29 ms·
I don't see how that's different than what I said? The only difference is that there's now a middle man. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the middle man can't make
by dgzl 8y ago
I don't see how that's different than what I said? The only difference is that there's now a middle man. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the middle man can't make copies of the work and rent them out, right? They're just passing the rental to another person, who definitely can't make copies of the music.
- eesmith 8y agoHmm. I think I got mixed up when you wrote "medium". I associated it with a recording medium, but I think you meant it more like access medium? If it were recording medium then there are two issues at play: the right to make a copy, and the right to distribute. A rental agreement can exclude the right to sublease/re-rent. However, the copyright owners, by selling a copy of the work, have given up that right to prohibit further redistribution. The middle man may not make copies of the work but may rent them out. It is not "passing on the rental" because there was no rental in the first place; legally speaking. OTOH, since streaming isn't covered under first sale doctrine, such distinctions are not relevant.