jean, this goes much farther ...
you cannot even print parts of a book in say a newspaper (although you might have bought the book) without asking the author or holder of the copyright - that's pretty clear, isn't it?
even if you cite someone, you have to provide the reference

as far as it's related to vsl - you could sell the DVDs, but you will have to close an agreement with the licensor regarding the license itself

christian

@Another User said:

[28] Copyright protection under this Directive includes the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article. The first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community.

Note: this applies to the European Community only.[/quote][/b]

To put it simple: You would be able to sell the plain DVD (the _media_), if it were possible to completely wipe its data.

You're not able to sell the _content_, as you didn't buy it, and you therefore don't own it: you licensed it. _We_ own it.

@Another User said:

It's incredible that companies cannot spend a few more money to pay a specialist to write a valid license agreement. I'm sure you just copied another company license agreement you found on the web. lame

Yeah, right. [:D]


/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

jean, basically you are right. VSL grants you the right to *make copies* of the samples (using them for a well defined purpose - make music). by doing so the licensee himself generates another copyright (the one on the composition, arrangement, song, cd, ect).
the license VSL grants does not include the right to transfer this right to *make copies* to a third person.
in other words: please differentiate between the book (as a series of pages and paper) and the content of the book (the words, pictures, ect)
christian

@Another User said:

the license VSL grants does not include the right to transfer this right to *make copies* to a third person.

Yes, but remember, he's not reproducing his DVDs, he's selling his original ones (at least I hope so!)

The whole "exhaustion" argument of the european court would amount to nothing if the rights to the license itself would not be transferable as well. After all, this issue applies to software just as much as it does to sample CDs. The legal provision would make no sense otherwise. So yes, from a laywer's point of view I think this issue, at least for the European Community, is pretty clear. [;)]

jean, you're a musican. you write a new song. you decide to publish it on cd. you go to somebody and grant him the right to print cd's and sell them in europe for one year.

it this guy eligible to sell them in japan? - no. is this guy eligible to stream it over internet? - no. is this guy eligible to sell it 2006? - no. is this guy eligible to sell tapes with this music? - no. is this guy eligible to *sell* this right to [insert company of choice here]? - no (unless you granted him the right to do so)

and please don't cite decisions of european courts which do not apply
after you sold your copy of a book based on the *exhaustion* argument, you are still not entitled to publish it's content in a newspaper

christian

@Another User said:

and please don't cite decisions of european courts which do not apply
after you sold your copy of a book based on the *exhaustion* argument, you are still not entitled to publish it's content in a newspaper

Such an example is not comparable, we are after all discussing distribution rights under copyright law. The European legislation is pretty clear; VSL as a company exhausts its right to control distribution as soon as they, or someone authorized, sells that copy to the consumer. This means that if I buy a VSL product from, say, Best-Service I can resell the original. The statement in the VSL license that one can't, to European customers at least, is in violation of European legislation as well as national law (assuming the directive has already been transformed into national law, I'm not sure how far individual countries are with this).

A quick word on the "decision of European courts"; jurisprudence by the European Court of Justice applies to all member states, their decisions are just as valid and carry similar effect. A national court can also ask them as to how to interpret European Community law. You do realize that European law is invading national legislation more and more? [:)]

I'm off for some well-deserved rest, I hate getting up at 12 PM. [:D] G'nite all.

[:)]

@Another User said:

This means that if I buy a VSL product from, say, Best-Service I can resell the original.

problem is, you don't buy the original, you pay for a license to use a copy

well, my day has also been long enough, g'nite too
christian

< deleted >

< deleted >

@Another User said:

well, my day has also been long enough, g'nite too

I forgot that I set my clock at 8:30 so I woke up, crap, I usually can't go back to sleep after I'm awake. [:D]

I've just waded through this post.

It reminds me of Graham Greenes 'The Third Man'.

200 years of war, and 100 years od democracy and what the Swiss come up with?

The Cuckoo Clock

Jean,

What you seem to resist is the understanding that VSL are LICENSING their product to the user. The DVD's are simply the medium for transferring THEIR PROPERTY to you. There is nothing to re-sell without violating the licence agreement.

All your examples of re-sale would certainly apply to physical goods. We are in a different area here. cm's examples are quite clear when referring to intellectual property.

A further example:
I compose a musical work and license it to an advertising agency to use for one year in synchronisation with their TV ads. I own the composition. I own the recordings. I merely license the work to them for their use under certain conditions. If, after a year, they continue to use my music and do not pay a further fee, I can sue them. They will be guilty of a criminal offence. If they "re-sell" my music to another company, or use it in a medium other than the one specified, they are in breach of their licence agreement.
They never own my music - ever. They may not re-sell it under any circumstances.

The same logic applies to VSL. By opening the DVD packaging, you agree to their licence terms. If you try to re-sell, you are in breach of copyright.

