Slashdot Mirror
Defending the First Sale Doctrine
The Electronic Frontier Foundation recaps two court cases pending in the U.S. which will decide whether you're allowed to re-sell the things you purchase. The first case deals with items bought in other countries for resale in the U.S., such as textbooks. An unfavorable decision there would mean "anything that is made in a foreign country and contains copies of copyrighted material – from the textbooks at issue in the Kirtsaeng case to shampoo bottles with copyrighted labels – could be blocked from resale, lending, or gifting without the permission of the copyright owner. That would create a nightmare for consumers and businesses, upending used goods markets and undermining what it really means to 'buy' and 'own' physical goods. The ruling also creates a perverse incentive for U.S. businesses to move their manufacturing operations abroad. It is difficult for us to imagine this is the outcome Congress intended." The second case is about whether music purchased on services like iTunes can be resold to other people. "Not only does big content deny that first sale doctrine applies to digital goods, but they are also trying to undermine the first sale rights we do have by forcing users to license items they would rather buy. The copyright industry wants you to "license" all your music, your movies, your games — and lose your rights to sell them or modify them as you see fit."
This is something that gets to the heart of what copyright is being turned into.
Initially, copyright is what the name says it is -- the [exclusive] right to make copies for distribution.
But as we have seen with things like "region coding" and the like, we are seeing attempts at controlling not just who can legally make copies, but who can legally have access to it. Information for one region cannot be legal in another region. In some circles, we call this censorship. In others, we call these trade barriers.
Big media:
Go ahead and do your worst. Branding like "DRM Free" and "Independent" have become the new "Organic" and industry labels have become the new "Toxic." Your disrespect of your customers/consumers is increasingly more recognized. Artists all over the world, using home computers and even iPads are creating content which is fun and entertaining. Small projects are becoming bigger projects and they don't involve you. So please. Enlighten the rest of the world by restricting them from having free access to your stuff and the new Organic entertainment out there will replace you.
... the logical conclusion to the perpetual copyright dilema. You no longer 'own' anything, not even your own genome. You merely 'license' it for a time, with the license revokable at any time by the 'true copyright holder'.
And they wonder why there are Pirate Partys in most of the 'free world' these days. Perpetual copyright is evil, it locks away ideas that could have been used to make future ideas as an amalgam of current ideas.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
It is difficult for us to imagine this is the outcome Congress intended.
Congress intends to deliver whatever the hell their biggest campaign contributors want them to do. This is why we already have perpetual copyright in effect.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This also bears on inheritance. Someone with a music collection dies and their heirs cannot inherit that music collection because when Big Media gets ahold of the laws like this, their heirs have no legal right to the media
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
The case involves a U.S copyright holder who gives a limited license to a foreign entity to sell books within that country. People who purchase such books in that country have all the first sale rights within that country, (depending on that country's laws). Even if the courts rule against the importer of the books, it will only apply to US copyright round-tripping via a foreign entity. Someone buying a product with foreign IP will have the same first sale rights to buy and sell within USA, like any Taiwanese student who buys these Eastern Economy Edition books to buy/sell within Taiwan. What these publishers are objecting to is, the books very specifically marked "not for sale outside Taiwan" are being smuggled in and sold in USA.
Most of us slashdotters work in the software industry and it is the Intellectual Property protection is responsible in large part to the size and security of our pay checks. Let use look at it objectively.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
When it comes to reselling digital goods, I think that's a whole clusterfuck our legal system doesn't properly account for. How can the court rule one way or the other when there are no laws to interpret? And even if there is some law that applies, is it possible for the court the overrule it on the basis of absurdity?
For instance, if I managed to get a law passed through congress that stated that people must respirate using CO2 rather than O2, does a court have the power to void the law regardless of whether its constitutional or not?
