Slashdot Mirror


Supreme Court Upholds First Sale Doctrine

langelgjm writes "In a closely-watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court today vindicated the first-sale doctrine, declaring that it "applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad." The case involved a Thai graduate student in the U.S. who sold cheap foreign versions of textbooks on eBay without the publisher's permission. The 6-3 decision has important implications for goods sold online and in discount stores. Justice Stephen Breyer said in his opinion (PDF) that the publisher lost any ability to control what happens to its books after their first sale abroad."

648 comments

  1. will not stop the publishers from making DMCA requ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    will not stop the publishers from making DMCA requests / filling strikes that can cost you $35 a pop.

  2. Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like, seriously? The supreme court saw reason and is judged in favor of the consumer?! Will wonders ever cease!

    1. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Zcar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're not supposed to rule in favor of consumers. Or corporations. They're supposed to rule in "favor" of the law, regardless of which side is popular. The why of a ruling is more important, often, than which side wins and the "right" ruling can be made for the wrong reasons.

    2. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by ThorGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You say that, but given some of their more recent decisions this latest decision is still shocking.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    3. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Shall I rephrase then; The supreme court has ruled in favor of reason and against anti-competitive behavior as exhibited by book publishers who establish exclusive deals with schools so that they may charge exorbitant amounts of money to people who can't afford it whilst excluding any other agents and thereby precluding possibility of a free market existing within the confines of this arrangement (sorry for lack of punctuation, but I wanted to say it all in one breath for emphasis). Anyway, the fact that 3 of the judges were in dissent should tell you that the brain-trust over there is not playing with a full deck hence my surprise at the verdict. I know I'm not in minority when I DO FIND that the Supreme Court actually finds in favor of the 'consumer'.

    4. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by pavon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the body of law is frequently contradictory, and the Constitution is frequently vague. That give the justices a fair bit of latitude in their decisions while still being constant with the law. It is good to see them choosing to err on the side of individual's rights in a case that could very legitimately gone either way.

    5. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those laws were created by people chaffing against the abuses of what would most likely be compared to one of our modern multinational corporations.

      The notion of corporation as person would likely appall the whole lot of them regardless of political faction.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say that, but given some of their more recent decisions this latest decision is still shocking.

      Would you care to give an example? There are a number of rulings that they made that I didn't like, but when I look at the underlying law, yeah, they interpreted it correctly. If you don't like a law, you shouldn't try to get the courts to twist or ignore it. Instead you should try to get the legislature to repeal or change it.

      Btw, if anyone is interested, the dissenting justices in this case were Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy. So a righty, a lefty and a centrist.

    7. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suspect they were primarily concerned with the adverse effect suspending the first sale doctrine would have on currently legitimate business. Surely ending the first sale doctrine overseas would benefit the publishers, but it would hurt a lot of other companies too.

      I doubt the rights of the individual ever came up.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by RearNakedChoke · · Score: 2

      They're not supposed to rule in favor of consumers. Or corporations. They're supposed to rule in "favor" of the law, regardless of which side is popular. The why of a ruling is more important, often, than which side wins and the "right" ruling can be made for the wrong reasons.

      Yes, and that's why SCOTUS isn't full of conservative and liberal appointees and why you can't ever predict not only the final outcome, but the count of SCOTUS judges in favor or against certain cases because these judges don't vote along party lines. These are judges that vote in "favor of the law".

    9. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anything Scalia votes for is most likely against consumers/individuals.

    10. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two things

      1. This is the Supreme Court, so while they may have a decent enough voting record, their issue is deciding to not hear cases.

      2. Most of the cases that piss people off with the results are the lower courts, which the higher courts may not want to hear.

    11. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the supreme court is supposed to, in general, rule in favor of consumers indirectly since consumers most largely represent the population as a whole, at least if you like to subscribe to social contract and consent of the governed theories/ideas which I like to do. I'm under no illusion that this is current society, though I think it should be. Why the hell else did we decid to form societies and form governments/laws anyways? Law's are not absolute, they need to be flexible to the will and best interest of the people.

      I'd love to know at what point a huge group of people decided those most capable of manipulating intent of law for their own personal interests were the best to set laws for everyone else--I sure as hell missed that meeting.

    12. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since we're dragging the dead into this, I'll say that the founding fathers would likely support corporate personhood. They'd probably have less concern for the rest of the Constitution when allowing it, though.

      The debate over corporate personhood starts from a simple claim: If a corporation isn't a real entity with rights, then its contracts aren't protected by contract law. That means that employment contracts aren't valid, business-to-business contracts don't matter, and the only way for anything to get done would be personal contracts, meaning the CEO is personally responsible for the office toilet paper.

      For tiny companies, personal contracts are fine. For modern small businesses, even, turnover may be high enough that personal contracts won't work. Sure, you can make that agreement today with the CEO, but next week the company could fire its CEO and your contract is probably going to go unfulfilled.

      The solution is to give corporations some rights. Give them contract protection, so they can legally be a party to agreements. Give them free speech, so the government can't simply shut down gun manufacturers or publishers it doesn't like. Give them the right of ownership, so the company agents can conduct business without needing any particular person to be involved in every transaction.

      Once you start granting companies rights, though, you hit the slippery slope... If ownership of supplies is allowed, why not copyrights? Copyrights expire after the author's death, so that means the company's death... in a few centuries. Individuals have the right to bear arms, so a company militia is perfectly fine, right?

      As I understand, there was a lot of support in the 1700s for expanding business. America was going to be the land of opportunity, with resources to spare for everyone, so where an Englishman would be lucky to have a small shop, an American could have two or four easily - and each shop's employees would need to make deals on behalf of the company. Back at the framing of the Constitution, it'd be easy enough to designate corporations as limited entities, granted only a particular set of rights to allow them to function for commerce, but not to directly sway politics. Now, though, we can't touch the sacred Constitution.

