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.
RE Anon
>Also, your "analogy" fails as the US postal system is not
>allowed to actually read our mail. That is a federal
>offense.
For a post master if they feel there is something wrong with a letter or a package they are allowed to open it.
>There must be a known threat posed by a piece of mail
>before anything is allowed to be examined.
By the post master
> This is what privacy is all about. If we start letting the
> government listen to all our packets, we are then bound
> and regulated by the government. That is not freedom, not
> even close.
Yet the cop at the coffe shop can monitor everything you say because you do it in a public forum. The question is the internet pipes from the back of my computet a public forum or a private forum.
>Again, you don't understand what you are saying.
>Threatening phone calls are illegal, but not screened.
true, I know this, but the law had to be passed to make them illegal.
> One must report the offense for it to be investigated. If
> we had a national governmental switchboard that all phone
> calls must pass through and would be individually
> monitored for offensive material....what kind of country
> would that be??
And that is what I DONT want to happpen. The state's have already started to try to limit the packets on the internet. My fear if it's ruled private forum and the states must enforce it legally they will continue to regulate it.
Accoring to LA if 2 guys have sex in their bedroom they are in violation of the state laws. In some states veiwing pornographic material on a computer may be illegal. Eventually these laws get used.
I want the goverment out not in.
And suprise , except for content your phone calls are monitored. I can tell from where you called, how the call was routed when it was answered, and how much "noise" was sent down the phone line. And in the 20's and 30's the operator did screen calls and ocassionally listened in. (before telephone switches)
> I doubt anyone paid for it...gzip is GPL.
sorry I meant winzip
>What you are saying is "I never would pay for it, therefore
> noone else would either"..and that is simply not the case.
> Generalizations never work....
yhea considering I'm one of the exceptions. The numbrs show around 80 percent of the users will screw the producers. If you want to use special cases I'll pull out the case of the guy who jumped out of a plane over Flordia , parachute failed, landed in a swamp an walked away. Therefore we need no saftey systems in planes because falling from a plan is not always fatal. (same for seat bealts, condom usage, unproteced sex with someone with aids, etc etc)(I'm choosing to argue numbers and the majority of users of an unprotected piece of software are using it illegaly.) ( For all the old timers out thier let me say HST, Dual Standard, And the Pits in New York.)
Donaldson
Re grateful dead, they survived off marketing and selling records. the other bands I've not heard of so I can't say. Think grateful dead ties, and other yuppie wear.)