In your Microsoft Office example, the first sale doctrine clearly applies to legally manufactured physical goods like optical discs. That was just affirmed last week. Moral of the story, buy physical media if you want to resell it. Before you buy something in a purely digital format, take a moment to consider the value proposition and whether it is worth buying if you can't resell it down the road. It's really that simple.
You can't re-sell the song you paid 99 cents for? You sound like a bunch of poor people. When you purchase a beer in a bar, do you expect to pee back in the bottle and try to sell it to the guy sitting next to you? No, you recognize that you got your $3 worth of enjoyment out of it, consider it a sunk cost, and move on. You can always turn to streaming if paying 99 cents or $1.29 is too much of a financial commitment to make without the prospect of being able to recoup some of that money down the road. Stop trying to beat the system.
"Well over 50% of DMCA takedowns, potentially as high as 90% or more, are illegitimate. The system is broken from beginning to end, used far more often for sabotage purposes than for actually fighting piracy. But nobody is talking about that, at least not in policy-making circles.
So an all expense paid trip to Vegas is okay as long as the staffer doesn't get to keep the gadgets and less corrupting than getting to see a movie for free? I think most reasonable people would disagree. Particularly in light of the fact that the staffer probably gets to watch a free movie on the plane ride there. Getting to sit in the driverless car is something not available to the general public currently. So, again, a perk that a Member of congress or their staff is given to portray Google favorably and no doubt influence their thinking on issues like privacy.
Mike may not have explicitly said that content is "worthless," but tthe fact that his website is ddicated to criticizing content owners' - whether its for using the DMCA, litigating against websites that are clearly dedicated to solely profiting from piracy, or daring to call Kim Dotcom a crook rather than an innovator, clearly he has no respect for businesses that produce content. He believes they deserve to be subjected to piracy because they don't give away their content for free. Oh, and when was the last time that Mike complimented content owners when they did something to provide consumers more choice, eg ultraviolet, Hulu or the myriad legal platforms that continue to emerge on a weekly basis?
The MPAA is a trade association that represents companies that make movies and television shows. Is it so shocking that part of their education efforts would include screening the content that their members produce? No one on this blog criticizes Google when they let congressional members and staff take a spin in their driverless car or when the Consumer Electronic Association brings staffers out to Vegas to see the new and innovative gadgets that are coming to the market.
Sounds like you, Mike, and the rest of the pirate apologists who populate this site want to have it both ways. In this case, movies are valuable enough that they should be treated as an unethical gift because they will undoubtedly corrupt a congressman or his staff. In all other contexts, however, the movie industry makes worthless content that doesn't merit any sort of respect or protection online. So which is it?
1) Wake up alone on the pullout in his parents' basement
2) Bash the MPAA
3) Claim not to support piracy. No really, he's serious.
4) Mom, meatloaf!
5) Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential outside of his silly blog
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Very bad ruling
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Boo effing hoo
On the post: Former MPAA CTO Tells The White House Why SOPA Is The Wrong Approach For IP Enforcement
Please cite where these stats come from...
On the post: Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection
Re: Re:
Mike may not have explicitly said that content is "worthless," but tthe fact that his website is ddicated to criticizing content owners' - whether its for using the DMCA, litigating against websites that are clearly dedicated to solely profiting from piracy, or daring to call Kim Dotcom a crook rather than an innovator, clearly he has no respect for businesses that produce content. He believes they deserve to be subjected to piracy because they don't give away their content for free. Oh, and when was the last time that Mike complimented content owners when they did something to provide consumers more choice, eg ultraviolet, Hulu or the myriad legal platforms that continue to emerge on a weekly basis?
On the post: Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection
On the post: Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection
Re: Re:
On the post: Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection
Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
2) Bash the MPAA
3) Claim not to support piracy. No really, he's serious.
4) Mom, meatloaf!
5) Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential outside of his silly blog
Next >>