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.
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.
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
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,