6 ms·

What if the DVD they brought comes with terms preventing them from distributing it?

by robryan 15y ago

icebraining 15y ago
Just like where I live a term saying I waive my right to a warranty is considered abusive and void, so would be such terms, in my opinion, even if legally valid. What's next, the guy who sold me my house deciding who can I invite to it?
- robryan 15y ago
  I think with a house a better example is that after buying te house you still have to pay council rates (you do here at least). The person selling your the house transfered you all their rights to it, the house though comes with the stipulation you have to pay the rates.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    That's not a condition imposed by the previous owner. It's not buying the house that comes with that stipulation, it's having one, regardless of how it came to your possession.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  You might buy a physical item (say a DVD) from a shop but the contents of the DVD are separately licensed. Obviously this a somewhat convoluted arrangement. The economic difference is that when you buy something like say a car the person selling it will price it roughly as cost for them to acquire/make + tax + profit margin. If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD. Of course then you would be free to do what you wanted with it, such as put it on the Internet for free download but pretty quickly you'd realise you were getting a bum deal so would want to at least get some of the money you paid for it back from other people who were enjoying it.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD. Nope. I don't have to pay for the costs of the whole R&D required to create my car either - millions, no doubt - just for the costs to produce that particular copy, plus a small profit that will obviously pay for a very small slice of the real cost of producing the car. Same with that piece of music.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      Most of the R&D in your car will be protected by some sort of IP such as patents. If you produced a perfect 1:1 copy of your car and posted schematics etc online showing others how to do so also; you could expect to get sued by the manufacturer. It's just that car manufacturers are lucky in the sense that almost nobody has the resources and skills to economically produce a car, anyone with a computer has the facilities to reproduce a digital recording at close to zero cost. If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place?
      - icebraining 15y ago
        If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place? By people buying and going to shows. The meme that file sharers don't pay is false¹. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira... They just pay for different reasons (helping the artist, financing new works, etc), not as a moral imperative for getting the content. The argument that more file sharing leads to less works is also far from proven: Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. The publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period. Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than 30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the new technology. (...) The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows the industry has grown by 5% over this period. There are also the consecutive MPAA record profits: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa-celebrates-5th-consecutive-year-of-record-profits/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa-celebrate... ¹ There are certainly those who don't, but then you have to discount all of those who wouldn't have anyway - "going without" may make one feel good, but does absolutely nothing to benefit the artist.
- greedo 15y ago
  Yes. If you rent an apartment, you're expected to comply with your rental agreement. If you buy a house, you're expected to comply with your homeowner's association bylaws. If you use your house for criminal activities, you may forfeit it if a judge agrees. If you're a convicted sex offender, you're required to register your address with the government. Life is full of compromises, tradeoffs, and other restrictions to what you may consider your "rights."
  - icebraining 15y ago
    If you rent an apartment, you're expected to comply with your rental agreement. Sure, because the property is still theirs. If you buy a house, you're expected to comply with your homeowner's association bylaws. That's not the previous owner telling me what to do. And not if they're considered abusive: banning families with minors, for example, is illegal. I consider their conditions abusive too, even if the law doesn't. If you use your house for criminal activities, you may forfeit it if a judge agrees. If you're a convicted sex offender, you're required to register your address with the government. Completely different. And that's still not the previous owner telling me what to do. Life is full of compromises, tradeoffs, and other restrictions to what you may consider your "rights." Yes. And some of them I consider legitimate, and others I don't. Is != ought. Just because a restriction exists doesn't mean it should. The purpose of copyright is to ensure new works continue to be produced. In my opinion, copyright is not needed - nay, it's harmful to that goal and therefore it has not justification to exist.
    - greedo 15y ago
      Actually, a lot of homeowner's associations explicitly ban minors; Senior citizens often don't want kids in their neighborhoods.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        Sure, because housing for seniors citizens have a special exemption. That's an exception to the rule.

