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."
I guess this applies to used cars as well. Secondary markets alleviate economic inefficiencies in pricing...goodbye free market?
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.
I read the tags: eff yro copyright as: Fuck your copyright.
... 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."
"The first case deals with items bought in other countries for resale in the U.S"
That will lead to everything having a foreign copyright or being made overseas so that it can not be resold in the US where the consumer has the least rights and the corporation has the most rights (See Citizens United for an example)
"The second case is about whether music purchased on services like iTunes can be resold to other people."
If "Big Media" could they would force you to stream everything and to pay for that, you would never be allowed a personal copy, you would always be required to go to the source, so far the medium they used hasn't allowed that sort of control, but that is the goal.
They would also like you to store all your digital media in the cloud so they can tie in all your taste under one data set with your name on it, or more likely tied to your Facebook login.
After all Facebook is trying to be the primary data store for all its "users" (read: users = data sets with little to no rights)
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
I occurs to me that there is an unintended upside, so to speak, to not being able to "reassign" ownership to the items covered by these two cases: it makes them an excellent place to hide your assets from your creditors / ex-spouses.
Think of it...
"Yes, your honor, I do have 20 million dollars worth of assets, but most of it is the form for European made antiques, acquired legally before the US Supreme Court ruling outlawing such sales, and so I am unable to liquidate them to pay my debts, thus the reason why I am seeking Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection," the man said, privately smirking to himself.
And so, either we really do own these things and can do with them as we please, or we don't own them and they become perpetually frozen assets that are safe havens for those trying to "hide" their assets.
... of trying to apply copyright and property like rights when applied to non-scarce information.
The reality is as long as human beings are greedy/territorial/assholes they will push their authoritarian agenda of trying to control what other people do for their own gain on others. As copyright and "intellectual property" stand now it acts as a back door dictatorship and is a subversive way to take away peoples freedoms. The whole idea of needing permission to use a product you've bought is nonsense, the whole idea of needing permission to REPAIR a product you've bought is nonsense. The whole idea of kids not being allowed to recreate older works and updating them is nonsense. Reality is the law is absurd and politicians cave to whoever throws the most money at them and forget everybody else, the thing they are most worried about is THEIR CUT and not much else.
We've seen the beginning of insane property laws in Europe when applied to steam games as "steam products", where you can resell steam games but steam gets a cut of the sold copy you sold. It's fucking ridiculous especially when you consider the cost of replication - in practice essentially zero. The whole end game of DRM was to prevent gamers from owning their games and being able to resell them. Europe is trying to half-hazardly come up with a solution but in practice it's still a god damn comedic clusterfuck when compared to the fact that you can get a "used copy" for free off the net. Piracy is a natural outcome of insane laws which were predicted at the beginning of copyright. Companies have too many rights and privileged and much of the public is too uninformed / unconcerned.
The following should be allowed under SANE laws fan remakes and ability to get source-code for games to fix and update them as well as games going into libraries as cultural works, as the laws currently stand a cubic ass tonne of abandonware/old stuff is just junked and it is done on purpose to control the market so companies 'don't have to compete' with their older works. Being able to shut down game servers/etc/take game code hostage on the other side of the internet is just bullshit.
Fan remake of chrono trigger discontinued
http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/
Freespace 2 open - exists because authors were benevolent enough to release it but it should be required by law that all game assets/source go into library an opened up after a fixed number of years so works can be fixed/updated to run on new platforms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhAR8rWPluQ
As it is corporations have it good with the ability to milk a finite amount of work for much more then it cost to make it which is a dead-weight loss for everyone elses creativity and energy.
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.
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."
In Omega v. Costco it was already decided that there is no first sale doctrine for goods manufactured outside of the USA. The case went to the Supreme Court two years ago but the court was split 4-4 (Kagan recused herself) so the lower (9th District) Court decision stood.
There already no first sale doctrine for foreign goods in California and the rest of the 9th District.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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.
The IP laws in the States do not protect the size and security of the paycheck of the lowly developer. The lowly developer is paid exactly as little as their company can get away with. It doesn't matter how much the company makes assuming the company makes enough to stay viable. These laws protect the size and security of MBA moochers at the top of the food chain. If my company, for example, made 200x what it does... I would not get a raise. If it made 1/200th of what it does, I wouldn't get a paycut.
“citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it. Many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognize and reward.” Source
So this is good news, the more Ye Average Americans hit their nose against the Great Wall of Copyright, the better. Our job is to show them that this is not "just the way it is" but that there are viable alternatives.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
The copyright industry is trying to apply the properties of physical objects, into the realm of digital bits where object distribution is not bound by physical limits. Add to that they want there cake as well, by having said non-physical objects be bound by physical borders in a border-less environment.
This should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention to the current state of copyright. That these two cases have made it to SCOTUS, just means the courts are forced to play the hand, with Congress in tow, ready to scrape up the muck with whichever way their decision favors. If it favors big media, see the Internet explode in backlash with Congress being lambasted by every industry in existence. If it favors first sale, see big media down play it and blast Congress with bullhorns and checkbooks and testicle trophies. There's no third option here without contradicting state case law, or slapping international copyright agreements in the face.
