Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
from the what-first-sale-doctrine dept
We have written many times about one of Hollywood's latest attempts at adapting to the modern digital age, Ultraviolet. Unfortunately for Hollywood studios, this service is not well received by people who have tried to use it. So what is someone to do with those unwanted free Ultraviolet codes that come in movie combo packs? You know, the Bluray, DVD and digital box sets that most movies come in. According to the Consumerist, one creative customer took to selling his unwanted digital copies on eBay. Unfortunately for him, eBay flagged his auction as copyright infringement and threatened his account if he listed it again.This rightly confused him. After all, he was the legal owner of that unwanted, unused Ultraviolet redemption code. How could it be copyright infringement to sell that code to someone else, if you aren't using it? Selling or handing off that code is no different than selling or giving away the DVD copy that you would not use. Additionally, he pointed out many more eBay auctions doing the exact same thing, selling unwanted Ultraviolet codes.
What may make his case unique over the others is that he is selling a code for the recently released Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. Since the movie has only been out for a few days now, Paramount may be working overtime to make sure that people are only buying the retail packages rather than just the digital version. Even if Paramount's end goal is to promote retail sales of the movie, flagging these sales as copyright infringement is tantamount to copyfraud.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bluray, drm, dvd, mission impossible, ultraviolet
Companies: ebay, paramount
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright Scope Creep
In this new world, only buying is legal. Selling is always illegal. When you buy something, do you own it? No, because you are not allowed to sell it, therefore it cannot be yours. Your property rights have been cleverly taken off you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Scope Creep
Boycott all MAFIAA Stuff
No Theater Going
No Buying New MAFIAA
Buy only USED MAFIAA
Spend your cash on New INDIE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Scope Creep
If they could they would charge you by the laugh.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sony-patents-laughter-detector
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Scope Creep
The code was sold as part of a bundle pack. You may not be allowed to sell of individual components of that pack separately. I've seen this in other industries too. Stores can not sell individual cigarets from a pack. You could buy a trip through a travel agency but could not then re-sell the hotel reservation to a 3rd party while still keeping the airline tickets. You can't sell a mail-in rebate to a 3rd person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
Breaking the items out of a bundle and selling them separately could be a violation of the license agreement, I suppose, but it's hard to understand how one can engage in copyright infringement without making any copies at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
Looks to me that the industry is further trying to confuse "infringement" with "theft" and/or other crimes. Perhaps trying to make it a catch-all offense for anything they dislike. Similar to the "disorderly conduct" charges officers use to arrest you if you do something they don't like but have nothing else to charge you with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/01/07/132744291/for-promotional-use-only-not-for-res ale-oh-yes-it-is
The basic summary is the First Sale Doctrine allows you to resell all or part of an item you purchased without violating copyright laws as long as you did not make a copy.
So assuming he didn't use the code, from my understanding it would be perfectly legal to do what he was doing, even if the industry disagrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
Those labels don't actually have any legal weight outside of contractual agreements between retailers and suppliers. In fact, you'll notice that the trend is to word them as "not labelled for individual sale" rather than the old-fashioned "Not for individual resale".
Promo music is a good example of how this works. Radio stations (used to?) receive discs that were labelled "not for resale". They were contractually restricted from reselling them, but once they were in the hands of someone who wasn't party to the contract, there was no law against selling them. That's why it was not uncommon to find them in used music stores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
Without some sort of license that someone must agree to, then you can't even claim it as a violation of a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Scope Creep
If you look you'll see that they always say they are for private home use only, meaning that if you showed it outside of your home you're in violation.
The way this works in the law is that you are buying the right to watch the movie, that money goes to the studio, if a store buys the movie but never opens it, it has never used that right to view, so it can be transferred to someone else & the studio still gets paid for that viewing. Once you've watched the movie you've 'activated' your viewing right like a 'redemption code'. Once the redemption code for an iTunes or UV copy have been used they can only be used again by the account that activated it.
So if you sell your old VHS tapes or DVDs you are making money on that sale, but the studio is not.
Fortunately they don't press very hard on this issue. The reason they don't is because 'technically' by the same laws, you own the right to view the movie, so if you had a VHS of Independence Day & the tape was damaged because it was watched so many times they'd be required to replace it for a minimal fee, & once they stop making VHS players they would be required to convert them to a supported format at the cost of the media (the DVD) only, which would be 4-12�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, of course, those actual, quantifiable, lost sales will just be blamed on "piracy" and so they'll continue their anti-consumer practices. All because the usual suspects are incapable of listening to their own customer base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Normally I wouldn't care if a business or industry arrived at a faulty and ineffectual rendering of their market, but entertainment's reaction to technology has been to reach out and tamper with other industries that I am participating in. This is a pretty good kick in the nuts as a consumer who's playing by the rules and expecting some semblance of balance on the other side of the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And so have profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If DVD rippers like yourself don't buy a copy, then yes, piracy has been delayed.
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for playing."
Playing what? He's pointing out a fact, a legitimate sale has been lost because of a DRM type restriction. The pirates, who these measures are aimed at deterring, are unaffected by such measures. They have workarounds and methods to beat such schemes. As such, while there might be a delay in acquiring the product (per release schedules/windowing), no one who is pirating the product is genuinely delayed in any meaningful way.
Sorry, thanks for not playing. Or at least the not playing the "let's think logically and use a bit of reason and common sense game". Which is what the rest of us are playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yawn... I wonder if you people will ever get tired of attacking the people who are actually buying legal content...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But if I rip it myself (Purely of the movies that I own & for me & my house only) I can get a higher quality Video, 5.1/7.1 Surround sound &, after tagging it myself, more complete tags at 1080 for just over 2GB & an SD copy at 480 with Dolby/ProLogic sound for 400-800MB. Granted a 2hr movie will take 7hrs to transcode at 1080 & 3-5hr at 480, but I'm not gonna pay more for less.
