The court's reasoning doesn't seem at all "flawed" to me. The judge ruled, if memory serves me correctly, that resale of digital goods necessarily involves making a copy, and that the act of making a copy, if done without the permission of the copyright holder, constitutes copyright infringement, and that this remains the case regardless of whether or not the previous owner deletes their copy. That's perfectly true.
What evidence do you have to support your belief that this is not the Judge's "real" reason for his verdict?
Last edited by HarryT; 06-02-2013 at 05:01 PM.
|