Stay tuned kiddies! This is where shit gets interesting!!!!
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.
Objectively, they want to be able to shop for labor, products and services globally while we can't. Do you think your pay check is any more secure against outsourcing just because they can force people to buy expensive "Not for sale outside the US" editions instead of cheap "Not for sale outside Taiwan" editions? Hell no, they'll go where it's cheapest but would very much like to stop you doing the same. And you bought it hook, line and sinker...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1.) Spend a few hundred $ setting up a corporation. .mp3 under the auspices of said corporation. .mp3 for $3
2.) Buy an
3.) Sell the corporation and rights to the
4.) ???
5.) PROFIT!
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I find myself unsure of how the SCOTUS might rule on either of these cases. If they rule so as to effectively destroy First Sale Doctrine, what are our options? Legislation? For any companies that take advantage of the new rules, can we organize and either compete directly ourselves, boycott the companies in question, or find existing competitors and persuade them to make adhering to First Sale Doctrine a selling point?
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.
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'
The only way this will turn around is a buyer's revolt. Nobody really "needs" what Big Media and Big Content are selling. Like-to-have, yes, but need: no. Just get a big enough block of consumers to stop consuming until this craziness stops and things will eventually change direction. However, given that the Comsumer is a teen-age girl with too much money and serious peer pressure issues, this will happen about the same day that leaders in this country start leading again. As long as the money keeps rolling in, the Bigs don't give a rip how the 10% of people who know how to use their brains think - it doesn't matter to them. So, we'll keep on heading down this road and eventually you won't even be able to license something for more than a one-time use. Everything will be on the juke-box, pay-per-play business model.
What it actually determines is if the first sale means the fist sale made anywhere in the world or the first sale in the US. It makes little difference where it was manufactured.
Once the produce is legally sold in the US, first sale rights apply no matter where it's made or who holds the copyright. But what's undecided is whether the first sale in the US is legal if the previous sale was in another country.
The actual issue at stake is whether copyright/trademark/other IP licence holders have the right to licence something to different manufacturers in different countries effectively backed up by trademark law. There's a certain aspect of consumer protection here as well. Consumers see value in official products, fashion clothing being an example. Cheap foreign imports are seen as not the same thing. Often there are genuine differences that will not be immediately obvious to the purchaser, and that the purchaser will be able to rely on the domestic manufacturers reputation.
If this goes the way Slashdot seems to want, nobody will gain. The publishers' low margin sales in other countries will simply be stopped because a company doesn't like to compete with itself. US customers won't be able to get cheap imported textbooks, but now the people in the countries the textbooks were imported from won't be able to get them at a price they can afford.
If everyone _carried_ guns there would be more of these shooting incidents too.
Not to go off-topic but this is false. In the "bad" days of the frontier west where guns were carried openly by just about everyone, there weren't as many shootings as there are in modern day Detroit (who up until recently had some of the most restrictive gun control laws this side of Europe.) Yet there were more guns per capita in the 19th century than today. (Not to say there were more people, just more guns per person.)
I don't see much evidence that "more guns" mean more shootings. If that were the case, Texas would be awash in blood. I remember the Brady Campaign people said after the Castle Doctrine was revised in Texas that it was a "license to murder". So far, gun related incidents haven't dramatically changed... In Texas, you can carry a gun in your car even without a CHL. I don't see everyone opening fire on the freeways (as it was so comically shown in "L.A. Story") And I don't see anyone being overly courteous either. It's the same as it was before it was legal to carry a gun in your car. Imagine that. Poor example.
As for the armed teacher argument, what's funny is that if the shooter didn't know which teacher/administrator was armed, how likely do you think said shooter would risk trying to kill them? If you choose a school to shoot up that might have teachers who are armed, would you be as likely to be brazenly shooting your way in? It'd only take one shot to bring you down, (even in body armor), and your goal of killing 20 kids would be unattainable. Let me give you a concrete example of that. When Florida passed their concealed carry law, criminals stopped targeting citizens of the state and looked for rental cars (and hung out on the roads leaving big airports, because rental cars used to have special tags). Robberies of tourists and visitors to Florida went up dramatically. So much so, the state had to remodel the rental car tag so it wasn't easy to tell who was tourist and who wasn't. So when there's an unknown gun quantity in a certain group, criminals who don't have a death wish target groups that there is a known gun quantity (or a known lack of guns, like at a school). It's not hard to see that connection.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
You OWN the content you buy on DVD or Blu-Ray, etc. and the content producers actually acknowledge this in their advertising. When was the last time you saw or heard an ad for a movie on blu-ray or DVD? What do they say? Do they say "License it on Blu-Ray or DVD today?" No, the advertisements say "Own it on Blu-Ray or DVD today!"
They explicitly acknowledge that you OWN that copy (it is NOT licensed, it is SOLD). It is the distribution rights you do not get with that copy of the media that you own. You can resell that one copy you bought (and if you've made backups which are defensible under Fair Use you must either destroy the backups or transfer those backups with the original when you resell it) if you want. You just cannot violate copyright by making copies to distribute.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
So the multi nationals want to turn all consumers into rent slaves, you own nothing you merely rent it from them never knowing when your masters decide the change the rules and take what you rent away.