tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post4040271321913068534..comments2024-03-22T03:28:24.897-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: EFF beats UMG in Augusto case; resale of promo CD's on eBay is NOT a copyright infringementraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-82736327359560232442008-06-15T00:21:00.000-04:002008-06-15T00:21:00.000-04:00RIAA cannot assume that "insiders" are an exclusiv...RIAA cannot assume that "insiders" are an exclusive club anymore when it comes to copyright infringement in regard to promo CDs they don't want back.StephenHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14106243367366411553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-53820055902522889312008-06-13T00:46:00.000-04:002008-06-13T00:46:00.000-04:00Good to see that at least *some* judges are stayin...Good to see that at least *some* judges are staying sane inmidst the pool of mad RIAA lawyers constantly hanging around them in courtroums! <BR/><BR/>BTW what's with the VAN?[1] <BR/>Can we have a copy of that proceding too, Michael has no link to them on his report and me wonders if EMI now goes into the business of selling used cars which might be more profitable for them after all since teenagers do not want their CDs anymore[2]! <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"Alter_Fritz"<BR/>yes, ^^THAT^^ means what it means ;-)<BR/><BR/><BR/>[1] "The Record Labels Want My Minivan" <BR/>http://michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=266<BR/><BR/>[2] "But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. “That was the moment we realised the game was completely up,” says a person who was there.""<BR/>http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10498664Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-87035779950529758632008-06-13T00:19:00.000-04:002008-06-13T00:19:00.000-04:00Something similar happened in a Supreme Court ruli...Something similar happened in a Supreme Court ruling on the "exhaustion principle" concerning patents, which more or less says that if you license a patent to party B and they make a product which they sell to party C, then party C can use the product as part of their own product without having to pay patent royalties. It's a lot like the first sale doctrine in that sense.<BR/><BR/>It's been a good week for fans of true balance in IP law!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02929078355527618025noreply@blogger.com