If Apple gets a clue & offers their Digital Copies at a better compression, since they only have to transcode it once for thousands of downloads, & complete tags I'll buy them, but now I download the digital copy into iTunes, then replace it with the ones I make myself.
DRMs aren't MY problem in concept, but I hate them nonetheless because they want to take more space to save them a few minutes & you have to buy a bigger HDD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, where's all the great nuance you pretend to provide on your site? This article is just another turd stain on the internet. Great job hiring Zach, who knows nothing about the law, to write legal articles. Awesome nuance, Mikey. Da best!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a huge difference in some situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't you people ever get tired of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is just plain sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Grammatical errors aside, what on earth are you on about? There's no legal case he's trying to make there. In-fact, apart from the cold hard facts, the only conjecture is prefaced with 'may', which does not mean the same thing as 'will'. It doesn't seem like a far-flung conclusion, and cites several references as source for establishing a behavioural pattern.
I would suggest laying off the caffiene, getting some fresh air, and maybe a frontal lobotomy, as you seem to have some trouble functioning in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Flailing about and talking trash about an article does not invalidate its content. Only a valid, well-though-out counter argument can do that.
But from the looks of things, you don't seem terribly capable of something that clever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not a bad attempt as far as some go, but you're going to have to do better; we expect a higher caliber of troll here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward's post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ponder the message your complaints actually convey. Apathy is a much scarier prospect to some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the TPP got THAT kind of policy and the US manage to lure the Philippines into it...
There's go our "Ukay-Ukay" and flee markets as those rely on reselling and retailing of majority of items....
What a way to go to fight infringement...
We might as well en up in a Modern feudal era at this rate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is an expectation of the item being useable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty
(the warranty of title is worth looking at.)
It would be nice for people to begin to understand the deeper problem here that your paying the same price (or more) for digital things you purchase, but you have no rights to resell them like physical goods.
Why should you pay as much for a dead tree copy of a book as you do for the digital copy?
The dead tree copy can be resold, loaned to a friend, donated to a library, etc.
The digital copy isn't something you can own and you have no rights.
Isn't technology about making things easier, cheaper, faster... and somehow this is perverted time and time again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you've lost me here. you're argument doesn't make sense, or at least is very far from being clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When we purchase things we assume we own that thing, this would mean that we would have title over that object. This should allow us to resell those things we own.
The buyer should have the right to resell property they purchase be it physical or digital. We need to get past the idea that because someone MIGHT be able to make a copy and then sell the original we should remove peoples ability to do so.
They charge more for digital goods, and then tell you it isn't your property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are paying more and getting less than what you expect.
You pay more now for digital copies, but you don't have the traditional benefits of ownership:
- as GP stated, you don't have TITLE to the item.
- you don't have a guarantee of service (i.e. if that service fails in 5 years, you can't hack together your own system to keep using the item at your convenience). So now what you have purchased is limited by time.
- No transfer of ownership possible with the new system.
GP is pointing out that we are paying extra to give away rights consumers have traditionally held. This wouldn't be a problem if they were up front about it, but it's hidden in legalese and in EULAs so that the user never actually reads about what is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Perception
I don't feel that this is correct, since they are obviously separate items packaged together. Would they make the same argument for selling the DVD included in a BlueRay bundle? And the price you "paid" (whether it was free or included in the price of the disc) shouldn't enter the equation either. If you own something, you should be able to sell it, no matter what price you paid yourself.
I guess that means the real matter boils down to whether or not people "own" the digital copies they receive from the seller or "own" the right to access a digital copy. I imagine we'll eventually see a statement from Ultraviolet on the matter that will make consumers even more wary of this drm-full "bonus" content that is intended to assuage the erosion of our fair use rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Perception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Perception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Perception
Personally, I feel like you were sold two copies of the game and you should be entitled to use them as you would any other property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
I had a similar situation happen to me with a film my sister bought me for Christmas one year on DVD. It was using an updated copy protection system and wouldn't play on my computer because of it. The solution? Download the film. It took an hour to download, less time than it would have taken if I'd tried to find a solution a different way. It has put me off of making some purchases I might have otherwise now though. So what cost piracy? It was actually the anti-piracy methods which caused the problems, although critics would argue that without piracy the situation would never have gotten to this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
Actually, I think AC ment that it caused problems for the game publisher. Fallout with the consumer base, you know? PC gamers, generally speaking, tend to be pretty well informed bunch, and when a company does something like that, the company's gotta do a lot of quick PR work or they lose sales on the next game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
Not sure if I've ever seen it be that you get a mail-in coupon for game discs (with new graphics card purchase), although on a few occasions I've seen them offer mail-in rebates if you already owned the game or had just recently purchased it (within days of the special going on), which just meant you got refunded what you spent on the game.
But coupons/rebates redeemable for physical copies? Haven't seen yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
Either way, I got something for free that I couldn't use, and according to this article, giving it away or selling it is a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
What's worse is I've been reading more and more about this happening. Download vouchers/codes that were incomplete (missing digits), incorrect (straight up wrong) or left out entirely. In one case, it was so widespread one company issued a statement saying "contact us or if you'd prefer you can guess the missing digit" (ranging from 0-9 or A-Z).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
It is actually a very common practice these days. Off the top of my head Dirt 3, Deus Ex, Batman AC have all been offered like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
just saying, playing the game rather then sending the voucher to the publisher with a letter explaining how horrible it is that the games not got a native linux port is encouraging them to keep producing windows only titles, much like buying from the mafiaa or pirating their works is said to encourage their actions.
mind I personally use windows for my main os, and *nix as my secondary, and fully understand why developers dont want to go down the road to native linux support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
Being primarily a Linux user does not automatically mean being anti-Windows. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
1. they are anti-windows/MS and thus will go to any lingths to avoid windows.
