Hacker News Reader

Comment by Falkvinge | Hacker News Reader

> What this article is describing is the exercise of those rights. Yes, when you purchase a DVD, you are not purchasing the underlying property.

This statement is utterly and completely false. You can examine the consumer protection laws in pretty much any first-world country to see that sale-of-goods laws and first sale doctrine both apply without mercy.

As your argument is based on the quoted premise, which is sadly factually incorrect, I read the rest of your objection to the article as logically failing.

When you buy something over-the-counter, it does become your property, in all its aspects. Any restrictions to your property rights over the object you bought are just that; restrictions of your property rights.

The copyright monopoly is one such restriction of your property rights.

View on HN

Sale of goods refers to goods, which do not include intellectual property. The first sale doctrine refers to resale of goods which contain copies of intellectual property (such as books and DVDs), and refers only to the transfer of the limited licence embodied inside the good. It allows you to resell the DVD with licence attached, but doesn't allow you to copy the DVD at all. It doesn't grant you any additional rights that you didn't already have at the point of sale.

Please try not to be so aggressive when you don't know what you're talking about.

Ive asked this question plenty of times, with no answer.

Where does the copyright 'license' exist at? Is it in the medium, the UPC, the box, or perhaps more intangible than that?

Why aren't thefts of media (music/DVDs/games) filed as copyright infringement due to lack of meeting of the minds?

The license itself may be entirely separate from copyright. It can restrict your rights under copyright, or it can grant you more rights (provided that they own it), or it can restrict you from doing things not related to the copyright at all. The license is merely a contract. It's important to know that it's a contract, because there are legal protections and doctrines that apply only to contracts (i.e. the meeting of the minds).

On physical products sometimes it is located on the packaging (i.e. "shrinkwrap" contracts) - last time I opened a Microsoft Office DVD (not that recently) it was still printed on the package. Most software nowadays have their license agreements in the installation procedure, where you click "I Agree". For music/DVDs, sometimes that is less clear (sometimes there is no license at all). If there is no license, you are still bound by copyright law - that is, if you copy it, you're infringing the reproduction right, etc.

Congratulations. You highlighted a misuse of the word license, and ignored the underlying idea that still is not answered.

"Where does the copyright exist at? Is it in the medium, the UPC, the box, or perhaps more intangible than that?"

Thought I was pretty clear I was not talking about a EULA or similar.

Then you have the reason why you haven't received an answer - your question is framed (almost deliberately) to have no answer. Copyright does not exist "in an object". It _is_ a state-enforced statutory right that "exists" in a "work" whether that work is a movie, music, software, book, etc. The "physical medium" you refer to is merely one copy of the "work" that is copyrighted. The work itself is necessarily incorporeal - it is an intellectual creation of somebody, and lies beyond the mere physical expression. You can do whatever you want with the box or medium - you are entitled to do that, except to the extent that you are limited by protection of the "work" that is copyrighted.

Then how do you prove your copy is legitimately made copy from the rightsholder?

You'd show it the same way you prove anything in a civil case: with evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, shows that it's the case. That's nothing to do with copyright law specifically.

Copyright infringement occurs when you infringe on the (exclusive) right to copy, hence the name. Stealing DVDs doesn't create new copies, therefore it doesn't violate its copyright.

That's true in that case, but strictly it isn't quite true that any act that doesn't involve copying isn't restricted by copyright law.

E.g. in the EU, doing a public performance of a work is restricted by copyright, as is renting/lending to the public, though neither involves copying. (Don't ask me why someone thought it was a good idea to make copyright cover renting/lending, but there we are: http://goo.gl/WneMs ).

You do not buy a license when you buy a DVD. You buy the DVD, period. You buy the good. The physical item. Consumer protection laws are adamant about this.

There is no "limited license" embodied in the good. You buy the physical item and the whole physical item, in all its aspects. Courts have repeatedly rejected the notion that additional terms can be applied after the sale (and if I'm not mistaken, this is part of the first sale doctrine).

Monopolies such as the copyright monopoly are indeed not included in the over-the-counter purchase, nor did I claim they were. I am, however, stating that they limit the property rights to the good you have legally acquired.

I apologize for coming across as aggressive, but I can get frustrated when people are not clear on the concept of property and what you buy over-the-counter as defined by law (as opposed to what other limitations may apply to the property you have legally acquired), and assert things that are plainly false and misleading.

Cheers, Rick

You're incorrect. When you buy a DVD, you're buying the physical plastic, and licensing the content represented therein.

And the first sale doctrine isn't a "consumer protection law." It's a judicial gloss on top of the copyright act that has never been codified into statute.

The first sale doctrine is statutory as well as judicial. See 17 USC §109 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109).

§109 was part of the 1976 Copyright Act, so first sale has been codified in statute for 36 years.

I don't think the Copyright Act suggests that every purchase of a medium containing a copy of a copyrighted work should be treated as a license rather than a sale. Instead, it says (§106) that the copyright holder "has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize" six particular acts in relation to the work, independently of having sold a particular copy (but not, apparently, other acts).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com