as a suppressor is much more effective than ear plugs or muffs.
we regulate safety equipment, such as seatbelts, airbags, rollcages and many states have laws to ensure those seatbelts are used
Many states do the same for firearms. Again, see California and note above where I support those measures that are actually effective.
we have laws regarding distracted driving. we have laws regarding what substances can be in your body while you operate the vehicle.
I believe we have similar laws for firearms on a federal level; I know for certain we have them here in California.
we regulate where you can drive and park the car.
We regulate where you can shoot and store a gun, as well, and I also support this.
we regulate how fast you can drive it.
I've never been to a range that didn't regulate how fast I can fire my guns, either.
we sometimes regulate how many passengers can be in the vehicle
Here in Cali, we regulate how many bullets can be in a magazine.
Most of the regulations you cite for vehicles have parallels for firearms; however, firearms have additional regulations for which vehicles have no parallel. Many of these regulations carry no benefit, while placing additional burden on law abiding gun owners. Those specific regulations are the ones I don't support; I'm not sitting here screaming "FREE GUNS FOR EVERYONE" like you seem to think.
There are between 270 and 310 million guns in the US, while there are 263.6 million cars in the US. Cars still kill more people than guns; if regulations work and, as you claim, cars are more heavily regulated than guns and guns are more dangerous than cars, well, that simply wouldn't be the case.
My point is that someone who has no experience with the subject matter might not have a qualified opinion. For example, it is my opinion that we should provide a basic livable income to all Americans; however, as I really don't have any experience with large scale economics and government assistance (welfare) programs I wouldn't call that a qualified opinion, nor would I expect it to hold any weight in any decision (or policy) making process.
See what I did there? Any asshole can have an opinion on any subject (this asshole certainly has many opinions on many subjects), but that opinion really only matters if the asshole in question has first-hand familiarity with the subject. In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to discount the opinions of people who aren't familiar with the subject; and that's all I'm doing here.
I don't disagree.
Did you know that those guns can be smuggled right back into the US?
you seem to be excluding everyone who disagrees with you from your pool of experts.
No, I'm simply excluding people who haven't dealt first-hand with the issues. That those who have tend to agree with me is kind of my point.
Replace "state" with "country", then look north and south.
So you're saying, if he didn't want to carry out the mass shooting in the first place, the gun would have still made him do it? Of course that's not what you intended to say, but that's what you wrote.
In a way, the point you're actually making is correct; solving the cultural issues or getting rid of guns would prevent mass shootings. Now, consider which of those is actually an attainable goal and take that route.
Someone who knows they're going to die before they're done committing their crime (e.g. a mass shooter) doesn't care than an illegal gun will add 25 years to their prison term. They're not going to prison.
Take away legal guns and they'll just buy them illegally; which, by the way, is easier today than buying them legally due to the current ineffective regulation that needs to be repealed (of course only when we have something better to replace it with).
How quaint, you think the US isn't in a civil war right now and that poverty isn't everywhere. I'll grant you the point on drug cartels, if you'll admit they've got their lower-level networks here and those people are also armed.
But then that's not really a great argument for why a population of murder-crazy people should be allowed to have weapons designed to kill.
I need to be able to prepare food. That's a good reason, isn't it? After all, knives are designed to kill.
Which brings us back to fixing the people problem.
I'll also accept effective regulation, which is not what we have now (which needs to be done away with and replaced with something effective) if it's easier to buy a gun illegally than it is to obey the law. And that's the reality in the US, as I've been shown by friends and family in law enforcement.
A stricter prison term isn't going to scare off someone bent on dying during the commission of their crime, and that's just how the overwhelming majority of US mass shootings end.
There isnt really any logical reason to infringe upon law abiding citizens rights because there is a criminal class that may abuse the privilege.
More to the point, there's no indication that it's even effective. It's easier (and often cheaper) to buy a gun illegally today than it is to obey the law. That's not stopping anyone!
You aren't going to win that argument. You're absolutely right, but you aren't going to win. Every cop I know (local and state in a handful of states and a larger handful of localities; federal law enforcement; rookies, seasoned, retired, doesn't matter, all of them agree) says this. Every mental health professional I know says this. Every social scientist (not self-proclaimed "social scientist" but those with actual degrees in statistical analysis and human behavior related fields) I know says this.
Basically, anyone I can find who has any direct experience with the issue and any sort of credentials which might lend them some credibility seems to agree that guns are not the problem and there's some greater force making us want to kill each other in the US. Unanimously, and regardless of their status as a gun owner, anyone who's actually dealt with or earnestly studied gun violence and is qualified to understand human interaction and behavior agrees that guns would just be replaced with some other weapon if we didn't have them.