2. they are a masochist and enjoy the pain of trying to get games working under an os they where never intended to operate under.
it could be 1+2 i guess, I do know one guy whos a bit insain who would spend months getting 1 game working because he finds tinkering with wine and linux to make stuff work more fun then...actually using his computer for anything useful :P
this from a guy who dosnt hate linux/unix at all, but who sees its strengths and weaknesses and accepts them.
Linux is amazing for some uses, like the system i setup a while back for a friends mother, xp had died on here again due to somebody(not her) installing copious amounts of crapware on it(over 85 apps total....), stuck vector linux on it gave her a basic rundown for her use pattern and shes happy as a clam.
I also know why many developers who despite using linux for a dev platform(its gotten to be around 50/50 since windows has gotten better, use to be more linux then windows for dev work) who wouldnt dream of making games for linux.
the reasons for this are many, main ones being that theres no unified framework that "just works" and every modern version supports, under windows you have DirectX that has
d3d
ddraw
dinput
dsound
exct
and for the most part they "just work" if the user needs to update the video driver thats a simple process under windows, in linux.....dont get me started trying to teach an average WoW type "gamer" how to update drivers under linux....its less painful to close your genitals in a desk drawer...
under linux you cant be sure that whatever linux distro you try and install on will support any set of dependencies or even support the installer package you want to use.
its just a pain to try and support linux because there are thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of distros out there, no 2 are identical in what they support....
again, I do not hate linux, I just know how big a pain it can be to support it....(part of why no shop I have ever worked for will officially support linux)
BSD is great IF your hardware is supported, and infact would be my top choice for a system that had decent specs and was a few years old, unlike linux its got a stable driver api/abi, has a set of standard installer packages and driver updates arent that hard...ofcourse there arent hundeds/thousands/tends of thousands of distros of bsd(thank god!!!)
dont get me started on OSX and Apple when it comes to drivers and "it just works" i could rant for a week strait on that flat out LIE they tell their users......who then blame whoever they run into at a computer shop for telling them it dosnt really "just work" :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
A bare majority of modern games can be made to run under Linux without a huge amount of effort, and I've yet to find a game that both doesn't run under Linux and is compelling enough to overcome my inherent laziness.
(Also, since I hadn't even booted into Windows for over a year, I finally reclaimed that partition and no longer have a Windows machine at all.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
I remember the pains of trying to get certain games working under DOS and early Windows versions. To pretend that this is somehow unique to Linux is disingenuous, and if it weren't for MS's own DirectX having become the defacto system for a while (as opposed to OpenGL, etc), then either Windows would be just as difficult or Linux would have the same support under the cross-platform system.
"dont get me started on OSX and Apple when it comes to drivers and "it just works" i could rant for a week strait on that flat out LIE they tell their user"
Care to elaborate? I've never had a single issue with either of my Mac systems, for gaming or any other activity. I have, however, seen people with severe driver & other issues on Windows system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
I've sure had troubles. This is not a slam against Apple machines at all -- all complex systems introduce headaches -- but I've found the Mac to be a very difficult platform to deal with when something goes wrong, and something goes often enough for this to matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
That doesn't mean it doesn't have its problems, of course, but I'm always suspicious when someone attacks it, especially compared to Windows. Driver and virus issues alone were the bane of my personal and professional life under Windows 9x/XP, and Vista was a shoddy pile of crap that couldn't even copy a file across my home network until SP1 (7 is excellent, I'm suspicious about 8). I've had more luck under Linux, though at least I knew that when it broke, it was usually my tinkering that caused it rather than an inherent flaw.
However, your personal experience may be different, and that's fine. I can be a little suspicious of people who claim massive problems with OSX, but we all have bad runs. I just prefer them to be quantified, especially when people start ranting about "driver issues" - OSX is the only system I've never encountered with such a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
However, I did not seek out my graphics card because of The Witcher. I got my graphics card because the manufacturer supports Linux with native drivers.
As for your insistence that Linux is difficult to use, only if you want it to be. Ubuntu and several other distros have made huge stride toward user friendliness and installing drivers is as easy as clicking a menu option during set up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think of these like games, you get a digital version and CD version but the two are sharing the same license (cd key with games).
Its like splitting the cost of a video game, and sharing the CD-key with someone else, except you both don't go online so no one would ever know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except, DVDs and Blu Rays have never involved explicit licences before now. Until this bull started, you owned the copy of the DVD you bought and could do anything with it you wanted - including reselling one part of the package if you wished. Software's different as there's always been a distinct licence and EULA with each copy.
"Its like splitting the cost of a video game, and sharing the CD-key with someone else"
Is it? Or is it more like getting a pack with a Blu-Ray and a DVD, and selling one of the discs because you know you'll never use it? How is that wrong, exactly, if only one person has access to the digital licence or other licence being sold?
In this case, I somehow doubt there's an EULA or licence agreement on the packaging or the DVD/Blu discs so your comparison isn't really apt. At best, this is just an example of how rights that used to be taken as granted (first sale doctrine, for example) are being systematically removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But most games come with one way of purchasing them. Either a digital copy and you receive a onetime use redeem code to unlock/license. Or a physical copy with a registration serial to also be used one time.
"Its like splitting the cost of a video game, and sharing the CD-key with someone else, except you both don't go online so no one would ever know."
As far as that goes, well that's wrong. But it doesn't seem to be equivalent to buying a bundled product and then reselling the parts of the bundle you didn't want/don't plan on using at all.
