Music Copyright Double Standard ? Legal Eagles, Help Me Out ON This One !

[Baminated]

Okay, so people are being busted &/or prosecuted, sued, etc . . . for "sharing" files via P2P clients and the like, and ordered to delete the files from their computer

So how come used record stores aren't getting their ass handed to them in the same way ?

The are not the original "licensee" end-user, and are hardly sharing, they are charging money.

Does the logic go like this ?

The copyright law is more clear on NOT reproducing, rather than NOT "repackaging" the original ?

Also, where in the US Code is the bulk of this covered ? 15USC, maybe ?

[mwm523]

i'm sure it has something to do with the fact that only one person can own that original copy at a time. Ownership is transferred when the used item is sold, just like if I sold you a used CD on eBay. That's totally legal. But if I made a copy of the original and sold it to you on eBay, that's not.

[Rufus]

Record stores are not creating copies of the works in question, they are just retailing merchandise ordered from the copyright holder (or his ir her label, etc.). If the record store bought one CD from the artist and then copied it a bunch of times and sold those copies, they would be prosecuted in the same way as the online file sharers.

[seriousfun]

The First Sale doctrine. It's been tradition that if you own a physical thing, you have the right to sell it.

From Wikipedia:

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule."

It gives the copyright holder exactly the same as what a file trade gives the copyright holder - nothing. Maybe marketing value.

I don't really think we have this right, but that's how it stands.

[Baminated]

NNNnnnice, thanks !