And think about it: what makes guns so powerful? There's nothing magical about a gun that makes it more deadly as the best available weapon than a knife would be if that was the best we had. A bit easier to kill with? Sure, and harder to stop with anything other than another gun. But a knife will kill you just as dead as a gun and, if we didn't have anything more powerful than a knife, someone with a knife would be just as hard to stop with anything but a knife.
So we get rid of guns. Then what? Knives take their place. We get rid of knives? Okay, then we've got people running each other down in vehicles. So we get rid of those, right? What next? You can sharpen a spoon into a weapon, we should get rid of those as well. Follow that to its logical conclusion and we find ourselves back in the stone age.
Except that we won't be allowed to wield stones. Or sticks.
My friend, again, you are absolutely correct. But you need to realize that you're arguing against people who fear guns more than they fear people wielding guns; as though it's the gun who wants to kill them, rather than the person holding it. They won't ever admit that there's a people problem, because it would force them to admit that they, themselves, are flawed.
What they don't realize is, if we gun owners really were all killers, well, we know they can't fight back. The fact that we don't just take them out doesn't even register in their tiny little heads as an indication that most of us are the very same law-abiding, kind, gentle, good people they fancy themselves to be. Oh, and that without us, criminals with guns would own their asses.
They also seem to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters end up dead on the scene. Someone who knows they're going to die during the commission of their crime doesn't give two shits if using an illegally obtained firearm will add 25 years to their prison term; if they can't obtain the gun legally, they'll just buy one illegally instead. Being close to law enforcement, I know just how easy that is -- and, honestly, it's cheaper and less of a headache than going the legal route. Even if we get rid of all legal guns in the US, they'll still come in illegally from Canada and Mexico en masse. And yes, Canada loves guns every bit as much as the US.
But he was still right that more people die due to something nobody is calling to regulate than something we're clamoring to lock down; he assigned the larger number to phones rather than cars, and he got the gun deaths number wrong, but his point was still valid.
K. Pretty sure it happened back in December, but whatever. Keep your hands off those kids, buddy.
K.
It's even stupider than that; it was his own post that he copied. He does love burning his diminished posting capacity by double-replying to my posts, though.
The Copyright Act gives copyright owners the exclusive right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 106(3); Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Christenson, 809 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2015). That right is exhausted, however, once the owner places a copy of a copyrighted item into the stream of commerce by selling it. Id.; 17 U.S.C. 109(a); Vernor v. Autodesk, 621 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). In other words, once a copyright owner transfers title to a particular copy of a work, the transferor is powerless to stop the transferee from redistributing that copy as he chooses. UMG Recordings, 628 F.3d at 1180.
There can be no dispute, therefore, that Disney’s copyrights do not give it the power to prevent consumers from selling or otherwise transferring the Blu-ray discs and DVDs contained within Combo Packs. Disney does not contend otherwise. Nevertheless, the terms of both digital download services’ license agreements purport to give Disney a power specifically denied to copyright holders by 109(a). RedeemDigitalMovies requires redeemers to represent that they are currently “the owner of the physical product that accompanied the digital code at the time of purchase,” while the Movies Anywhere terms of use only allow registered members to “enter authorized . . . Digital Copy codes from a Digital Copy enabled . . . physical product that is owned by [that member].” Thus, Combo Pack purchasers cannot access digital movie content, for which they have already paid, without exceeding the scope of the license agreement unless they forego their statutorily-guaranteed right to distribute their physical copies of that same movie as they see fit. This improper leveraging of Disney’s copyright in the digital content to restrict secondary transfers of physical copies directly implicates and conflicts with public policy enshrined in the Copyright Act, and constitutes copyright misuse.
Accordingly, Disney has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its contributory copyright infringement claim.
The judge hasn't ruled yet but has certainly indicated how he intends to rule in this matter. This is the court's way of telling Disney they've lost before the trial even begins.
Much of the parties’ briefing and argument focuses on Redbox’s contention that Disney’s attempts to prohibit transfer of digital download codes are barred by the first sale doctrine. For the reasons stated above, the issues presently before the court can be resolved irrespective of the first sale doctrine question. Indeed, at this stage of proceedings, it appears to the court that the first sale doctrine is not applicable to this case.
That's yet another point I made profusely in the prior discussion, and wouldn't ya know it, according to the judge who issued this 26 page order, I was right.
By Disney’s reading, no “copy” exists until a copyrighted work is fixed onto a downloader’s hard drive, and Redbox’s purchase of a download code therefore cannot possibly involve a “particular copy” to which a first sale defense could apply. Thus, Disney contends, this case is solely about the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and has nothing to do with the right of distribution or, by extension, the first sale doctrine’s limitation on that exclusive right.