If he was selling codes he'd already used (if that were even possible, for them to be used and reused repeatedly) then this would be another story and I'd agree with you. But that's not the case and as such I don't.
As far as "this should be illegal" though, that's a bit much. You're now advocating for the loss of the ability to resell an item for consumers. Which the way things are going is an inevitability, but as consumers our rights are being eroded away at constantly. In every industry but the entertainment one (or at least as far as movie, music and software purchases goes) you can ask for refunds if items do not meet your satisfaction (although there may be some penalties/fees associated with doing so), nor are terms changed on a standard basis as the person who creates the product or owns the copyright/patents on it sees fit (regarding EULAs).
I mean "proper" is all in the eye of the beholder. You think this isn't proper. I think it is. I personally have done similar. Purchased bundled music albums (physical copy, with a digital copy redeemable by code, that also came with t-shirts/key chains/lighters/etc) and given away (not sold though) portions of it. Is that not "proper"? And if it isn't, why not? Factoring in that I DID NOT sell the stuff I didn't want. And if I had, what's wrong with that? The item was paid for in full up front. So why can't I sell a portion of it? We're already watching the attack on the second hand/used goods market. Let's not add to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I buy a widget, I am obtaining that object and all control over it, and I am compensating the widget's maker/retailer for that privilage monetarily. If the maker/retailer wanted me to forgo the right to resell it, he can sit me down and negotiate with me. I would of course argue for a reduced price, to reflect the reduced control I would have over the widget.
Not the same with DVDs it appears. I'm not sat down to negotiate and sign a licence prior to purchase. The message I'm getting is that I have to pay BEFORE I can see the licence. What happens if I want to see the licence beforehand? I can't. I don't know what's in the licence. Not all licences are the same. I can't guess. What happens if the licence says that upon playing the movie, I now have to give them my car? Or something as outrageous, and they say I agreed to it by playing the movie?
I'm at the counter, pay for the DVD and then AFTER the sale, I'm told that my control over this object has been reduced.
Now, the item is a bundle. The purchase price we're told is for the one widget, and whatever else is in the package is free. Only...according to you, I can't resell it? Why the hell not? Did I or did I not just pay for the damn thing? The guy selling his Ultraviolet code (assuming he hadn't already used it up) wouldn't have been able to use it at the same as the guy he attempted to sell it to, so you worrying over "except you both don't go online so no one would ever know" doesn't count.
As for splitting the cost of a video game...what are you on about? If someone went half's on a game with me, we would both expect to be able to play it (maybe not at the same time, if its a console game, maybe work out a system of swapping disks on certain days of the week).
"I think of these like games, you get a digital version and CD version but the two are sharing the same license (cd key with games). "
Then have it in big bold lettering on the box BEFORE we pay, so we can know exactly what we're purchasing. For thousands of years, economics has worked that if I pay you for Widget A, I get Widget A and all control over it. This is more or less ingrained into human nature. How are we supposed to know or accept for that matter, that attempting to sell something we got for free is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The key only allows access to the copy, it is not the copy in and of itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What the hell? I did sell the digital copies before (which have been removed) but then they started remove discs.
Don't you think I should be able to sell those physical items?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is an unwanted 'digital copy' any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry sir but technically we do not "sell" rifles and guns, what we do is we lease them to you. The rifles and guns will be "yours" only you don't actually have any rights associated with ownership other than the actual having.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you "buy" the box set, are you simply buying a license to watch the film in the included formats? If you are simply buying a license as Hollywood would like to believe then by selling the UV codes, you are selling a copy of that license whilst retaining a copy for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A film though, is different, and trying to suggest they should be treated the same as a completely different medium is the wrong way to think about this. It is different and needs to be treated as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which option kills this thing faster?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Option B: Ultraviolet clarifies that the code is part of the disc license, for the sole use of the disc owner. Everyone goes back to either buying discs and ignoring the Ultraviolet "bonus" or buying a digital copy somewhere else. They blame the lack of increase in sales on piracy.
Option C: Ultraviolet decrees that the code is a license granted to the original disc's owner and is non-transferable. Since the code and stream-able version are immutably licensed to the disc owner, and the disc owner has only paid for a single license to the content, the owner somehow loses his first-sale rights to the physical disc being unable to discontinue use of the streaming license. With no resale rights, the value of discs drops and people who would otherwise have bought physical media switch to streaming content. They blame the decrease in sales on piracy.
I'm putting my money on "B".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or to put it simply, they're the kind of people who would kick a wall, and then blame the wall for their foot hurting after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ultraviolet wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ultraviolet wha?
UltraViolet is not a digital file is a authentication scheme, the files are offered by others and authenticated by UltraViolet meaning you buy the DVD and you need to be able to connect to the internet if you want to watch it LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ultraviolet wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ultraviolet wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ultraviolet wha?
"See? We generously loaned you a (drm crippled) copy of it already! There's no need to be able to make one yourself, just jump through our hoops."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ultraviolet wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ultraviolet wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM used to be fun....
Hell, DRM used to be part of the game! Granted, when my childhood dog decided that the decoder ring looked like a tasty treat it was impossible to play the game anymore, but that seemed like just punishment for leaving my toys out in the computer room....plus then I went to play outside. OUTSIDE!!!
Oh, those were the days....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM used to be fun....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM used to be fun....
