View Single Post
Old 03-29-2010, 07:14 AM   #27
charleski
Wizard
charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,196
Karma: 1281258
Join Date: Sep 2009
Device: PRS-505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellby View Post
Except if they are selling a non-transferable license to read (and only read) a single format.
No, they can't have their cake and eat it. They're either selling a copy in a specific format, which can be transferred, or they're selling the right to consume the content, which can't. Those are two different things.

If intellectual property is indeed 'property' then transactions in it are subject to the same constraints as other property deals. If I own a hammer and decide to sell it, then I give up my rights in that hammer; I can't tell the new owner he can only use it on Wednesdays, or only use it with certain types of nails*. Likewise, when a rights-holder sells a work to someone they give up some of their rights in return for the compensation paid to them. That's a fundamental principle.

*Well, I could try to tell him that, but such terms would be unenforceable and void.

Last edited by charleski; 03-29-2010 at 07:16 AM.
charleski is offline   Reply With Quote