      Slowly, we're moving in the right direction, but we just don't have any codified laws to lead judges. Corporations eventually get judgements clarifying that they have the rights they need, but with so much backlash against any extent of "corporate personhood", it's political suicide for any lawmaker to try to define what's allowed and what isn't. Judges have to decide for themselves what's right or wrong far more than they're supposed to.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    13. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can be an "entity" without being a "person". There is no need to treat an entity like a person, just to give it the rights it needs to function. Even free speech is not necessarily a necessary right - as a non-person, an entity's political opinions are of debatable value, and particularly since they're really just echoes of the company's management, effectively allowing them to speak twice where non-corporate people only get to speak once.

      Corporate dollars are not "free speech". They're a bigger megaphone.

      While the Founding Fathers were definitely pro-business, and frequently men of business, I have doubts that they would have been really keen on unleashing another Dutch East India Corporation on their newly-formed republic.

    14. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Quick reminder. The real reason the court isn't packed with either liberal or conservative, or either Democrat or Republican judges, is the method by which they are appointed.

      If the day comes that one party or the other controls the government for twenty years or more, then that party WILL pack the court.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... unless it involves the Second Amendment.

    16. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Zcar · · Score: 1

      Nope. Now, I know this is idealistic, but they're supposed to rule for whomever is in the right under the law, not based on who the parties are nor even whether the justices even like the ruling.

      Good policies can be unconstitutional just as bad policies can be constitutional. All the SCOTUS should be doing is deciding the constitutionality question, not opining on the value of the policy itself. Obviously, there are some exceptions to this, with the levels of scrutiny, equity opposed to law, etc.

    17. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      They're not supposed to rule in favor of consumers. Or corporations. They're supposed to rule in "favor" of the law, regardless of which side is popular. The why of a ruling is more important, often, than which side wins and the "right" ruling can be made for the wrong reasons.

      And yet 3 of the 9 actually thought it would be "right" to rule the other way. That's the truly frightening part of this decision.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    18. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founders were weary of Dutch East Indian and other corporations. Those corporations were created by Parliament, and exercised special monopoly powers granted by that body. Whereas in the U.S. most corporate style entities other than limited liability, some control over taxation and perpetual life they don't have any special powers. Also they are issued by the states. The exceptions are like Fannie and Freddie they would be like the Dutch East India example.

      To me the biggest benefit of a legal entity is simplification of transfer of wealth to my minor children.

    19. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I suspect they were primarily concerned with the adverse effect suspending the first sale doctrine would have on currently legitimate business. Surely ending the first sale doctrine overseas would benefit the publishers, but it would hurt a lot of other companies too.

      I doubt the rights of the individual ever came up.

      Individual == A Person, right?

      According to the Citizen's United case, A Corporation now == A Person, right?

      Thus, by the transitive property, A Corporation must == A Person.

      Not that I agree with the concept (much to the contrary), but according to the current iteration of "justice" in this country, corporate rights are individual rights.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    20. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll say that the founding fathers would likely support corporate personhood.

      Really? The same group of fellas who trashed a shitload of corporate property because they were pissed about how that corporation and the government colluded to screw them over?

      Somehow I'm hard pressed to buy that one...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by JeanCroix · · Score: 2

      Is Kelo v. City of New London recent enough? It does not seem like a correct interpretation of eminent domain ("for public use") to me...

    22. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Why the hell else did we decid to form societies and form governments/laws anyways?

      To promote what's best for our whole society, rather than selfishly just looking out for our own individual interests. The problem, of course, is defining "best". Ruling exclusively in favor of individual freedom means that collaborative effort is severely hampered, so everyone's stuck at the same low standard of living. Ruling in favor of collaborative corporations leaves the disadvantage with those who aren't part of the corporation.

      What's best for the whole society is a balance between the two, allowing collaborative efforts to function efficiently, but not so efficiently as to severely harm individuals. That's a tricky balance to maintain, and sometimes it means ruling against consumers.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    23. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by xevioso · · Score: 2

      The right of the individual who was sued by the company whose books he resold definitely came up. The case was about his right to resell previously sold books.

    24. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Try reading the rest of the comment, then.

      Corporate personhood isn't inherently bad. It's bad for corporations to be allowed to abuse the granted rights due to their inherent nonliving status. I know it's a more difficult mantra to chant, but easy mantras make for poor policy.

      The issue of corporate rights wasn't expected to be a federal matter, so it's not included in the Constitution. It was left to the states to determine what companies could do. If it had been a federal matter, the Constitution's rules could be adapted to fit the appropriate needs, similarly to how slavery was handled, rather than being applied all at once as it is now. It's due to the limitations of the Constitutional framework that "let corporations express themselves freely" gets twisted into "corporations can donate to political parties".

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    25. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, you can make that agreement today with the CEO, but next week the company could fire its CEO and your contract is probably going to go unfulfilled.

      My contract with the CEO will still be valid.
      "The company" could fire the CEO but if the standard procedure would be that the CEO makes agreements with its employees and customers that would mean that everything of value would go with him. What would be left would be empty office space but if you have the customers and the employees the investors would stand in line to supply those to you.

    26. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not supposed to rule in favor of consumers. Or corporations. They're supposed to rule in "favor" of the law, regardless of which side is popular. The why of a ruling is more important, often, than which side wins and the "right" ruling can be made for the wrong reasons.

      Let's be honest with ourselves. The reason why the "why" is important is because answering that question automatically builds a guide for lobbyists on how to dismantle the rulings they don't like. The DMCA is a good example of a bad law that was made possible based on the rulings protecting the consumers' right to time shift, for example, as it was an argument for why a consumer should be enabled and allowed to break DRM forced upon him.

    27. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      According to the Citizen's United case, A Corporation now == A Person, right?

