I am happy for that verdict. If the other way all the 2nd hand resell cd/dvd stores would have to shut down because the labels would look and find them there.

Originally posted by sssharp:

---

I am happy for that verdict.

---

The case hasn't gone to court yet so what verdict are you talking about? :P

curious to see how this turns out...

I'm surprised this case hasn't been thrown-out already... A Not For Resale does NOT constitute a legally binding contract. It's very silly to give-away (or sell) something, and try to restrict what the new owner does with it. Let's say I sell my car and I make the new owner sign an agreement promising never to sell it, and promising never to paint it a different color. That contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on. He's the new owner and he can do whatever he wants with it.

Mr. Augusto bought the CDs, he owns them, and he can do whatever he wants with them (except make illegal copies).

The only way UMG could have a case is if the CDs were stolen. In that case, UMG would retain legal ownership even if they don't retain possession. But as far as I can tell, they never expected to get the CDs back. That means ownership was transferred when they gave then away in the first place, and they have no say in what happens to them after that.

He bought them in a second hand store.. which implies that the store bought them from somebody else... and so on and so on.

It's been common business for people to trade promo copies (demos) for years and years.. This is the first time I have ever heard of such a stupid greedy idea. UMG like the rest of the music business need to get their heads out of their collective a$$es pretty quick.. This is stupid and pointless litigation.. I hope the judge finds against them.. and forces the court to bring a pointless and punitive action against them for wasting everybodies time.. A fine of 200 million dollars sound about right for infringing this persons right to sell his legally bought and owned property? And a list of other things I can think of...

I'm waiting for UMG to start whining "but the artists haven't received any royalties for these disks" just to add insult to injury.. Ever heard of an artist ever getting any royalties from a second hand cd before? Nope.. didn't think so...

If they insist that they can't be sold then what are people supposed to do with them?.. Rip them and upload them springs to mind.. That way they are passed on to another without being "sold"

Download everything.. f--- the RIAA!!

Originally posted by varnull:

---

f--- the RIAA!!

---

Yep, that sums it up pretty well. Another version of the RIAA suing for something when they should keep there mouths shut. If a business sues 50% of their customers, they won't be in business long. Keep it up RIAA, you're only hurting yourself.

Originally posted by varnull:

---

Download everything.. f--- the RIAA!!

---

i don't quite dowload everything;
often i try and seek out independently produced music.

thing is the riaa have made it so hard to do that.
the environment they've created means exposure>talent,
and therefore even the 10 artist that get airplay suck.

Quote:

---

The "first sale" doctrine in copyright law, however, makes it clear that once the copyright owner sells or gives away a CD, DVD, or book, the recipient is entitled to resell it without needing further permission.

---

this only applies to physical sales, if you download music you only purchase the right to use it, you are not allowed to: resell, lend or give them away, now IFPI lets here more rhetoric of dwindling CD sales and a move to full on-line distribution. If you purchase media make sure you actually own it, dont purchase an empty bag ppl demand your rights don't allow Big Media to destroy them.

---