Linked by Paul Cesarini on Mon 8th Sep 2003 03:02 UTC
Thanks to a provision in the 1976 Copyright Act, U.S. law allows the first purchaser of copyrighted material (a book, CD, etc) to subsequently re-sell that item without the copyright owner's consent. In this age of online distribution and the budding, halting attempts at legitimizing it, is the the right to re-sell going to be upheld?
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ahh you don't understand my comment on the IP's.
Note; USA law
1.) If you sit at a roadside cafe talking with friends you have no precieved right of privacy. I can sit next to you and listen in on all things you say. I can turn to you an call you an idiot if I want. (Did that one day to a guy how said all people of a certain background should be killed
1a.) In a cafe I can record you on tape because there is no preceived privacy.
2.) If I'm in my house and have made reasonable accomedations I have a percieved right of privacy.
2a.) I can't record you.
Following on the above.
1. My machine is my house and I have the right to a precieved form of privacy. THe question arises that when the packets leave my machine what do I think will happen to them????
1. a) You may argue they should be protected, Noone is allowed to see them open them and their protected speech. If this is desired then the goverment will insure your privacy, all equipement will be subject to new regulations, wireless networks will be outlawed, THe goverment may regulate the kind of data and charge a usage fee.
Example: US Mail
US Roads (right not privalage)
Air Travel
The goverment will protect your rights but you give up something for the goverment to insure it. Such as they may outla encrypted packets.
1. b) If there is no preceived privacy once the packets leave my machine then the goverment will have no desire to regulate, tax or even care. It then becomes my resposibility to protect my packets (SSL, encyption etc.) In this model their is a higher chance for people to see them but there is no goverment controls on my packets.
Also rember that packets go through private and public networks on their way to a destionation. If Qwest, or ATT wants to look at packets crossing thier networks what rights do they have. According to the AOL case once you try to stop or regulate data flow you are then legally resposible for it. So If the goverment says all packets must be protected then Qwest will forced to protect all packets going through and in fact will not be able to stop any (DOS, spam etc) unless the goverment passes law regulateing those types. Consifer harrassing and threating phone calls. Until the goverment made those illegal they were protected by the fedral communication regulations. So If you ISP dumps spam and the fedral goverment rules it's protected speech the ISP could be sued. You will then have to get a law outlawing spam. THis then means the goverment is in the business of regulateing internet packets. Mrs. Gore will outlaw all bad words and rap songs and Mrs. Bush will get the naked women. Personally I prefer the cafe model, a little more work for me but the goverment stays the hell out.
Donaldson