      Not quite. They found that, since a corporation was just a collection of people, you could not restrict their right to free speech. If you replace "evil lobbyist group" with "New York Times" it begins to make some sense. I think we can probably engineer some way to have both a free corporate press and restricted corporate political speech - but I'm not smart enough to say how.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Plus, suspending first sale doctrine on imports would basically be putting a "Not Welcome" mat out for businesses located in America. Why would a business be located here when they could relocate to another country, import their products to the US, and have total control of the products post-sale thanks to no first sale doctrine on imports?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    29. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ruling recently that decided the exact opposite of this where something couldn't be resold where it was made overseas because it had a copyright on it. Maybe that one? Omega V Costco? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_Corp.

      Essentially this ruling states the opposite of the ruling that was made today for nearly the exact same issue.

    30. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously? Sorry, gimme a minute.

      AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Ok, whew, I think that's out of my system *snicker*.

      But no, seriously, the Supreme Court rules in favour of the corporation. On the once-in-a-blue-moon time they'll rule incorrectly, in favour of the consumer. I think this is to either try to make people feel they're not corrupt *snicker*, or because that particular corporation wasn't on their good side for whatever reason. I'm betting strongly on the latter. No citations of course, all of this will obviously be off the records. Can't let the lower caste think the upper caste is bickering.

    31. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never read much direct resources from founding fathers. Corporations were strictly limited at the time and were only created for specific purposes and dissolved upon the completion of the event. They specifically didn't want the likes of the East India Trading company running things. Copyright was not meant to protect companies, but to protect individuals. Corporate personhood would appall the founding fathers.

    32. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by DieByWire · · Score: 2

      Would you care to give an example?...

      Citizens United, the spawn of a beast with 18 legs and 5 boobs.

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    33. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that, but given some of their more recent decisions this latest decision is still shocking.

      Well, you gotta have an occasional loss to preserve the state of fairness in peoples' minds. Just another "we'll let you have one, so long as we keep willing thousands" gig.

    34. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify that wasn't meant to sound snarky, but there is actually a lot of information on how they felt about it available that you coudl read. I apologize for the unintentional tone.

    35. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      You can be an "entity" without being a "person".

      Yes, but "corporate entityhood" isn't an inflammatory subject. Saying "corporate personhood" ignites a bit of cognitive dissonance, so the politics start off biased.

      There is no need to treat an entity like a person, just to give it the rights it needs to function. Even free speech is not necessarily a necessary right

      There's no need to treat an entity exactly like a person, but only to an extent. "Free speech", as it's been interpreted over the past 200 years, means any form of expression, including production and commerce. Tangentially, this means that using a 3D printer to make a gun is exercising both your first and second amendment rights at once.

      A corporation must have some measure of free expression, to produce products that the government may not like (as Paladin Press does regularly, for example). A corporation's expression does not need to include financial donations to a political party, but specifying that distinction would require significant changes to the Constitution.

      While the Founding Fathers were definitely pro-business, and frequently men of business, I have doubts that they would have been really keen on unleashing another Dutch East India Corporation on their newly-formed republic.

      Agreed. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything to limit what rights companies had. We inherited the slippery slope they left for us.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    36. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nay saying hurts us all.

    37. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      So a righty, a lefty and a centrist.

      ...dissenting, and concurring. By American terminology you are correct. It once again demonstrates that there is not a whit of difference between left/right/conservative/liberal/Republican/Democrat in America.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    38. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, SCOTUS is not supposed to rule in favor of the law. SCOTUS is supposed to 1) determine if the law itself is valid, and 2) rule in favor of a valid law or nullify an invalid one.

      Lawmakers are not infallible geniuses. In fact, most of them are much the opposite, both fallible and decidedly non-genius. SCOTUS has the job of keeping them in check. Unfortunately, SCOTUS is pulled from the same pool of citizenry as Congress and the same statistical intelligence averages apply.

    39. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish more people understood how courts work in the American system. Judges don't get to decide what's right and what isn't. Judges only can decide whether the facts of the case establish that a law has been violated, or whether a law is allowed under the Constitution. Judges cannot nullify laws because they don't like them, or because the law is repugnant.

    40. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Dahan · · Score: 1

      That was the 9th circuit court. The subject of this thread is the US Supreme Court.

    41. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Bigby · · Score: 1

      They did it with the Voting Act question. The official opinion stated that the law "served its purpose". There was one Constitutional amendment and saying that it had an effect on it is BS. Otherwise, the ruling should be the same. It isn't about it "serving its purpose". It sounds like they were engaging in legislation.

    42. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by berashith · · Score: 1

      This is perfectly stated. The constitution passed the granting of corporate charters to the states. Each corporation issued articles in a state, and got approval from teh state. They were most often used as a way to go into a large business for a specified time, and then get the money back out when done. Think digging canals or building bridges. The concept of undieing multinational corporations didnt really exist.

      I would argue that the opportunity to abuse the "granted rights due to their nonliving status" has contributed to the mess we see today, and that if this opportunity suddenly disappeared, then the society and law-warping activities that we see today would end fairly quickly.

    43. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      It's like context doesn't exist to you. The colonists were concerned entirely with the power of the Crown/Parliament to use taxes and tariffs to manipulate and exploit demand for commodities regardless of the detriment to colonial society and without any political accountability or representation. The Crown Companies that profited from the arrangement were merely acting within the framework created by the government. Without the government manipulation, they would have had to compete with other potentially cheaper sources of commodities and the government would have been able to collect less in taxes and duties.

      The Boston Tea Party was a political statement, not against merchants, but against unaccountable government regulations that hurt the interests of the governed. Your effort at revisionism is an affront to history.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    44. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I have actually read a lot from them, and I still stand by what I said. It's not corporations having rights that's the problem, but corporations having too many rights. There was discussion about limiting corporate rights in with the Bill of Rights, but eventually the issue was left to the states, and the Constitution was written only to govern flesh-and-blood people. Now that corporations routinely span state lines, they're inherently a federal issue... but the Constitution isn't able to limit them appropriately.

