4 ms·
Let's say the government gets it, auctions it, you (legally) purchase it (at that auction), and are now the owner. While you wouldn't be bound by any agreement
by jlgaddis 9y ago
Let's say the government gets it, auctions it, you (legally) purchase it (at that auction), and are now the owner.
While you wouldn't be bound by any agreements that Shkreli had w/ Wu-Tang Clan, you would still be in violation of copyright laws if you released it publicly (and the government could, potentially, put stipulations on its sale if they wanted).
In addition, if you owned the only existing copy, I think it would be pretty easy to prove that it was you who released it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bogomipz 9y agoNone of that is true. Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws. >"There are strict limitations on the distribution of the 31-track double album, with a statement from the band reading: "It can be exhibited publicly and it can be given away for free. But it cannot be commercialised as a conventional album release until 2103"[1] [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-album-sale-ebay-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin-bids-a7933636.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/m...
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago> Contractually, the purchaser is not allowed to release it "commercially" which means they could release it for free. It has nothing to do with any copyright laws. Someone who buys it from a government auction is not bound by any contract signed by the original purchaser. They are still bound by copyright law, although the copyright holder (presumably Wu-Tang Clan) could (and likely would) allow them to exhibit it or give it away.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]