August 12, 2003
Revised Snapster 2.0, Continuing the Legal Hack
Matt links to Cringely’s update to Snapster. He takes into consideration the basic fair use considerations and thinks he’s in the clear.
Cringely asserts that Snapster 2.0 is legal because it’s based on lending. But he’s actually talking about a pseudo-rental scheme, which isn’t legal because of the Record Rental Amendment of 1984. It tacked the following onto Section 109 of the copyright code (the part dealing with the “first sale doctrine”):
“Unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording… and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord … may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord … by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.”
You ever wonder why we don’t have a music version of Blockbuster? This is it. I think the words “indirect commercial advantage” pretty much kill Snapster 2.0.
(Note: post updated to correct name of 1984 act – had it as Sound Recording Amendments Act)
Filed by Derek Slater at 3:45 am under Big Ideas
Comments Off on Revised Snapster 2.0, Continuing the Legal Hack
