3 ms·
I'm a little bit worried about how this might affect Murfie. I've been an advocate for years for a model where people own physical media, and have access to th
by pontifier 4y ago
I'm a little bit worried about how this might affect Murfie.
I've been an advocate for years for a model where people own physical media, and have access to the media they own in any way they see fit.
The way this ruling is structured, it paves the way to make even ripping your own CDs to your MP3 player illegal. As common as it is, this right has never actually been tested in court.
- phendrenad2 4y agoThat's just sensationalism. If they wanted to go after ripping CDs, they would have gone after that when CDs actually had more than negligible sales. CDs are a dead format in 2023. Most music isn't even released on CD anymore.
- pontifier 4y agoIt's the way the judge references the ReDigi case that is troubling to me. It's been a while since I read it, but I thought ReDigi found that digital copies don't have the same first sale rights that physical copies do. This judge seems to think that the first sale doctrine isn't even applicable. The Google book scanning case had previously indicated that giving full copies of scanned books to the owners clearly fell under fair use in part because of the first sale doctrine. This ruling seems to ignore that. I do truly hope you're right though.