Quote:
Originally Posted by dmaul1114
Courts didn't rule against the DRM because of the license issue being illegal, they ruled against it because the CD installed files on the user's PC with no warning etc.
|
That's my point, it had nothing to do with license vs sale.
Quote:
|
My point is that courts have upheld that the copy protection encryption on DVDs and Blu Rays is legal, so really you're just buying a license
|
Whether or not DRM is legal doesn't have much to do with whether it's a license vs a sale. You can legally own something that has DRM on it. They are completely separate issues.
Quote:
|
And the warnings have legal backing. Try advertising a few public viewings of some new release movies at at bar or club you own and see what happens when it gets noticed and you get taken to court.
|
That's because public viewing violates copyright law, it has nothing to do with that warning. What you are allowed to do or not allowed to do is not defined by the warning that the MPAA puts on the DVD, it's defined by copyright law.
Quote:
|
Giving a slap on the wrist to software companies that only resulted in them having to be very clear that people were buying licenses etc.
|
You mean by upholding first sale doctrine? That's not really a slap on the wrist... and they still aren't clear that you are buying a license, which is why first sale doctrine continues to apply to things like CDs, DVDs, and software. There are plenty of places that you can buy used CDs, DVDs, and software because the individuals own them, the original company has no say in it.