From: "Ross A. Finlayson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>This leads me to turn to 106(3), the notwithstanding clause. It's
>quite significant in this context:
>"'106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
>subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of
>a copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to
>authorize any of the following: "
>to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
>the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
>lease, or lending; "
>So, except in cases noted in sections 107 through 121, there can
>be no redistribution of the CD, and as we see 109(a) says the
>purchasor of the physical media can do with it as they please,
Thanks for the due diligence, it is clear to this jury that
distribution rights belong to the copyright holder and that merely
purchasing a CD does not grant you such rights, it is clear to this
jury that Napster is guilty of violations of the above mentioned
>I read about this some more. Basically, my understanding was that
>more than one copy of the media can be made by the purchasor of
>the media for private use.
This jury agrees. Private use yes, distribution verboten.
>Even if not, there are ways to get about, and there could be an
>online web service where people can check in their albums when
>they are not listening to them, with a priority to check them back
>out personally when they would, thus that there could be a
>completely legal online music lending library with distributed
>contributors, if there isn't already. Badda boom, badda bing.
Perhaps. The big question in my mind is "didn't Napster run this
past some lawyers? What were they thinking?"
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:15 MDT