|
Interesting.
Copyright law does not directly govern the use of a product or creation after it is legally sold (or given away), and there are already too many precedents against the idea that someone can be made to pay back the creator for something they legally obtained, then sold on their own. Think of all the automakers suing used car sellers, real estate companies suing homeowners, and publishers suing all of those used bookstores...
In and of itself, it means very little. It's not a copyright issue, it's a legal issue. Any companies interested in that kind of control are just going to have to start writing up contracts and forcing their giftees to sign them and face legal liability for reselling them, gifting them, or even throwing them away. And every consumer down the line will have to sign such contracts for every purchase. Oy.
In fact, all that would result from that is for the purchaser/giftee to end up sending the item back to the original creator, who would then repackage it and regift it, resell it, or throw it away. Talk about Indian Givers. Oy gevalt.
I've said that copyright needs to be updated for the current century, and these legal issues could end up being rewritten into copyright law, making such transaction-by-transaction non-resale agreements a given.
But personally, I think it's all a case of going too far for absolute control of property, and absolutely greed-based. I'd hope copyright does not end up supporting this.
|