The questions may seem rather dumb, but it seems to me that the nature of digital is so far removed from our normal interpretation of property that it cannot be treated as such. The main difference being that if I resell a guitar of mine, for instance, I no longer have that guitar. With software or digital media, I can just make a copy. If I can't make a copy (well, if it's difficult to make a copy) that's just because the software is designed that way. But the problem with designing software so that it cannot be copied is that it's a futile effort -- it goes against the nature of what software is. All that's needed is electricity and a storage device and you can make as many duplicates as you want. I seriously doubt it's possible to make foolproof DRM -- DRM reminds me of a dog chasing it's tail.
When it comes to the first case I think it's obvious which way the court will rule. There's no way a copyright invalidates the resale of an item. That's not what copyrights were designed to do -- they're purpose is in the name, to grant exclusive rights over copying (and selling) material. When it comes to the second case I think a false dichotomy is being presented. While I do find it questionable whether the first-sale doctrine applies to digital content, but I don't like the idea of 'licensing' something that exists on my HDD (even though, technically, it's all licensed). If it exists on my HDD or SSD it seems that I should be able to do what I want with it aside from make copies to resell (however, I see it solely as a copyright issue, fuck software patents).
I dunno, I guess all I'm saying is that this shit's way too complicated. It's one of many cracks that's forming in capitalism. I'm sure in John Locke's day the idea that property is an innate right sounded good (especially to those with property). But have we extended ownership rights too far? Do I really have the right to own an idea? Sure, but once I publicly express that idea, perhaps it now belongs to the public.
One of the most ironic parts of Atlas Shrugged is when the government abolishes patents and copyrights. Henry Rearden is pissed. I thought it was so funny that throughout the entire book the main characters are bitching and moaning about the government being all over their backs, but when the government actually grants more freedom to society, when the government decides to stop using the threat of violence to protect the coffers of the wealthiest in society, only then do they want the government to wield and assert its power. How can one advocate a philosophy that demands the public be given the least amount of restrictions on their freedom as possible, and at the same time insist that the government is duty-bound to enforce patents and copyrights?
If you really get down and examine what property is, both in a concrete and abstract sense, it exposes itself to be the big gaping logical hole in capitalism. In a concrete sense one's property is the things they have in their possession -- that includes the music and software on your HDD. In an abstract sense, property is what the government grants one a legal claim over and is willing to enforce that claim. Basically, the law doesn't reflect reality, it reflects an abstraction that conflicts with reality. We try to make reality adhere to the abstraction but that's not always possible. Because, in reality, one can only have total ownership over an idea by not expressing it. Once it's been expressed -- verbally, in print, or digitally -- it belongs to anyone who remembers it.
Probably none of this makes sense. I blame eggnog.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
An unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court will not mean the end of resale, even for imported items. It will mean the grey market (sale of items imported from other countries without the blessing of the manufacturer) will become illegal, but items bought from authorized resellers in the United States will still be able to resold.
I rather suspect the Supreme Court will be sharpening their knives and splitting this hair very fine, ruling against the importer but failing to provide guidance otherwise.
Raise the Jolly Roger.
The consequences of completely abandoning copyright would be very dire in any society which does not completely subscribe to socialism. Before copyright, the natural difficulty that existed to actually make copies in the first place is what gave creators of works some level of control over their own work. If you believe that taking what little (admittedly artificial) control remains on account of copyright legislation would actually be beneficial to society, think again.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"thank god" you said. The name of this god is called money.
Corporations are collections of CAPITAL and people.
FIFY. That kills your entire argument. Again, to repeat what has already been said, the Citizens United argument was to grant to groups of people the rights that they were due. The corporation's legal existence is irrelevant aside from being a convenient form for groups to organize under.
What they essentially said was that once Congress or the states allow corporations to exist that they then lose all authority over them, which is both illogical and stupid.
I think it's painfully obvious that Congress and the states didn't actually lose authority over corporations. A bit of bad and unconstitutional law concerning campaign funding was overturned. No real drama occurred.
The corporation's legal existence is irrelevant aside from being a convenient form for groups to organize under.
On the contrary, the corporation's legal existence is central to the issue! Groups are perfectly capable of exercising their rights of free speech and assembly without incorporating. Corporations, like copyrights, are an artificial legal construct and a privilege, and it's perfectly reasonable to impose restrictions in return for granting the benefits.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz