Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
The first Sale doctrine. It's been the case since 1908. The only really novel thing about the ruling is that Redbox can sell the download code separate from the DVD. Many times companies assert rights that they don't have. Not the first time Disney has overplayed their hand.
|
That's been the case for physical media, like books, from which no other copy needs to be made in order to use the media, but not for "software", requires a copy to be made into computer memory. Extra licenses are not necessary to read a book (and such licenses are, in fact, unenforceable). Software, however, requires a copy to be made in computer memory. The right to make this copy does not exist (at least one court has ruled) apart from a license.
As bizarre as the U.S. state of things is, you may buy, own and pass on physical media containing software without having the right to run it on your computer.
That requires a separate license.
Without getting into the spirit or intent of copyright (and thus hopefully avoiding "politics and religion"), the Redbox ruling is in some ways completely backward from previous US rulings. The main issue here is whether possession of a download code constitutes license to download (and thus, make a "copy") of the video. Based on previous decisions, I would expect the code to be considered a means to protect the non-transferable license, rather than an instrument of the license itself.