The First Sale Doctrine

I'm interested when listen the radio story about “Seller Beware”. As summary for this story was, Universal Music Group filed suit in federal court against California resident Troy Augusto, who makes a living selling used CDs on eBay. Universal, however argued that in this case Universal Music Group still owns those CDs and Augusto isn't authorized to make some profit on sell them. Keep in mind that someone who owned some stuff, so he or she has a right to do anything on this stuff. This property called physical property.

Back to selling CDs case, is fair Augusto will get punishment caused by his action to selling used CDs that his own? I agree with the Fred von Lohmann who is a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation because he defending Augusto. He connected this case to the other similar case involved a novel entitled The Castaways. In that case, Marcy's was selling the novel for 89 cents a copy after brought the novel from a wholesaler fair. Marcy's said, that's my business and the copyright owner doesn't have control of that. The First Sale Doctrine lawsuit applied causing both sellers in the above cases get punishment. This law applied not only to copyright items that are sold but to those that are given away.

According to Lessig said that he worried about nowadays code enable creator to have full power on their product. I not really satisfy with the enclosure nowadays because it strikes the right balance. Is unfair for us to pay the money to the creator or authors to get permission to make some copy on it? I think is unfair because the owner hand have change from creator to us. I agree with Fred, Universal here is able to trump the First Sale Doctrine by putting a little label on a product that say" For promotional use only, not for sale" or in the above case, a label says" This CD for home use only". As we discussed in class about the copyright ©, there is permission culture for us to use and this is a clear sign to understand.

Talks Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law?

I interested with the presentation made by the Lessig on his talked about the stories and (re) creativity. The third stories his talked about how concern farmers toward the airplane that trespasser along the land. The old culture provides a law so that airplane cannot pass through the private land but this law has changed because it didn't make any sense how can people to travel by the airplane without passing along the private land. Is people must give some money so that he or she can move through the private owned?

Return to his talked about the creativity, he didn't really emphasize and explain how creativity is being strangled by the law. How can his concern about the read only (RO) really strangled the creativity. Currently, law have changed the culture from read-write (RW) culture refer to participate creation and re-creation the culture to read only (RO) culture means culture that create creativity consumed, but consumer not creator. I think he didn't fear lose about the (RO) culture because it protects the right of intellectual property of creators.

The clip that Lessig used referring to Christ is accidentally a very good argument against abandoning managed copyright laws on the internet. I personally not prefer so much in Lessig done showing the "Jesus Christ the Musical" because it against the feel of people. In addition, I doubt very much whether or not the authors of the Jesus Video ever took into account the feelings, religious views, or intent of the original writers of "I Will Survive". I really want some laws that prevent this unexpected clip although the authors have his or her right to show his creations.

If one re-mixes an original song with an original animation like clips that show George W. Bush then, the only originality was use of the merging element; likely copyrighted in its own capacity as a piece of computer software. In essence there is a significantly less amount of creativity given by the "re-mixer". I agree about Lessig saying that "today's children" are creative by way of re-mixing like the above example because this re-mixing will destroy the behavior of children. Don't we have some responsibility to help continue the age old tradition of music? What about the art of animation? Giving a wider creative license in this scenario may be justifiable, but what are the effects to be had? This type of view may one day shift the emphasis from a traditional music education or animation class to that of a sitting in front of a computer all day. I like Lessig's emphasize about Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) that much more democratize that at least provide the benefits for the future of children and open for business compared to capitalism that want the profit-making only in their business.