Re: Copyright & The New World Economic Order

   Gee, Bob, this is serious enough to bring me out of my lurker mode... and, BTW, I hardly ever disagree with your arguments.

On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/21/99, Steven D. Jamar wrote:
> >
> > 8. Among the matters which the "average person" should know are
> > infringements of copyright without consulting a lawyer:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > b. copying CDs and selling or giving them to others
>
> There was a discussion about this in another forum, and I concluded
> that giving away the CD is not infringing.
>
> Assume that the CD is an audio CD. Then look at the statute:
>
> "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
> copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of
> a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium,
> an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based
> on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium
> for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
>
> 17 U.S.C. sec. 1008.
>
> Noncommercial use of a consumer in copying such a CD is exempt under
> this section, at which point the user has a lawful copy.

HUH????? Where does it state that it is a "lawful copy?" What I read is that no action can be taken against the folks who provide, by whatever means, the instruments used to pirate a CD or tape or whatever. I think it is a VERY LONG stretch to say that this section condones piracy of any sort by anyone whether it be a home user making an archival copy for personal use or someone making a copy to give to his mom or a school chum (non-commercial).

> Section 109(a) gives that owner the right to dispose of that copy.
> Arguably, despite the language of 109(a), the user probably couldn't
> *sell* the copy because one could then argue that the first "use"
> under section 1008 was commercial, but giving it away shouldn't be
> actionable. Is there an error in my logic?

If we were to use the "fruit of the poisoned tree" logic then no matter what the final disposition was, a pirate copy is still and evermore, a pirate copy.

> In any event, even *if* there is an error in my reasoning (and I
> haven't researched the issue), it would certainly seem that this
> is not something that the average layperson could figure out.

Why not? Most laws are easily intrepreted by the lay person. The failure to read case law on the subject is what does us all in. (I didn't pick up an annotated statute book before responding <g>).

Don Roemer
<droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> Received on Tue Jul 27 1999 - 23:03:31 GMT