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."
That's part why I like buying physical media. I get looked at as quaint, but my CD collection can't really have its license revoked and I don't lose everything if a hard disk crashes. Same reason I have a lot of DVDs, though the more active nature of Blu-ray does have me concerned. All of these issues with subscription services just reinforce the need for my own media.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What you say is true to a degree. Electronic music in particular has become so incredibly inexpensive to make that almost anyone who has a desire to make it can easily afford to do so. However, there is a place for big art too, and nobody is going to make The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars in their basement.
end of non dealer car service as well at the worse as well may even having rent a cars come with a fee to who made that car per rent as well.
What is a gift but a $0.00 sale? Posted on December 25th? Clearly, copyright law is merely the newest means for the Grinch to steal Christmas.
Would you like a new restriction?
I would fight it with conviction.
Would you comply just to obey?
I would revolt and say, "no way!"
Would you resale a copyrighted box?
I'd say, "It's blighted with a pox!"
Would you ignore wrapper licensing?
Can blind men be found infringing?!
Would you strip off protected bits?
I'd rather deal in counterfeits!
I do not like less rights and corporate SPAM,
-Signed, Estranged Nephew of Uncle Sam.
Look at the trailer for any modern film. There are literally hundreds of people given credit for the film. There were thousands of computers and tens of thousands of computer hours. Professional digital cameras are anything but inexpensive, even if you rent them.
Yes, the budgets are inflated but a major movie costs real dollars.
(Although Monsters is an interesting example of what can be done on a low budget. But it's not LOTR.)
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Initially, copyright is what the name says it is -- the [exclusive] right to make copies for distribution.
That died before the Constitution was even written, so it's unrelated to the current legal issues. Copyright concerns "distribution". Though if you look at the Constitution, the current laws aren't even close to following it. "To promote the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings."[edited to remove the patent-specific wording]
The times indefinitely extended for a limited time is, in practice, not a limited time. And one part I've never seen tested in court, and I think invalidates all current law is that Congress may only grant copyright to the author, and to nobody else. The Constitution, as written, does not recognize sale of copyrights, much like copyright in France and some other places where "author's right" is separate from "copyright"
Learn to love Alaska
It would also bar car dealerships with that logic as well. How about houses? I mean, would that eliminate the sale of used homes? Does the sale of existing homes ruin the market for new homes? The logic failure of the people arguing against secondary markets is colossal.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
I often wondered about the licensing of that music... the real problem with the AA's is replacement costs. If you've bought a "license", how come you can't get a replacement disc for a minor cost? Why do you have to buy the full license again (buying another copy, as it were)? Jack Valenti tried to weasel out of that question back when he wasn't wormfood... but his definition was as comprehensible as a spider monkey singing opera. (In other words, he danced around the issue, called the person who asked it a commie, and ignored the question.)
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
It's more complex than that, I'm afraid. Protectionists can sometimes weasel that the copyright length extension is to protect America's "IP" from those evil brown people, but the true value of extending copyright is the ability to use the same copyrights against new, and otherwise innovative, businesses from breaking into the lucrative "copyright" cash cow. It is not in Disney's best interest to trademark Mickey... they have to copyright him so they can use all the media he appears in to roll over copycats (no pun intended) and parody artists who don't have deep pockets (parody may be protected speech, but it doesn't stop big conglomerates from suing you and bankrupting you in the court system while you're trying to prove that your parody is protected.)
Every time Mickey's copyright comes up for expiration into the public domain, the Congress (no matter which mascot is in charge) extends the length of copyright. The Supreme Court said in no uncertain terms that congress can extend "for a limited time" to be as long as Congress wants, provided there is an "end" to the time. So the age of perpetual copyright won't occur, but the age of insurmountable copyright is already here. Why? Because corporate interests paid for it. We, as individuals didn't. We had no say in it, even if we voted the bums out.
So this is more than protectionist policies. This is about spreading the misery to individuals (Youtube takedowns for background music anyone?) and lining the pockets of corporations who use copyright as a big stick to fend off newcomers to the marketplace and freeze creativity by making themselves the arbiters of what gets going and what stays in one's head. I don't like it any more than the next guy, and I don't agree that hatred of the entire process and how it has raped the Public Domain is somehow blather. X getting what they wanted (in this case Corporate Interests and conglomerates) IS bad for us. It ruins the concept of copyright, and it is not how the Founders intended copyright to work.
I am not of the mind that "no one can make Star Wars in their basement" which many cite as the good that comes from copyright's extension. The great democratization of creativity has had two significant events (among others) that have driven the establishment kicking and screaming into the future. The first was the Printing Press. The second was the Internet. There is nothing more disastrous to an established power than the loss of that power through progress and innovation. We should embrace the new age of creativity and tell Disney (and the rest of them) to fuck themselves.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
So companies don't sell real estate, they sell a shell company that technically owns the property.
That happened in the UK as well until the government decided that it was wrong and would tax the sales anyway; I think that they also added an extra tax in this case - the practise soon stopped.
you are a complete idiot. He got as much of his funds from 1%ers as Romney did.
Luckily this is something one can look up. It is not an opinion but a matter of facts. So let's have a look at them:
57% of Obama donations were under $200
24% of Romney donations were under $200
11% of Obama donations were for the max $2500
39% of Romney donations were for the max $2500
The four biggest Obama Super PAC donors combined gave less money than the top (or second) Romney Super PAC donor alone.
Donor 58 by highest amount for Obama gave as much money as the 217 highest donor for Romney. Yeap, Romney had approx. four times as many 1%ers giving money to this campaign.
So who's the idiot now?
p.s. Not that this data was needed. Your signature gives it away. Only a simpleton cannot see through the fallacies of Atlas Shrugged,