What if the DVD they brought comes with terms preventing them from distributing it?

by robryan 15y ago

What if the DVD they brought comes with terms preventing them from distributing it?

Just like where I live a term saying I waive my right to a warranty is considered abusive and void, so would be such terms, in my opinion, even if legally valid. What's next, the guy who sold me my house deciding who can I invite to it?

robryan 15y ago
I think with a house a better example is that after buying te house you still have to pay council rates (you do here at least). The person selling your the house transfered you all their rights to it, the house though comes with the stipulation you have to pay the rates.
- icebraining 15y ago
  That's not a condition imposed by the previous owner. It's not buying the house that comes with that stipulation, it's having one, regardless of how it came to your possession.
jiggy2011 15y ago
You might buy a physical item (say a DVD) from a shop but the contents of the DVD are separately licensed. Obviously this a somewhat convoluted arrangement. The economic difference is that when you buy something like say a car the person selling it will price it roughly as cost for them to acquire/make + tax + profit margin. If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD. Of course then you would be free to do what you wanted with it, such as put it on the Internet for free download but pretty quickly you'd realise you were getting a bum deal so would want to at least get some of the money you paid for it back from other people who were enjoying it.
- icebraining 15y ago
  If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD. Nope. I don't have to pay for the costs of the whole R&D required to create my car either - millions, no doubt - just for the costs to produce that particular copy, plus a small profit that will obviously pay for a very small slice of the real cost of producing the car. Same with that piece of music.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    Most of the R&D in your car will be protected by some sort of IP such as patents. If you produced a perfect 1:1 copy of your car and posted schematics etc online showing others how to do so also; you could expect to get sued by the manufacturer. It's just that car manufacturers are lucky in the sense that almost nobody has the resources and skills to economically produce a car, anyone with a computer has the facilities to reproduce a digital recording at close to zero cost. If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place?
    - icebraining 15y ago
      If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place? By people buying and going to shows. The meme that file sharers don't pay is false¹. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira... They just pay for different reasons (helping the artist, financing new works, etc), not as a moral imperative for getting the content. The argument that more file sharing leads to less works is also far from proven: Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. The publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period. Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than 30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the new technology. (...) The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows the industry has grown by 5% over this period. There are also the consecutive MPAA record profits: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa-celebrates-5th-consecutive-year-of-record-profits/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa-celebrate... ¹ There are certainly those who don't, but then you have to discount all of those who wouldn't have anyway - "going without" may make one feel good, but does absolutely nothing to benefit the artist.
greedo 15y ago
Yes. If you rent an apartment, you're expected to comply with your rental agreement. If you buy a house, you're expected to comply with your homeowner's association bylaws. If you use your house for criminal activities, you may forfeit it if a judge agrees. If you're a convicted sex offender, you're required to register your address with the government. Life is full of compromises, tradeoffs, and other restrictions to what you may consider your "rights."
- icebraining 15y ago
  If you rent an apartment, you're expected to comply with your rental agreement. Sure, because the property is still theirs. If you buy a house, you're expected to comply with your homeowner's association bylaws. That's not the previous owner telling me what to do. And not if they're considered abusive: banning families with minors, for example, is illegal. I consider their conditions abusive too, even if the law doesn't. If you use your house for criminal activities, you may forfeit it if a judge agrees. If you're a convicted sex offender, you're required to register your address with the government. Completely different. And that's still not the previous owner telling me what to do. Life is full of compromises, tradeoffs, and other restrictions to what you may consider your "rights." Yes. And some of them I consider legitimate, and others I don't. Is != ought. Just because a restriction exists doesn't mean it should. The purpose of copyright is to ensure new works continue to be produced. In my opinion, copyright is not needed - nay, it's harmful to that goal and therefore it has not justification to exist.
  - greedo 15y ago
    Actually, a lot of homeowner's associations explicitly ban minors; Senior citizens often don't want kids in their neighborhoods.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      Sure, because housing for seniors citizens have a special exemption. That's an exception to the rule.