It also calls to light a comment from one of the Johnny books by Terry Pratchett, about how the game publishers had "obviously never heard of Wobbler's dad's office's photocopier"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It records everything, when you play that video it calls home to get an authorization, it knows which devices you are using because you have to register them to work and so it collects data usage about all the transactions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source: http://www.uvvu.com/faqs.php#question-3
I see what UltraViolet is for, is to collect data usage and start charging for usage slowly and then call everyone who disagrees a freetard infringing scum LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same ol' rant
And this is where it gets complex. The ability to share a physical item is limited, but with a digital version, the desire to share is enhanced. If your friend wants to borrow a book and you say yes, then you no longer have that book until (if) it's returned to you. If a friend wants to borrow your ebook (pdf), not only is there no fear of loss, but there is the desire to share with more friends (assuming you like the book) because it's convenient. Why shouldn't we the consumers use the technology that we paid for to do what it allows us to do? (at this point I ask the trolls not to start whining and saying we can use a telephone to make bomb threats, is that ok too... oops the NSA picked that up... its just a post on a blog guys)
We as consumers can see where this is a problem for those who sell content for a living, but that really isn't our problem. It never has been. We copied CDs and cassettes before mp3s and TV shows and movies on VHS, but they were just distributed slower.
Personally I'm tired of the economic insults that the content industry hurls at us repeatedly about their "value" to the economy. The content industry is where disposable income is spent. There is no harm to the economy if the content industry fails completely. All of that money will just be spent on something else. All those lost jobs will just reappear wherever all of that disposable income flows. Why can't the content industry just be good lil capitalists and deal with it. Adapt already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same ol' rant
I disagree. Right of first sale is completely compatible with digital goods just relying on what courts have already ruled when it comes to backup copies: If you resell, you must include all the copies you made of the thing as if they were an indivisible unit. If you do otherwise, you've violated copyright.
To say that right of right of first sale shouldn't apply to the digital realm is saying that there should be no right of first sale for any good that can be copied, whether digital or not, because you could conceivably simply sell copies forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll just get it over with right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A new basic check
If an injunction(closing one's account in this case) is placed against someone and it is later found that the injunction was later found to be invalid, then the party who created the injunction should be responsible for any lost profit and $100/day, whichever is greater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A new basic check
Wait a sec...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusion
If instead, it was VERY obvious that you are not buying the movie, but "leasing" or "licensing" it... people would act differently.
Currently... they suppose (rightfully so), that buying a DVD is like buying a toothbrush or screwdriver. You buy it... it's yours... you can do whatever you want with it.
The difference is not plain nor evident that this is NOT the case with intellectual "property".
It's a big scam that the government SHOULD have put a stop to (since it's blatantly consumer fraud), but which the government is being well paid to ignore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why spend the cash?
They can 'say' I don't really own it, but guess what? If that money stays in my pocket - I do in fact own the money.
So I'll stick with what I can really own.
Kinda makes me regret I just bought a CD from them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buy? No, Lease a movie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay & "free" downloads
1. This story is really about eBay & their unclear reasons for yanking the listing. They work in mysterious ways so I think until there's more information about WHY, a lot of this discussion is just wasted bandwidth.
2. We offer a free download as part of every new LP we sell because we want to entice The Kids (tm) to buy the physical product. It's not a digital sale (they can go to iTunes, eMusic, wherever for that)- it's a free add-on to the package. The price of the LP isn't higher because of the download card.
If someone pulls a jerk move and sells the code, well, that sucks but it's only 1 download. It's unknown if the buyer would've bought the full-priced record anyway. Maybe they will after they hear the music.
But I agree completely with the philosophy of "if someone buys something, it's theirs." I buy used physical content all the time.
There shouldn't be a difference between selling 2nd hand physical media and 2nd hand digital media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ebay & "free" downloads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads
Additionally I'm a little perplexed by your free download with physical purchase offer. (I think it's cool you're working with free and digital promotions) If the download is for a copy of something they already purchased on disc, then it seems specifically designed to be passed along by the customer. After all, they just bought the CD and if they want an MP3 of the entire disc it can easily (and legally without the inclusion of DRM) be converted to that format.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads
Wait, why is that a jerk move? If I win a drawing and have no use for the prize, is it a jerk move to sell the prize?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads
I say this having worked in jobs setting up bundle deals, the industry standard is to make NOTHING free, they are charging you for the UV copy, its included in the price you pay for the disk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ebay & "free" downloads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads
And no, just because I think it's a jerk move to resell something that one got for free doesn't mean that offering a free d/l isn't a really positive thing for our company to do. It is, & the rare occurrence of this selling pieces of a d/l code isn't a worry for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads
the fact is you didnt get the code for the UV version free, because the studios didnt get it free.
do you really think the people who insist every download is a lost sale would give anything away?
do you really think those same people would take a loss to include a digital copy free with a dvd/bd?
if you do....i got a bridge to sell you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another horrible Techdirt misrepresentation.
The Ultaviolet codes are a license, not a "product". They are a non-transferable license, so selling them off is a violation of copyright. The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years. But you can see the issue right away, as some people think of it as multiple copies they can just sell for a profit.
Do you understand why the movie industry isn't in a rush to do it your way? Give you an inch, and more than a few tard try to take a mile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you are a bit confused here. Violating a Terms of Service is not copyright infringement. Secondly, the person selling the code has not redeemed the code, has never agreed to the terms of the "license" and is thus not liable for violating it. However, even if they did, that is not Copyright infringement.
The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years.
Nothing wrong with the idea of UV. The problem lies in the implementation. They claim you are getting a digital copy, but all the limitations and blockades to using it in a convenient way makes the service useless for the informed consumer.
But you can see the issue right away, as some people think of it as multiple copies they can just sell for a profit.
What profit? The guy bought a $30 Bluray/DVD/UV combo pack and sold the UV code for $5. There is no profit gained. He is still out $25.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You truly aren't qualified to discuss these matters, Zach. Does it just not even occur to you to research these things before making grand pronouncements like this? Do you really just sit there and think that you know enough about copyright law that you should write articles about it? I just don't get it.
