Comments on: “Netflix for vinyl” meets a legal stumbling block https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/05/netflix-for-vinyl-meets-a-legal-stumbling-block/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sat, 23 May 2015 20:27:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: Bill Poser https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/05/netflix-for-vinyl-meets-a-legal-stumbling-block/comment-page-1/#comment-323785 Sat, 23 May 2015 20:27:27 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=53203#comment-323785 The linked article is a bit misleading in referring to the prohibition of record rental as part of the First Sale Doctrine. Actually, the prohibition is an exception to the First Sale Doctrine.

]]> By: rxc https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/05/netflix-for-vinyl-meets-a-legal-stumbling-block/comment-page-1/#comment-323766 Fri, 22 May 2015 21:06:33 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=53203#comment-323766 Maybe because at the time this law was passed, there was no copy protection for records, and recordable CDs did not appear till 1990. It was also difficult and expensive to copy VHS/Betamax tapes. Think of it as a proto-DCMA law. The Betamax discision came out in 1984, and you can imagine all the hysteria by the recording industry about protecting their interests. Just my speculation, without doing a search on the history of the law.

]]> By: David C https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/05/netflix-for-vinyl-meets-a-legal-stumbling-block/comment-page-1/#comment-323754 Fri, 22 May 2015 15:49:02 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=53203#comment-323754 They COULD do it if they got permission from every copyright holder.

I don’t understand the logic behind this law, though. Why is it legal to rent movies (without permission) but not sound recordings? Is it just because video rentals already existed at the time the law was passed?

]]>