Regards - Colin

Colin,

I have an LLB in law (LLM soon too), all I can say is you do not understand copyright law nor the provisions made therein. Legislative powers are trying to strike a balance between consumer rights and copyright holders. But right now, copyright law is not a coffin of death which burries every thinkable consumer right. In Holland for example it is perfectly legal to download MP3s even if you did not buy the original. Shrink wrap licences are non-valid too, someone who picks up a sample cd in a music store is not bound to any license agreement in the first place unless he is explicitly given the option to read that license. And even then, some of the content of that license agreement may very well conflict with legislation.

In the case of distribution rights re intellectual property the European council (and Court of Justice before) have decided that these rights are not always exclusive; they can and do end. What is so hard to understand about that? Are you saying a license agreement is of a higher order than European legislation/jurisprudence? [[;)]]

[quote=musos]

What you seem to resist is the understanding that VSL are LICENSING their product to the user. The DVD's are simply the medium for transferring THEIR PROPERTY to you. There is nothing to re-sell without violating the licence agreement.

All your examples of re-sale would certainly apply to physical goods. We are in a different area here. cm's examples are quite clear when referring to intellectual property.


good explanation!!! very easy to understand! if one didn't got it now, it's hopeless undertaking!

the conclusion of this discussion could be:
a: we save production costs, making exactly ONE copy of our different releases and then it's up to the ebay-market, customers enjoy yourselves.

or b: we continue our business as usual, fighting against piracy and supporting registerd users.

i vote "b"

@Another User said:

the conclusion of this discussion could be:
a: we save production costs, making exactly ONE copy of our different releases and then it's up to the ebay-market, customers enjoy yourselves.

A person reselling his original copy is not the same situation as someone making a copy of his discs and selling those copies on Ebay. The former is allowed under (European) law, the second is not.

Why the resistance to these facts of law, to the point of denying the obvious? You are free to ignore the assessment of a professional if you wish though. [:D]

@Another User said:

This means that if I buy a VSL product from, say, Best-Service I can resell the original.

problem is, you don't buy the original, you pay for a license to use a copy

well, my day has also been long enough, g'nite too
christian

There-in lies the key to the discussion - license. By purchasing a license we accept all of the restriction set by the licensing agreement.

ok jean, to pick up musos' example - after closing an agreement with this virtual advertising agency (granting them to use a defined copyrighted music for defined purposes in a defined timeframe) our virtual musician delivers his work to the agency on a DVD.
now is the agency entitled to sell the DVD to another agency? - no. well, maybe they could sell the DVD, but not the right to use the music for anything else than the agreed purpose.
and please don't tell me such agreements are not valid for any exhaustion argument ... that's daily business eg. for film music
christian

@Another User said:

There-in lies the key to the discussion - license. By purchasing a license we accept all of the restriction set by the licensing agreement.

You do? This is not something new which applies only to sample libraries, the license issue rears its head in a number of other places just as well (software, music).

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the license is "accepted", the buyer reads it beforehand and knows its contents. Does this imply that anything which the license says actually goes? Of course not! National and international legislation remains the threshold for a viable contractual agreement. Suppose the license would say that the copyright holder is not liable for any damages. Would that be an acceptable clause? If brought for a court in Holland such a clause would be deemed unreasonable and would be tossed asside, such a contractual term is in fact "black listed" in national law.

Just because a license says X does not mean X is a valid clause.

The right to distribute copyrighted works is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, until the ownership of that copy or original is transfered to someone else; the exclusive right to distribute then just evaporates.

For the German readers: [:)]

"Art 4 Abs 1 bringt das Gebot der gemeinschaftsweiten und das Verbot der internationalen Erschöpfung zum Ausdruck. Demnach erschöpft sich das ausschließliche Recht der Verbreitung innerhalb der Gemeinschaft, wenn der Erstverkauf bzw die erstmalige Eigentumsübertragung eines Originals oder einer verkörperten Vervielfältigung „durch den Rechtsinhaber oder mit dessen Zustimmung erfolgt“, dh wird ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Produkt vom Rechtsinhaber selbst oder mit dessen Zustimmung in der Gemeinschaft in Verkehr gebracht, so darf eine weitere Verbreitung innerhalb der Gemeinschaft nicht mehr eingeschränkt werden."

http://www.rechtsprobleme.at/doks/ausnahmen-urh-kainzbauer.pdf

Page 23 and beyond.

@Another User said:

... Erstverkauf bzw die erstmalige Eigentumsübertragung eines Originals ...

for our english speaking users i'll try to translate .... initial sale of or transfer of ownership on an original ...
here's the point again - it's not an original, it is a copy. not only a copy of a DVD but a copy of the original content. and it is not software (where the lines you're citing could apply)

you buy a poster showing a painting from dali (the company who printed it has of course acquired the right to print and sell it). now you decide it doesn't fit into your new flat and re-sell it. of course the new owner (of the poster) has the right to pin it on a wall and show it to all his friends,
but he still does not own the picasso. and neither the first nor the second owner can sell or transfer the right to print posters showing this painting, because he simply doesn't have it.
not even the company which acquired the right to print the posters could transfer their *license* (unless the agreement is stating otherwise, of course)
christian