Transferring a nontransferable copyright license can be copyright infringement, Zach. I don't have all the facts here, so I can't run you through the analysis. Suffice it to say there's a lot more going on that your uneducated, non-nuanced broadbrushing recognizes. If someone bought a DVD that came with a code, then that person is bound by a license. First sale doctrine is not in issue here.
You might want to try and actually research these things so you don't come across as a backwards-working moron. I know Pirate Mike doesn't mind what dopey things you say as long as you're repeating the "IP sucks" mantra. But you want to be better than that, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would love to see them try and enforce an EULA style license term here, because Im sure it would backfire.
and the UV copy wasnt free, you paid for it, cost included with the orignal disk price, again these people arent gonna take a profit margin hit to give you a free copy of anything....hell you even pay for the trailers they include on the disk....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know you don't understand this, but think of it this way. Let's say you buy a bedding set. You like the comforter, the sheets but not the sham. You have a right to separate out the sham from the rest of the package and sell or give it away. Same here.
Or let's say you buy a variety pack of potato chips. You don't like one particular flavor so you give or sell the flavor you don't like.
Or in this case, someone bought a combo pack of a movie and sold off the part they don't like and will never use. It is dead weight to them. It is transferable, both physically and legally.
Please, cite the case law that states it is not legal to do this. I will wait for you, although I know I will be waiting for quite some time as you will ignore this request for an actual legal citation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Better put:
Company A bought a non-transferable license for Autodesk software.
Company A then gave away that software when they stopped using it.
Guy B picked up the software and then sold it.
While Guy B never agreed to the license, company A did and that superceded guy B's right to sell the software on eBay.
That does not apply in this case as the movie has not been redeemed and no one has agreed to a non-transferable license. This is nothing more than one person saying "I don't want to use this service I have not signed up for. You can purchase my right to use it for $5".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the part you aren't understanding. When you buy the DVD, you are agreeing to be subject to the shrinkwrap license that comes with the DVD. Part of that agreement is that you are given an UltraViolet code for your own use. The shrinkwrap license provides that the UltraViolet code is nontransferable. You keep focusing on the fact that the DVD purchaser hasn't signed up for UltraViolet, but that is beside the point. The purchaser of the DVD that comes with an UltraViolet code has no right to sell that code--the shrinkwrap license which they ARE subject to prevents it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, dude. Just wow. You truly do not have even a thin grasp of the basics. No wonder Mike lets you write for Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the DVD itself is subject to first sale and is transferable. But the UltraViolet license, which is what was being sold on eBay, was not his to sell. He is merely the holder of a nontransferable, nonexclusive license. Of course there is a license involved here. I don't have the DVD this guy bought in front of me, so I don't have all the facts, but clearly there is some sort of shrinkwrap license that he accepted when he bought the DVD. It's really
weak that you write about things you lack even a basic understanding of.
I know you don't understand this, but think of it this way. Let's say you buy a bedding set. You like the comforter, the sheets but not the sham. You have a right to separate out the sham from the rest of the package and sell or give it away. Same here.
When you buy a bedding set, you're buying the bedding set, not some nontransferable, nonexclusive license to it. The fact that you're trying to compare a license to the sale of tangible goods shows you haven't a clue.
Or let's say you buy a variety pack of potato chips. You don't like one particular flavor so you give or sell the flavor you don't like.
Again, you didn't buy a license to the bag of potato chips. The two are not comparable.
Or in this case, someone bought a combo pack of a movie and sold off the part they don't like and will never use. It is dead weight to them. It is transferable, both physically and legally.
Nope. They bought a movie and a license, and the license is not transferable. The fact that you don't understand this basic point is proof positive that you are absolutely unqualified to write about these issues.
Please, cite the case law that states it is not legal to do this. I will wait for you, although I know I will be waiting for quite some time as you will ignore this request for an actual legal citation.
I can quote case law for you all day long. Exactly what point would you like me to cite? I'm happy to back it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please cite the case law that states that an unredeemed code for a service for which the person transferring the code has never signed up for and never plans to sign up for is a non-transferable license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just a shrinkwrap license. When you buy the DVD and get the redemption code, your rights in that code are dictated by that license. The fact that the DVD purchaser has no intention to sign up for the UltraViolet service is immaterial. The code is subject to the shrinkwrap license. It'd be helpful if we were looking at the license to see what it says.
There is a bit of discussion in this article on the point: http://mesalliance.org/blog/2012/04/20/can-consumers-legally-sell-unused-ultraviolet-movie-codes/
They point out that the code just represents a license to a bundle of rights that is nontransferable and not subject to first sale. The whole thing is governed by a shrinkwrap license. When you buy the DVD, your rights are subject to that license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is also interesting that instead of actual legal documentation of whether this practice is illegal, you cite a link to an article on a pro-industry website quoting industry lawyers.
I would seriously love to see shrinkwrap licenses tested in court. Unfortunately, no one in the movie or music industry is will to risk it. Until such a time as it is proven in court that shrinkwrap licenses are legally binding, I would like to fault on the side of first sale and fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the Seventh Circuit from 1996: "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1449 (7th Cir. 1996) (Easterbrook, J.).
I would seriously love to see shrinkwrap licenses tested in court. Unfortunately, no one in the movie or music industry is will to risk it.
What? You really have a conspiracy theory thing going here. With absolutely no basis whatsoever you've cooked up this whole thing that "no one in the movie or music industry" would even risk it. That's just crazy talk, and again, all you're doing is showing how you haven't a clue.
I love, love, love how Mike laments the lack of nuance, when he has writers tackling subjects they don't even understand the basics of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A better case to apply to this instance would be that of Specht vs. Netscape in which the court found:
a reasonably prudent Internet user in circumstances such as these would not have known or learned of the existence of the license terms before responding to defendants� invitation to download the free software, and that defendants therefore did not provide reasonable notice of the license terms.
