Am6 did not work

[Shannon]

Former intellectual property rights paralegal here, worked on many of these cases on both sides.

There's only one legal way to give away your subliminals. You've gotta give away the original device (hard drive, mp3 player, etc.) that you downloaded 'em on AND you have to eliminate all instances of the file(s) on any other device(s) in your possession. Otherwise, the first sale doctrine won't protect you and you're committing copyright infringement by creating an unauthorized copy of the file. See ReDigi vs. Capitol Records. Interesting note: The MPAA lobbied to make this illegal back in like, 2005 or 2006.

Here's where U.S. law fails -- this wouldn't apply if IML sold its products on CDs. You could use the CD all you wanted and if you didn't make any copies, you could sell it later for whatever value you wanted. THAT would fall under the first sale doctrine. That's why computer games and software require CD keys and/or licenses. You can sell the physical media all you want, but check out the End User License Agreement when you install the game -- you're agreeing that the LICENSE to use the software is non-transferable. By selling the license, you're not breaking the law, but you are in breach of contract.

I worked on some cases where someone burned mp3s to CDs and sold / gave them away and they still ended up losing because they didn't delete the original files. That same thing would most likely apply here. Under fair use, you could burn your subs to CD for personal use. But, the moment you give the CD away, even if you've deleted the original files, you've still committed copyright infringement because it's a unauthorized copy of the original file -- meaning it's not illegal nor (arguably) unethical for that act to trigger copy protection.

And even after all that, there's nothing preventing IML from essentially creating an EULA specifying how the subs must be used -- and that's exactly what's happened here. That being said, the following is questionable:

"If you buy a copy of a program, and someone else is consistently using it while you are not being exposed, that is not fair use. A person other than the owner is getting value from the program, and that would trigger the copy protection."

My brother (also an attorney) bought my cousin Ultra Motivation or Ultra Success (one of 'em) sometime ago. He downloaded the files straight to a USB mp3 player (which means it never touched his hard drive) and gave it to him. I know this because I watched him do it. He was just about to invest in BASE 5g. Does this mean he'll be triggered by this very ominous copy protection?

No. He did not use them. He did not keep them. He did not create an imbalance of value exchange. Therefore, no piracy took place.

"If you buy a copy of a program, and someone else is consistently using it while you are not being exposed, that is not fair use. A person other than the owner is getting value from the program, and that would trigger the copy protection."

The quote above refers to a situation like this. Let's say Joe buys a copy of AM6 and keeps it on his computer. Joe's friend Alex knows this, and, in an effort to not have to pay for it, plays AM6 from Joe's computer while Joe is at work.

No extra copy is made, but value is being gained when the copy was not being used by the original payor. If Joe was using it, and Alex listened in, that would be acceptable because Joe has the right to play it on speakers of he wishes, and the value gained by Alex can't be reasonably helped. But when Alex uses the program, and Joe is not using it, then that is intentional circumvention of payment and Joe does not benefit in the process. The payment was for Joe to benefit, not Alex.