Wireless Zune-to-Zune sharing. Share full-length tracks of your favorite songs, albums, playlists, pictures and even audio podcasts. Listen to the full track of any song you receive up to three times, and even pass along songs you receive to other friends nearby who have a Zune. If you like a song you receive, you can easily add it to your wish list and then buy it from your PC the next time you sync.
spider wire: No, the "first sale" doctrine lets you transfer a work (i.e. an embodiment of a copyright) in toto after you've legally purchased it. Copyright mainly limits reproduction/copying. This is why you can sell a book to a used book store without violating the copyright.
spider wire: No. You have a use right the runs with the work.
Well, public home use is exempt in general, but it's also allowed under your display rights in the work. If you buy a painting, the author can't prevent you from displaying it in your gallery, though they can probably stop you from displaying it in public or showing pictures of it on TV.
Basically, it's because of the rights you get from owning the work, which is different from the rights you'd get as the owner of a copyright.
Short answer: No, you're exempt under a bunch of public-performance and display rights.
To perform or display a work "publicly" means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public.
“The Washington Post has backed off a story accusing the recording industry of trying to criminalize ripping CDs to a computer.
The Post issued a correction Saturday, more than a week after the paper triggered a wave of media coverage by claiming that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was trying to outlaw the very common practice of copying music from a CD onto a computer or iPod.
A Dec. 30 Style and Arts column incorrectly said that the recording industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer,’ the Post's correction reads. ‘In a copyright infringement lawsuit the industry's lawyer argued that the actions of an Arizona man, the defendant were illegal because the songs were located in a shared folder on his computer for distribution on a peer-to-peer network.’
The reference to ‘shared folder’ was key. In the Post's story, the writer quoted from a legal brief filed by the RIAA in the case of Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona man accused by recording companies of illegal file sharing. The author of the Post's story said that the RIAA maintained ‘that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.’
But anyone reading the brief will see that in all such references, the RIAA was arguing that it was illegal for someone to make copies and then distribute those copies over file-sharing networks.
Soon after the story appeared, several high-profile blogs, including Techdirt, Gizmodo, and Engadget, wrote that something was amiss.
Mike Masnick at Techdirt noted that other previous stories about the RIAA's legal brief had been debunked.
‘Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story,’ Masnick wrote on Jan. 2. ‘That's simply not true.’
Nonetheless, dozens of other media sites repeated the Post's claims. The Web was filled with headlines like ‘RIAA Goes After 'Personal Use' Doctrine,’ ‘We're All Thieves to the RIAA,’ and ‘RIAA Equates Ripping With Stealing.’
In response to the Post's decision to correct the story, the RIAA issued a brief statement on Monday: ‘We appreciate that the Washington Post cleared the record.’”
« Older Is this the most beautiful bookstore in the world?... | A presentation at the 24th Ann... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt