iPods, First Sale, President Obama, and the Queen of England | Electronic Frontier Foundation|iPods, First Sale, President Obama, and the Queen of England (Electronic Frontier Foundation
This is a fascinating story ... and I'm going to watch carefully to see what, if anything, comes of it.
Current Mood: curious
Am I the only one that thinks this whole...licensing mess is getting a little out of hand?
1. The songs WERE paid for, so whoever would be whining about it is, in fact, compensated for it.
3. He didn't sell them to her. That WOULD have been a violation of their TOU. What he did was the equivalent of buying her an iPod, some gift cards, and saying, "Now, what songs would you like? If you want me to help you download them, just let me know." (Mostly, because I do not want to assume that the Queen does--or does not--know how to use a computer.)
even without Presidential immunity, I think giving an iPod with music on it should be fine.
1. It all depends on what "paid for" means. I'm not familiar with the iPod/iTunes EULAs ... but often, with digital media, you don't actually "own" the media, you have a license to use the media. It's the difference between buying and renting.
2. But once he gives the iPod to the Queen, it's not his iPod anymore. Is he allowed, under the terms of the EULA, to give his iTunes away?
Yes, all of the above should probably be ok, presuming that President Obama paid for everything fair-and-square (which I'm sure he did). But "making sense" and "digital rights management law" aren't synonymous.
As EFF says in the original article ... "You know your copyright laws are broken when there is no easy answer to this question."
Edited at 2009-04-03 12:37 pm (UTC)
1. I'm having a little trouble tracking down the text of the agreement...but I did find several indications that you can't use it as part of a weapon of any kind.
...I guess it's good they're covering all their bases.
2. I believe so, as long as he also deauthorizes those songs on his computer if his true intent is for HER to have them.
2. Which is why the answer to the original question is "It depends" ... and that's why this stuff is so fascinating. (I mean, if he'd bought her a bunch of CDs, nobody would have any question about it.)
of course, I've also long believed that the point of all that legalese is to trap people into a false sense of security about their interpretations of what it says...