In this case, a purchaser of a DVD would not have known or learned of the license terms of such a shrink wrap license before being bound by the terms by opening the DVD. There is no reasonable notice to the terms of the license prior to opening the DVD.
So the legal status of such terms as applies to this situation and really any situation is still very much in debate at this point. It has not official legal standing other than in some instances they are binding, in the case of someone explicitly agreeing, and they are not, in such cases where there is no reasonable notice or opportunity to reject or agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We don't have this guy's DVD box in front of us, but I'm guessing it looks something like this: http://www.mortalkombatonline.com/content/News/mk_digital_copy.jpg It gives you the code, and underneath in small print it says: "For terms of use, go to wbdigitalcopy.com/terms." You cannot use the code, which is merely licensed, without being bound by whatever those terms say (within reason). At least with this image I found, I don't think the argument that the terms were not conspicuous would work. It's standard practice to put the terms (or indicate where the terms can be found) in the fine print. That's what "fine print" means. Surely most, if not all, DVDs have similar fine print. Again, it's industry standard practice.
It's great that you're making that argument, but I don't see how it wins the day. Additionally, I'd recommend you not be so fast to jump to conclusions. Do a bit of research before you write the article. And props for keeping your cool while I've been a dick to you. You may not know much about IP law, but I can tell that you're a good person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the guys who wrote "I don't have all the facts" and who doesn't get shrinkwrap licences (which are not even included in the DVD this post is about). Impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basically, you're arguing that the guy here is bound by licence terms he doesn't see, doesn't know about and has no option of opting out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, what you'll notice are the levels of obfuscation there. The big orange box says "this movie plays everywhere*", which is patently untrue. The * refers to further text in the box next to it, which states - in smaller print - that it will play in certain portable devices. So far, no licence or restrictions mentioned, though the tech-savvy might guess that non-Apple/Android portable devices are not supported from the wording.
There's another * next to this text, which refers to the tiny white text on the black background below it (too small to read on that screenshot), where system restrictions are mentioned for the first time. I don't have it in front of me, but I don't recall any licencing information being given on there. There was an insert with the code on it, which may have given more information, but at the very least this was not visible on the box. A URL is a little bit of a cop out and doesn't mean that the customer has been informed of the exact licencing conditions, and IIRC correctly with Black Swan didn't appear until trying to redeem the code. Even if it's on the insert, this is normally not visible until after purchase.
In other words, there was really very little on the box to show that the file was restricted, and what was there was a hidden as possible in plain view - large text giving misleading impressions, text so small that many wouldn't be able to read it, no way of seeing further details without opening the box after purchase or leaving the store and checking online, etc. On top of that, this particular method had the digital copy stored on a separate disc, so most people would assume they could just give that away/resell it if they didn't want it, as they would normally be able to with any other physical media.
Overall, even if Ultraviolet's conditions are better advertised, I have no doubt that the exact restrictions are kept as quiet as possible until the customer runs afoul of them, even if they're technically displayed within the law. This is especially problematic with things like entertainment media, which are routinely bought as gifts and partially resold or obtained by those who literally don't understand tech licencing.
Nor should they. Nobody has ever had to check licencing for any non-computer media they owned before now, and it's silly to assume that people will suddenly start because the studios are paranoid. If the anti-piracy screed now depends on getting the average person to both read and understand technical licencing agreements, they may as well give up now. It won't work, not without destroying rights most people take for granted, and there's only a few more of those can be eroded before there's a real mainstream backlash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You truly aren't qualified to discuss these matters, AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, I think it's weird you aren't saying anything to Zach who wrote an article with a title that asks if selling an UltraViolet code is copyright infringement, but then the article itself doesn't answer the question or explore the actual law (because Zach doesn't grasp it). My head is still shaking on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a matter of interest, where is this licence printed? Where do I agree to it before purchasing the product?
"The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years. "
Oh dear, still not getting it, are you? People can ALREADY do that quite legally with standard DVDs. Even with your moronic attempts to restrict DVDs, I'm quite happily able to use any DVD I wish on any device I own without breaking any laws.
What you are doing is trying to play the game of removing our rights (stripping fair use rights to play DVDs back on Linux, for example) then trying to sell those rights back to us at an extra cost - restricted by DRM that won't let you play back on all the devices you won of course (if you have "too many" or favour systems that were not pre-approved).
Sorry, but if being forced to pay extra to have my rights back in a restricted format is what you think is the future of the industry, you're already failed.
"But you can see the issue right away, as some people think of it as multiple copies they can just sell for a profit."
People believe that the things included in the package THEY PAID FOR are things they own and can resell? Wow, it's almost like this is how things have always been before you assholes tried to corrupt it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
First off, Paul, you are an idiot, and you continue to prove it daily. I am not making any attempts at anything. I don't work in the movie or music business. These aren't my rules, my laws, or my business. I am a consumer, I would say "just like you" except I don't feel the need to pirate everything.
"As a matter of interest, where is this licence printed? Where do I agree to it before purchasing the product?"
It's one of the miracles of standard licensing, applied across an entire business - you know what you are getting up front. You are buying a license to a copyright product, and copyright laws apply. You don't have to do into a long winded recital of the T&C of copyright each time you sell the product, because it's meaningless to do so.
"People believe that the things included in the package THEY PAID FOR are things they own and can resell? Wow, it's almost like this is how things have always been before you assholes tried to corrupt it..."
Speaking of assholes, do you have anything else meaningless to add, asshole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The supremes dispatched this over 100 years ago.
No. You are buying a copy of something and copyright laws apply.
