Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Consider First Sale of Imports
Animaether passes along a legal tale that "doesn't involve the kind of cutting-edge issues that copyright lawyers usually grapple with in the digital age [and] sounds like the kind of lawsuit that should have been resolved 200 years ago," yet still "is very much a product of the Internet-driven global economy." "Can copyright owners assert rights over imported goods that have already been sold once? That is the issue before the Supreme Court in Costco Wholesale Corp v. Omega, S.A. (backstory here). What's at stake is the ability of resellers to offer legitimate, non-pirated versions of copyrighted goods, manufactured in foreign nations, to US consumers at prices that undercut those charged by the copyright holders."
What's good for the goose must be good for the gander, no?
Well, this was pretty clear 200 years ago: Property was real and tangible. Copyright existed to protect the authors of works from publishers and printing presses using their work without paying for it. Fast forward 200 years and now we have copyright being applied to something that's intangible, can be copied for effectively zero cost, and has been hob-cobbled together to encompass intangible things like phrases, lines of code, even the "likeness" or "appearance" of something is not copyrightable. Given this vast expansion of the definition of copyright (for better or for worse, depending on who you ask), of course there's going to come a day when the tangible thing -- a legitimate CD purchased through legitimate channels could be declared illegal because it's being used incorrectly.
Copyright no longer covers just possession of a thing -- it's now been expanded to include the use of a thing as well, and that latter definition is what's causing most of the problems.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You decide to outsource your programmer in bengladore, your sale rep in ireland, your telephonic support in china ? Welllll we decide to buy our game from import from the global market. Too bad they undercut your local monopoly price. Global market baby. You outsource our job, we outsource our buying. Fair is fair.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Free market is free market. Once you sell something, you should have zero authority to dictate where it is shipped to and resold (with the exception of munitions, of course). Oh, and we should be able to import prescription drugs at much lower prices from other countries too!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
in which you will buy everything, but own nothing ...
Read radical news here
So, if I live in England, legally buy an Omega watch there, then legally immigrate to the US, it is now a copyright violation to resell that watch on eBay?!? This flies in the face of common sense!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If ever there was a rationale for "misuse of copyright", this is it.
The fact that the Supreme Court took the case suggests that it isn't black-letter law, doesn't it?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
No, it is an indicator of a worse problem. We used to have the Rule of Law. Now we have the Rule of Men. Problem is what I wrote above is so self evidently correct that this case shouldn't have made it into a courtroom at all. In a sane world, any competent attorney would have explained the law, charged the client for an hour and that would have been that. But because both sides correctly understand the bizarro reality we actually live in they are rolling the dice; since justice is now whatever a judge says and their views are randomly distributed.
The difference is when you have the Rule of Law the laws are knowable and mostly predictable. Courts are mostly occupied with determining the facts of the particular case and then applying the law to them. The occasional case will test an unexpected corner of the law but it an exception. Now the written laws mean little and judges apply their opinions of 'justice' to cases and their rulings are thus mostly unknowable beforehand. This of course means everyone take a try at court as soon as they have nothing left to lose.
Democrat delenda est
It has long been held as illegal to engage in price fixing. Region coding for DVDs, for example, is most often used for the purpose of controlling initial distribution (which is their right) to release certain things in certain areas at certain times (which is not their right entirely). Once something is legally sold, they no longer own the rights to anything about it excepts for its duplication which includes various forms of duplication such as public playback or performance. But to individually sold items are no longer under the control of the publisher and the disc or tape or book can be transported and sold anywhere else. All of this is established in precedent or is otherwise understood as common law. You can buy a book, sell a book or even lend a book. Why this wouldn't apply to DVDs or other media defies logic. To make this truly the case, they will have to redefine copyright law to disallow someone to resell that which they have bought. This would be a very bad move for copyright holders as fewer people would be interested in buying something they couldn't later liquidate if some unfortunate event occurs in the future. Instead, people would do only rental and, of course, illegal copying.
Copyright holders have long wanted to be able to control the resale of their goods. Take, for example, the diamond trade -- they really have it the way they want it. Diamonds are super expensive new but if you try to sell one, you will find you will not get much for it... and further, you will find their prices "used" as more than inexpensive. (Wanna buy an engagement ring? Go to a pawn shop.... seriously) But law all around the planet have made this sort of control over the market illegal. This is why DeBeers cannot operate in the U.S. and many other countries legally. If copyright holders want that level of control, they will find themselves unable to operate legally in the very countries they do business. It's conceivable that they would simply buy laws that exclude their own products, but buying laws are a tricky thing and subject to constitutional rules.
Regulate the US Market and its bye bye medical research.
While it is true that the US does a good bit of the heavy lifting in medical research, it is FAR from true that all medical research depends on the US. Many medical companies and research institutions exist and are headquartered outside the US including some of the biggest pharmaceutical companies. Plenty of research goes on across the world without the US being involved.
Please note that I'm not dismissing your general thesis completely - price controls are something to be approached with great caution. However it is not fair to say that all price regulation is a bad idea. Access to medicine is a moral issue as much as it is an economic one. Many medicines are sold for profit margins that are hard to justify to anyone with a conscience. It's fine for drug companies to make a profit, a handsome profit even. But resources for medical care are finite and just because a drug company is able to charge a lot doesn't always mean they should.
Next time don't ask a rhetorical question unless you already know that the answer is not devastating to your argument.
Drug company advertising budgets are greater than drug company research budgets, both in total.