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.

[–] astrsk@kbin.run 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For a normal sale of property, sure. But the terms of this specific purchase included wording to not do that, allegedly.

[–] MacNCheezus 6 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

“doesn’t seem like the soundest legal strategy” seems to be this guy’s whole way of life

[–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Haha yeah that does seem to be the case.