      I don't think the founding fathers were wholly in favor of corporations, but I do believe they accepted corporations as necessary for advancing society, and that granting corporations some limited rights is necessary for corporations to function. They were certainly aware of the risks large corporations pose, and I consider it a sad oversight that appropriate limits were not included when it was easier to do so.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    45. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, that old lie. I say lie because you know it isn't true, rather than just being ignorant. They're all right-wing by european standards, but they quite obviously have large differences. To consider them all the same is to subvert the only mechanism of change available, which is your goal.

    46. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by sjames · · Score: 2

      Yes, and OP is shocked that they actually did so for once.

    47. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not quite. They found that, since a corporation was just a collection of people, you could not restrict their right to free speech.

      What they forgot was that the very existence of a corporation is a privilege granted by government. They don't even have to exist at all, and in their absence people still have the right to free speech. Since the private individuals that comprise a corporation still retain all of their individual rights when the corporation's speech is restricted, it can't be

      Restricting corporate speech is not a restriction on individual rights. Permitting corporate speech is rightly considered as government assistance for that speech, and the government is not obligated to help you speak.

      I think we can probably engineer some way to have both a free corporate press and restricted corporate political speech - but I'm not smart enough to say how.

      How about we have neither? Free speech for individuals, and only individuals. A corporate press is simply too dangerous, individuals cannot compete with it. And I include the government in this too, the government as an entity should be making no speech at all, except for legislation and official policy statements. It certainly should not be lobbying its constituents.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    48. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      What should be shocking is that the district court, appeals court, and 3 justices apparently willfully misreading the law. Not to mention how the 6-3 split on the court lined up. Kennedy, Ginsburg and Scalia in the minority.

      Not only that, but here's another thing that should be interesting: no matter how this case was decided, the odds of congress doing anything to clarify the law are almost nil. Any time a case like this reaches the court, Congress should be acting to either confirm the ruling or amend the law and that almost never happens.

    49. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's wrong, though. They limited the "rights" of companies quite handily; companies were not considered to be people. Non-people don't have rights, nor did anyone see a need to give companies rights. Companies could be granted, via legislation, all the privileges they need to exist. Declaring them "people" is not only lazy, it's impossible. It's an abject fiction. The Supreme Court may hold considerable power, but they can't declare red to be blue, nor would a single american heed them if they did so. That a corporation is not a person is absolutely unquestionable, and thus any ruling to that effect is void. It's going to cost a LOT of blood to enforce that reality when it finally comes down to it. I don't want to be around when that happens.

    50. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Your effort at revisionism is an affront to history.

      That's funny, considering that you just posited the exact same thought as I did, albeit without the links and in a far more verbose manner.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    51. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Well, said, dude. I concede the point to you.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    52. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Quila · · Score: 1

      Given this decision, I'd be surprised if they didn't appeal.

    53. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Quila · · Score: 1

      The idea that corporations have not free speech will be very interesting to the newspaper industry.

      Hell, you're a blogger, you get ad revenue, to strealine accounting you form a corporation, and ta-da, you can no longer run your blog.

    54. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      What they forgot was that the very existence of a corporation is a privilege granted by government.

      They didn't forget that at all - it's stated in the decision.

      How about we have neither? Free speech for individuals, and only individuals. A corporate press is simply too dangerous, individuals cannot compete with it. And I include the government in this too, the government as an entity should be making no speech at all, except for legislation and official policy statements. It certainly should not be lobbying its constituents.

      This is a totally reasonable standpoint. We could, with an Amendment, make certain that only individuals have a right to free speech. I don't think you'll get much popular support, though - a free press is a very popular thing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    55. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Zcar · · Score: 1

      One other side of this is the right to free of association held to derive from the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech (NAACP v. Alabama). Thus, by SCOTUS precedent, there is a right for people to associate for purposes of speech. I think there is an argument that prohibiting a corporation (or other non-natural person, such as a union) from political speech would be a violation of this right.

      This is a case where I can see the basis for the decision but disagree with the outcome.

    56. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not synonymous. They overlap, but they aren't the same.

      Namely, the press is a business. Individuals aren't necessarily businesses (not all the time, anyway)

      Think of it this way: I'm not a doctor, or pretend to be one. Any medical advice is "use at your own risk, consult your physician before use"

      But if I am a doctor, or I tell people that I am one, I could be liable if people get hurt listening to my advice. I'm misrepresenting the doctor profession and distorting the market's trust in doctors.

      One of the requirements for free market is that all parties are well informed. Speech is one way people get informed. If your business is big enough that you feel the need to incorporate, the logic is that your business has a big enough impact on the free market that what you say can alter the flow of information on the free market.

      So to your blog example, you can still write your blog. You just have to be careful that your blog is, like the press, truthful. Should you fail, you become liable. If the resulting lawsuits means you can't operate your blog anymore, that would be like a doctor who get sued for malpractice, and lose the ability to continue working as a doctor.

      One more comment: if you are facing issues in streamlining accounting, the free market solution would be to hire an accountant, not ask government to grant you a privilege legal status to simplify your accounting. If there's anything to ask government, it would be to simplified the tax code and accounting rules so you don't even have to become a corporation in the first place. Getting government help to jump through the regulatory hoops government setup themselves sounds like a broken window fallacy.

    57. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heller is a terrible decision.
      Kyllo is not great, being a decision that will self-obsolete by means of technological advancement.
      Printz, again, terrible.
      Hamdi is actually, as far as I can tell, a reasonable statement by Scalia. I'll give you that one.
      Line Item I have no strong opinion on, and I don't see how Scalia's position is particularly important.

      So... one for five?

    58. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Restricting corporate speech is not a restriction on individual rights. Permitting corporate speech is rightly considered as government assistance for that speech, and the government is not obligated to help you speak.

