|
@DuckieTiger
That's the way I see it too.
Okay - my fault causing the confusion. Copying of digital content files (implicit when open the files for use or explicit when for example copying downloaded files to your kindle via USB) is legal of course as long as you are within the scope of the personal use allowed. Personal use is always a restricted one with copyrighted material. German copyright laws are very detailed on this one, a fair use copy (Privatkopie) for example is legal with DRM-free content.
The discussion gets a little bit complex with the question if re-selling of digital content always implies a "copying for a third party" (Vervielfältigung für Dritte). The court's decision hinges - party at least - on the assumption that this kind of copying is a technical necessity for re-selling. Copying of content (for a third party) is illegal in the realm of personal use according to copyright laws - so that's that.
Providers of digital content allowing re-selling would widen the scope of personal use - but the buyer would still breaking copyright laws when re-selling unless the providers would give up on copyright completely (allowing "Vervielfältigung für Dritte"). So in the end the court sees the clause of Term of Use prohibiting re-selling as declamatory, complementary to the legal situation and "good consumer advice". A Term Of Use allowing re-selling of digital content must be deemed illegal following this argumentation.
I'm no lawyer, and all my efforts on understanding the court's decision may be wasted. Seems all a little bit "kafkaesk" though.
|