I’m not a lawyer but somehow “admitting you did the thing you’re being accused of, multiple times” doesn’t seem like the soundest legal strategy.
Not a fan of Shkreli but if he bought the record he should be able to make backup copies of it, as long as they’re private
If I’m understanding the article correctly, not making copies seems to have been a condition of the sale.
Ok I just read it as well and apparently the problem isn’t so much that he made private copies, but rather that he live-streamed the album after having sold it, and now the new owner wants him to destroy those copies to ensure it won’t happen again.
For a normal sale of property, sure. But the terms of this specific purchase included wording to not do that, allegedly.
If I read the article correctly, the problem isn’t so much that he made copies, but rather that he live-streamed them to the public after selling the album.
If he had just kept them private, no one would have ever known, but now the new owner wants him to delete those copies to ensure he doesn’t do it again.
“doesn’t seem like the soundest legal strategy” seems to be this guy’s whole way of life
Haha yeah that does seem to be the case.
MP3? gross. .FLAC
This is not a man renowned for his good judgement.
Flac? Gross. Wav.
wav is just worse
FLAC is lossless though (except for 32-bit WAVs)
Wav? Gross. Mp3.
On the one hand, copyright law is an illegitimate institution.
On the other hand, this schmuck deserves to suffer.
Everything about this is serious and wasting the law's time. Here's the thing. You sold your thing. It's no longer your thing to decide about.
I’m not a lawyer but somehow “admitting you did the thing you’re being accused of, multiple times” doesn’t seem like the soundest legal strategy.
Not a fan of Shkreli but if he bought the record he should be able to make backup copies of it, as long as they’re private
If I’m understanding the article correctly, not making copies seems to have been a condition of the sale.
Ok I just read it as well and apparently the problem isn’t so much that he made private copies, but rather that he live-streamed the album after having sold it, and now the new owner wants him to destroy those copies to ensure it won’t happen again.
For a normal sale of property, sure. But the terms of this specific purchase included wording to not do that, allegedly.
If I read the article correctly, the problem isn’t so much that he made copies, but rather that he live-streamed them to the public after selling the album.
If he had just kept them private, no one would have ever known, but now the new owner wants him to delete those copies to ensure he doesn’t do it again.
“doesn’t seem like the soundest legal strategy” seems to be this guy’s whole way of life
Haha yeah that does seem to be the case.
MP3? gross. .FLAC
This is not a man renowned for his good judgement.
Flac? Gross. Wav.
wav is just worse
FLAC is lossless though (except for 32-bit WAVs)
Wav? Gross. Mp3.
On the one hand, copyright law is an illegitimate institution.
On the other hand, this schmuck deserves to suffer.
Everything about this is serious and wasting the law's time. Here's the thing. You sold your thing. It's no longer your thing to decide about.
I know what I'm about to download.