      This is from the decision (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf page 37):

      There is simply no support for the view that the First
      Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the
      suppression of political speech by media corporations. The
      Framers may not have anticipated modern business and
      media corporations. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
      Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 360–361 (1995) (THOMAS, J.,
      concurring in judgment). Yet television networks and
      major newspapers owned by media corporations have
      become the most important means of mass communication
      in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not
      understood to condone the suppression of political speech
      in society’s most salient media. It was understood as a
      response to the repression of speech and the press that
      had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press
      that were imposed in the colonies.

      As you can see, the decision is not purely about protecting corporate speech because "corporations are people." It also acknowledges that corporations are tools, and if the government has the ability to regulate the most important tools used in political speech, it has basically regulated the speech.

    59. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, I can vote for the guy who tells me how to run my life, spends all my tax money on pork barrel projects, and is beholden to his campaign funders, or I can vote for the guy who tells me how to run my life, spends all my tax money on pork barrel projects, and is beholden to his campaign funders.

    60. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The idea that corporations have not free speech will be very interesting to the newspaper industry.

      Hell, you're a blogger, you get ad revenue, to strealine accounting you form a corporation, and ta-da, you can no longer run your blog.

      Sure you can - as an individual, your right to free expression is protected.

      What you would not be able to do, is use incorporation as a cure-all shield to hide behind while you flaunt the law.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    61. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Citizens United did not say that a corporation is a person. It said that a corporation is a group of persons and therefore can act on behalf of those persons. Everybody (well brain-dead lefties mostly) wants to read the worst into that decision but fail to look at the alternative. Had the court ruled against Citizens United then the court would have been giving the government the absolute authority to prevent groups of like-minded, non-wealthy individuals from pooling their money to make a political statement. Seriously. Read the actual case and decision. Remember that the case revolved around a corporation formed for the purpose of distributing a film saying negative things about a US politician. One of the questions asked during oral arguments was whether the federal government had the right to prevent a hypothethetical publisher from publishing a book if the government deemed the content to negative towards itself. The Obama administration's position was that it absolutely has this right. Another questions was why do certain corporations seem entitled to first amendment protections while others do not. How many slashdotters decrying Citizens United because it gives ExxonMobile carte-blanche to say anything (whether it does or not is irrelevant) have stopped to ask themselves why they support the first amendment rights of corporations such as NBC, Slate, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Mother Jones Magazine? The court was unimpressed by the argument that media companies inherit that right as "members of the press" but others are excluded because they aren't. The court seemed to suggest that freedom of the press meant that anyone (or groups of anyones) were the press whenever they deemed themselves to be "the press" and that letting the government decide who could be the press and thus have the rights of the press would mean that there was no freedom left because the government then only to decide that any person, group, or former member of the press was no longer a member of the press simply because they opposed the current administration.

    62. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      You're apparently oblivious to even your own context. You post was a statement of disbelief about the colonists' potential tolerance for corporations, using the Boston Tea Party as an example. This would only make sense if their motivation was significantly based on a distaste for the corporate entity as a (somewhat) private enterprise, and that is not bourne out by contemporary writings that lay the blame entirely at the feet of the Crown, where the Crown Company purveying tea was simply an agent of the real object of their animadversion. Your (false) connotation is that the company was a target of major significance in itself in a dimension inclusive of its (limited) private aspect. That would be revisionist. The whole point is that your analogy's illustration is not parallel.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    63. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Citizens United, the spawn of a beast with 18 legs and 5 boobs.

      They ruled that NO means NO in the following sentence:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      How is that not following the law?

    64. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Is Kelo v. City of New London recent enough? It does not seem like a correct interpretation of eminent domain ("for public use") to me...

      Well, "for public use" is pretty vague. So the Supreme Court did (in my opinion) the reasonable thing, and left it up to individual jurisdictions to draw the line for themselves. There is nothing to stop the people of New London to vote for a change, or the people of Connecticut, or wherever. But the Supreme Court should not (and did not) interpret the law to mean more than it actually said.

    65. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      Is Kelo v. City of New London recent enough? It does not seem like a correct interpretation of eminent domain ("for public use") to me...

      This case seems to make Communism possible without ever changing the Constitution.

    66. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but "corporate entityhood" isn't an inflammatory subject. Saying "corporate personhood" ignites a bit of cognitive dissonance, so the politics start off biased.

      The reason it starts off biased is precisely because entities don't have rights but people do. And while Congress and the Supreme Court have on various occasions shown an interest in curtailing those rights under often dubious standards, the fact that corporations have billions of dollars to spend trying to expand their "rights" often translates into what people fear most, that corporations have more say in what happens than real people do.

      There's no need to treat an entity exactly like a person, but only to an extent. "Free speech", as it's been interpreted over the past 200 years, means any form of expression, including production and commerce. Tangentially, this means that using a 3D printer to make a gun is exercising both your first and second amendment rights at once.

      Which is more a byproduct of both company overreach, to avoid state or federal law, and federal government overreach, to allow them to regulate things like the lack of commerce as a form of interstate commerce. It stands to reason, then, that with such a mash up it becomes even more important to not pretend like corporations are people.

      A corporation must have some measure of free expression, to produce products that the government may not like (as Paladin Press does regularly, for example). A corporation's expression does not need to include financial donations to a political party, but specifying that distinction would require significant changes to the Constitution.

      Not really. "The press" is already well covered under the First Amendment as an example of where government may not tread. And the point of financial donations aren't directly covered under the federal government since that's almost all done at the state level. In fact, states were meant to be primary guardians against corporation abuse precisely because as much as the federal government was bound to respect all speech, states were not.

      Agreed. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything to limit what rights companies had. We inherited the slippery slope they left for us.

      I think you might be interested in reading The History of Corporations in the United States. You have to remember that a large issue at the foundation of the US was just how much the US government would federalist vs confederalist. As a result, a lot of big issues were put on to states to deal with with the idea that the US government would be something of a referee if state actions started to effect other states--hence the various language about resolving interstate commerce or other sorts of disputes. More the point, by placing the power of corporate charters in the hands of states, it was likely felt that, worst-case, a corporation would only have the power to usurp the power of one state vs all the states if left to the US government to charter. Of course, that's turned into a sort of rent seeking where lots of corporations setup shop officially in Delaware--just like in Ireland*, and sadly there's no simple fix to the point of interstate commerce if you can't tariff products from a usurped state.