Your attempts to grossly misrepresent the state of copyright doesn't alter this. You are trying to conflate a couple of really distinct situations in hopes we won't notice.
Or perhaps you never managed to notice the relevant differences yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, you certainly won't prove any of your claims, so I'm glad something's working! Straight into the personal attacks, I see, so kindergarten's out for the day again...
"I don't work in the movie or music business."
Well, you have the same obnoxious childish attitude, lack of reading comprehension and handle as someone else who was claiming to be in another thread. Maybe you should consider differentiating yourself from the failed corporate whores around here if you take objection to being mistaken for them?
"I am a consumer, I would say "just like you" except I don't feel the need to pirate everything."
Neither do I, unless your fantasy world has managed to finally conjure up some proof that I don't. I certainly have provided proof that I do pay (which you and those like you conveniently ignore every time it's presented).
Maybe you should stop assuming that everybody who disagrees with you is a pirate, then maybe you can take part in adult debate?
"It's one of the miracles of standard licensing"
Where do I read this "standard licence" for something that didn't exist until very recently and is not printed somewhere I can read it in-store before I purchase a product?
"You don't have to do into a long winded recital of the T&C of copyright each time you sell the product, because it's meaningless to do so."'
Not if I wish to make an educated decision as to whether or not to buy a product, as the guy in the article found out to his detriment. Sorry, I'll just buy something else that doesn't have this crap attached to it - I just want people like you to know that "piracy" has nothing to do with my decision not to buy. If you are indeed a consumer, why do you welcome the stripping away of your rights in ways that do nothing to stop piracy?
"Speaking of assholes, do you have anything else meaningless to add, asshole?"
Yeah, *your* comments are meaningful, aren't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contracts are very transferrable.
Doesn't matter. The license comes with a token of ownership. It is that token of ownership that is being resold. It just so happens that the token in question is a number written on a piece of paper.
Contracts are very transferable.
Trying to pretend that creative works are something that they are not is a dangerous game. Things like contracts and property have very well established precedents. They are foundational elements of our economy and society. There are very rich and powerful people that will resist attempts to pervert them.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that it's what we've been "whining about". Yes, the ability to move legal content form device to device is a critically important thing. The thing is that UV doesn't actually allow that. It lets you kinda move content form some devices to some devices.
But even if it were actually universal, it would still fail in that it requires you to phone home to a central controlling authority. No moving to devices that can't contact the internet or if you're in a place where the internet is unavailable. You also lose more than a little privacy. Also, it's very intrusive and by all reports it barely works.
UV is a step in the direction of good policy, but is falls far short of being anything like good policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if they can eventually charge you for each time you or anybody else views content on your device they will.
I have actually listened to some of these people talk about that as one of their dreams for the future.
its not just the movie industry the music industry has wanted this for a long time as well, they think it will be a giant cash cow allowing them to make even more obscene amounts of money each year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And they are wrong. UV is awful, and consumers will react with massive indifference.
They could make such a scheme work in theory, but they'd have to come up with something that brings real value to the consumer. UV does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I still think it's a ploy to eradicate personal copies under fair use rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If so, that makes the case even weaker. Unless the licensing agreement is on the package with a "you agree if you've opened the box" kind of deal, then I've not agreed to any license at all. The only way the UV "license" could kick in is if I actually used it. Until that moment, it simply doesn't apply to me.
I contract (which is what a license agreement is) cannot by applied unilaterally. All parties bound by it must agree to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is �Intellectual Property� Property, Or Isn�t It?
On the other hand, when I buy a piece of �intellectual property�, it turns out it�s not my �property� at all, to do with as I would any other piece of my property, like resell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is �Intellectual Property� Property, Or Isn�t It?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's how I'd view it, as being in the UK, we had a precedent setting case in the courts where just opening a box is not committing you to any license unless you've read and agreed to the terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
others are selling codes fine
http://www.familyvideo.com/catalog/browse_genre.php?browse_id=255
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now that I have my UV DVD copy is it legal for me to sell the used DVD it's stamped so they can get UV version anymore. There is nothing in the copy write agreement that says I can't sell my original copy used DVD's.
Keep in mind with UV copy I can stream the movie and I can download it to my devices such as my 3Tb network storage which is connected to my TV.
Most of the DVD's in my collection were purchased used for a few bucks from the family video store before it closed.
How stupid are these people that offer things like UV copy? I think they become blinded at the idea of making an couple more bucks off a movie they have already sold.
Whats the old saying cut your nose off to spite your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as selling the disk; no, it would be illegal to do so, but would never be an issue unless you were investigated for something else. Then they would see that the license for that UV was a copy from disk & would ask you to produce the disk. If you were unable to they could add it to your list of offenses. Alone it would never stand, but with others it would. Just like how I have to delete any DVD Rips I made if I get rid of the DVD or, when I rip an Audiobook & then trade it on Paperbackswap.com, I will put it on a CD (It takes me time to make) & include it with the disk I send. Removing it from my computer. I don't really have to worry about it since I don't download movies or rip rented disks so I would never be investigated, but I like having my Ts crossed. Sounds like you have more to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright law is legalized theft by the corrupt entertainment industry
The whole copyright thing is a corrupt way of big companies trying to rip people off of for as much money as they can. They will throw money at corrupt governments to get what they want in legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movies vs. Digital codes (uv) -if the digital is bought through Vudu, Amazon whatever... No Disc, no packaging no shipping
HELLO... much more money to be made this way. Steven Jobs proved that with itunes.
Now on the flip side of this... I have bought movies with the uv kept the code and sold the dvd. Cost almost nothing.. according to this that legal because I was the first owner. Am I missing something... isn't this sort of the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay bullshit on UV codes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]