      So, I'd say the truth is closer to the founding fathers simply not being world-renowned economists and believing that enough compartmentalization and democracy would work through such issues. But, then you have massive sums of money from corporations and a third branch of government, the courts, that often seem too affixed to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law to suit the current establishment... So, I'm not sure there's any real simple way that the issue could have been addressed. Put another way, if corporations *had* been mentioned in the US Constitution, then i

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    67. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      if the government has the ability to regulate the most important tools used in political speech, it has basically regulated the speech.

      By providing such a powerful tool for speech, the government has already regulated speech. They have ensured that the vast majority of speech people are exposed to through the media carries a pro-corporate message. That is not free speech.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    68. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You can subject the freedom to associate to the same analysis. You are free to assemble, but the government doesn't have to assist your assembly.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    69. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you believe there is only one mechanism of change available reveals your ignorance.

    70. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont see corporations mentioned there

    71. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking retarded? Money is speech to you? Yep. You're retarded.

    72. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      To promote what's best for our whole society, rather than selfishly just looking out for our own individual interests. The problem, of course, is defining "best". Ruling exclusively in favor of individual freedom means that collaborative effort is severely hampered, so everyone's stuck at the same low standard of living. Ruling in favor of collaborative corporations leaves the disadvantage with those who aren't part of the corporation.

      That was actually the original point of having the Senate and House be made up differently (as Lords and Commons are in the UK) - the Senate, being primarily appointed and serving far longer terms, could look out for the well-being of the country as a whole; they were supposed to come into conflict with the House and provide balance against short-term vote-seeking behavior. Of course, that's not what happened.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    73. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right because he's an evil soulless twat, intent on sapping all the life-blood out of our population.

      Look at yourself in the mirror, do you see an idiot? When you look at these posts here, do you see a forest of idiot trees?

    74. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Zcar · · Score: 1

      Once they've allowed your assembly (chartering the corporation) they can't revoke its rights, such as they are.

    75. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      i dont see corporations mentioned there

      Exactly. The constitution just says "no law". It doesn't say "no law unless it involves a corporation". So the Supreme Court rightly ruled that censorship is unconstitutional, with no exceptions.

    76. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Oh, you could still have a free press. It would just have to be organized as a sole proprietorship or as a partnership, without limited liability. American publishers worked that way for the 18th and probably much of the 19th centuries. It's viable.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    77. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Had the court ruled against Citizens United then the court would have been giving the government the absolute authority to prevent groups of like-minded, non-wealthy individuals from pooling their money to make a political statement.

      No, they could still do that, the only difference would be that they would be liable for the group as it would likely be a partnership.

      I don't see a reason why we should extend the privilege of limited liability to politically active organizations. Let them choose which is more important to them.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    78. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Of course, Congress does have the right to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and would be well within its rights to limit or even prohibit the existence of corporate entities as it sees fit. And if it chose to abolish those which engaged in political speech, this would not run afoul of the First Amendment.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    79. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Omega did get up to the Supreme Court, and got tied 4-4, which allowed the Circuit decision to stand but not as national precedent. Kagan refused herself for that once since she had been involved in it earlier. (Whose bright idea was it to nominate a Solicitor General?)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    80. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      They also should interpret federal law. This case wasn't a constitutional question, it was basically asking what the precise meaning of a statute was. Everyone seems to agree its a constitutional statute, though.

      And they have a host of other duties. In fact, ironically, judicial review for constitutionality is not one of their enumerated responsibilities, and there was much dispute early on with the two political branches claiming that power for themselves.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    81. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Senate became very corrupt pretty quickly, with states more or less selling seats to the highest bidder. Directly electing them was meant to get Senators into office who would look out for the interests of the nation since the old method of appointments wasn't working.

      Elections around these parts aren't perfect, but let's at least try to find all new ways of screwing things up instead of reverting to the tried and true ways. At least with experimentation we might get lucky.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    82. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is gun manufacturer a free speech issue?

    83. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edwards v. Aguillard

      United States v. Alvarez

      Morse v. Frederick

      Bartnicki v. Vopper

      Lee v. Weisman

      Gonzales v. Carhart

      Mitchell v. United States

      Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

      Lawrence v. Texas

      Atwater v. Lago Vista

      Scalia erodes the bill of rights more often than he stands up for it.

    84. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      They're supposed to rule in "favor" of the law,

      No, they are supposed to rule in "favor" of justice. Sometimes that means ruling against the law (and thus striking it down)

    85. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Quila · · Score: 1

      Mike Jones criticizes government corruption - legal

      Mike Jones criticizes government corruption in his blog technically run by Mike Jones' Blog LLC -- the blog gets shut down by that corrupt government and its officers (Mike) thrown in jail.

      Even today, if Mike Jones' Blog LLC libels someone else or posts kiddie porn, Mike and the company aren't protected, so we're not talking about using a corporation to flaunt any laws that otherwise wouldn't be considered a violation of the First Amendment.

      This law was a violation of the First Amendment. If a person promoted a movie he personally made around election time, it would be protected. But it's very difficult to make a movie like that as a private person, so it was effectively banning a form of political speech.

    86. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would be a free press - it's just that your average citizen would not be able to invest in such a scenario and access to capital would be limited for the organization. In other words, only rich people could start newspapers (or in modern terms, online media).

      In any event, I don't think that a solution requiring the abandonment of corporations will occur anytime soon. It's a sound idea, but not realistic politically.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    87. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Quila · · Score: 1

      So to your blog example, you can still write your blog. You just have to be careful that your blog is, like the press, truthful.

      Corporations and people can already be sued for libel.

      What this this law said is that if an association of people works together under the mantle of that association, the First Amendment protection of otherwise perfectly legal free political speech no longer applies to them.

      Note: Contrary to popular belief, this had nothing to do with directly donating money to politicians or their campaigns.

    88. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      when theymade that personhood decision many years ago, they had no way of forseeing the world we live in today where the corporations (rather than daddy warbucks who owns a company) are the biggest campaign contributors and buying/selling laws willy nilly in the Congress. they couldnt forsee how Citizens United decision would come along and interact with that previous decision and unleash holy hell.

      the court's job is to interpret and validate the law as written, not rewrite it to meet our ideas of what it should be. the job of rewriting it belongs to the legislature. and that's why the law needs adjustment to reflect that while corporations must abide their contracts (the reason for personhood status in the first place), corporations need not be given ALL rights attributed to actual persons.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    89. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, but evenw hen they dissent its almost rarely because they believe "Corporation GOOD!" or at least not transparently. it's couched in an interpretation of the law. they are still doing their jobs, but the law is a complex thing, and it can be interpretted many ways. its not like mathmatics where an expression can only be avulated one way. in law, priority of evaluation can shift.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    90. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Why not? They could abolish the corporation as an entity today without affecting anyones rights to assemble. All the freedom to assemble means is that physical human beings have the right to congregate in one place. This is completely unrelated to incorporation.

      But as OWS showed, the right to assemble no longer exists in the US.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    91. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations and people can already be sued for libel.

      And? My point is that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not synonymous. They overlap, but aren't the same.

      You just pointed out one place where they overlap.

      What this this law said is that if an association of people works together under the mantle of that association, the First Amendment protection of otherwise perfectly legal free political speech no longer applies to them.

      No, free speech still applies to them, as individuals and as an association of people

      But a "corporation" isn't just an association of people. It is getting other privileges from government (if anything, it simplifies accounting, as you previously said). If you and I form a club, it's an association but not a "corporation", and we don't get any of the benefits a corporation gets.

      If we want those benefits, we need to register ourselves, and with it comes catches: regulations and tax rules that corporations are subject to, that individuals are not.

      Note: Contrary to popular belief, this had nothing to do with directly donating money to politicians or their campaigns.

      Ok... so? i don't see how that relates to what I said. All in all, you only picked one line out of my reply, and basically repeated yourself. That does not make for meaningful discussion. You could have posted what you said on your own blog and disable comments.

    92. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The decision had nothing to do with the first amendment or anything like it. It was a simple case of statutory interpretation. Read the decision, or at least the syllabus.

    93. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Specter · · Score: 1

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      A peaceful assembly of the people is a reasonable way to define a corporation.

    94. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was Congress establishing a Federal Church?

      Because they certainly do abridge the free exercise of it. Laws and regulations that violate conscience, violate the first amendment.
      (church must pay to provide birth control - as a recent example. It doesn't matter that I don't believe BC is wrong. If the Church does, then the gov't cannot force it to fund it without violating the bill of rights - (U.S. Const. amend. I)

      There is no legal basis to remove religion from anything -- only that Congress shall not declare one sect to be over another. If you recall, that's one reason why people were fleeing England.

    95. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he was trying to point out that free speech could be abridge for politically unfavored corporations; gun manufacturers being a contemporary example.

    96. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir are a dangerous fool.

      The government does not grant rights. The government is granted rights by the consent of the governed, who have been endowed with their rights by their creator.

      The governed wish to combine efforts for mutual benefit, and create a logical business entity - a Corporation.

      This right cannot be Granted by the government, because all rights are inherent in the people, who grant government rights. Not vice-versa.

    97. Re:Goodness! Did sanity just prevail?! by Quila · · Score: 1

      And? My point is that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not synonymous.

      We're not just talking about press, we're talking about all kinds of speech associations can perform.

      But a "corporation" isn't just an association of people.

      The decision refers to "associations of people[/individuals]" of which a legally chartered corporation is only one manifestation. All associations are covered, or none are covered, no picking and choosing who the First Amendment applies to. Do you really want a government with the power to decide who has First Amendment rights?

      Ok... so? i don't see how that relates to what I said

      Too many people confuse the issues. It was probable that you were one of them.

  3. Gray market explodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No better time to start making money.

  4. First banning NSLs, now this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I speak for every politician and lobbyist when I ask "Who the hell are these nine impostors, and what have they done with the real Supreme Court justices?"

    1. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by pollarda · · Score: 1

      I think I saw a whole slew of these giant plant like pods stacked in the closet of the Supreme Court offices. Hmmmm... They seem a bit emotionless of late.

    2. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I speak for every politician and lobbyist when I ask "Who the hell are these nine impostors, and what have they done with the real Supreme Court justices?"

      Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Scalia dissented. Scalia's anti-consumer wealth-is-power stance hasn't changed.

    3. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record, Roberts & the Supremes haven't ruled on the NSLs *yet*. That was a lower court.

    4. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is so, explain Ginsburg.

    5. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      It's like an episode of Doctor Who or the Skrull Invasion, except that we prefer the aliens...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, they're all just human, maybe he had a headache or a book to sell...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      That'd make for an interesting Doctor Who episode. The Doctor sees something wrong with New New York's governing body, investigates, and finds that they've all been replaced by aliens. As the election approaches, he exposes them to the populace and sits back to watch them be voted out of office... only they're all re-elected because they're still better than the politicians they replaced. End with The Doctor leaving in the TARDIS muttering about "those stupid apes."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Ruth Ginsburg is not a "he". Though you might not know it from looking at her.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    9. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSLs were found unconstitutional by a ninth circuit judge, not by the SCOTUS.

    10. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      It's not a liberal / conservative split. Ginsburg is a fairly well known copyright maximalist. She wrote the majority opinion in Eldred too.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:First banning NSLs, now this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'll believe it after a DNA test.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Broad Application by cob666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Quoting the judge: 'the publisher lost any ability to control what happens to its books after their first sale abroad'

    I'd like to see this concept applied to anything that is purchased outright. If the publisher lost the ability to control what happens to the book then shouldn't Microsoft lose the ability to control what happens to an XBox after first sale? Modifying the hardware of something that you own should NOT be against the law.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    1. Re:Broad Application by a_big_favor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since when is it against the law to modify an Xbox?

    2. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      baby steps, brother, baby steps. Much better to win in small steps at the supreem court than to lose a big one there.

    3. Re:Broad Application by PhrstBrn · · Score: 5, Informative

      DMCA + DRM anti-circumvention clauses makes it a gray area in some places. Cosmetic mods are fine, things that might affect how Xbox DRM works, probably a DMCA violation.

    4. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since the digital-lock breaking provisions of the DMCA. Hardware mods have been contraband for many years in the USA. Ask any Canadian mod-chip dealer and they'll tell you they will not ship to the USA because they don't want to risk their livelihood. Granted, it's now also illegal in Canada as of a few months ago.

    5. Re:Broad Application by alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you can modify the hardware all you want, you can't play on x-box live with modified hardware. online service is different than hardware you own.

    6. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not illegal to mod your xbox however it will void your warranty and possibly affect your ability to use xbox live services since you violated the TOS.

      You are also taking what he said out of context. You still can't go and "mod" a book and then try to pass it off as the original work.

    7. Re:Broad Application by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      But they don't have to let you use their online service if your xbox has been tampered with, nor do they have to give you half the game if you buy it used and the activation code is used up. And consumers won't vote with their wallets on such an issue, the consumers in this case are pre-teens with more money than they know what to do with and no thoughts about anything beyond next week.

      Legal questions aside, you could mod your console already prior to this decision. The enforcement to try to get you to not do that will remain the same after this decision: they won't sue you or arrest you, but they weren't before. Their control over your possessions wasn't based on laws.

    8. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DMCA + DRM anti-circumvention clauses makes it a gray area in some places. Cosmetic mods are fine, things that might affect how Xbox DRM works, probably a DMCA violation.

      Actually, I would say not - you purchased the Xbox, right? Unless you are only 'leasing/licensing' it, it is yours to do with as you please, modify, etc. (My old original TRS-80 model-I is no longer "legal" to be sold, if anyone wanted to make them, because it wouldn't pass FCC radio-interference/emissions standards, doesn't make it illegal for me to own, modify, operate, or even resell).

      It *would* be a DCMA violation for you to buy/acquire a copy of a game that wouldn't run on your Xbox without said modification. Now you are "stealing" the use of someone's copyrighted work without their permission.

      Or put it this way, as a car analogy... if I buy a car, it is not illegal for me to rip out/disable all the door locks on my car, and probably not illegal for me to superglue my key in the ignition (or even replace the ignition switch entirely) so anyone who gets in the car can start it. Maybe stupid, but not illegal. And someone "unauthorized by me" getting into my lock-less car and starting it up and driving away is technically still guilty of stealing my car - regardless of the fact that I disabled the locks and the ignition keylock and made it "wide open", nothing illegal was done until the car was stolen.

    9. Re:Broad Application by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      I'd also like to see it for things like software licenses. For instance, VS.Net Pro 2012 in the US costs $472, but in Canada, it costs $667. Amazon US refuses to ship this product to Canada. That's almost a $200 difference (41% more) per license. Things go both ways here. Textbooks are more expensive in the US, and software is often cheaper, at least compared to other first world countries.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:Broad Application by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      Actually, I would say not - you purchased the Xbox, right?

      The physical thing called an Xbox, yes you purchased it.

      The software that it runs? Not so much, that my friend is most definitely licensed and if modify any of it, including the boot software, you're in violation. I'm also pretty sure that removing the chip that contains the software and placing a new chip on still qualifies as changing the software that you 'licensed'.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    11. Re:Broad Application by grahamm · · Score: 1

      It *would* be a DCMA violation for you to buy/acquire a copy of a game that wouldn't run on your Xbox without said modification. Now you are "stealing" the use of someone's copyrighted work without their permission.

      Is that necessarily true? What if someone wrote a game that only works on a hardware modified X-Box? Would it not be perfectly legal for the game's author to sell the game and for people to purchase and run it?

    12. Re:Broad Application by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      The reason this isn't likely to happen is that first sale doctrine is a copyright-specific concept. It is codified in the Copyright Act at 17 U.S.C. 109 as an exception to the copyright holder's otherwise-exclusive distribution rights. As far as I know, the DMCA has no analogous exception. (Though it might -- I'm no DMCA expert. Someone should go read it and report back.)

    13. Re:Broad Application by fa2k · · Score: 1

      Since when is it against the law to modify an Xbox?

      Haven't you seen the stories about phone unlocking recently? This is exactly the same thing. Once some hardware product involves DRM and software, all bets are off.

      The Xbox DRM is designed to control exactly what software runs on the Xbox, so you are by necessity breaking it if you modify the Xbox. The anti-circumvention rule in the DMCA makes it illegal to break DRM, regardless of whether what you accomplish by breaking it would otherwise be legal under rules such as fair use.

      It would be hard to even argue that the software on the phone is copied in any way when unlocking a phone, yet people don't seem to question if the anti-circumvention rule applies.

    14. Re:Broad Application by j33px0r · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but consider this:The publisher lost the right to control the aftermarket sale, not the copyright of the content of the book itself. Perhaps from that perspective, the ruling does align with the restrictions on the modification of a product such as an Xbox or cell phone.

      Just trying to figure out their goofy logic.

    15. Re:Broad Application by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      This is a crucial thing. Yes I license software, but do I 'purchase' a license to the software? In which case I should be able to sell that 'purchase' to someone else no?

      Same thing for a digital download of music. Yes I licensed the music, but I 'purchased' that license. As such I should be able to sell that license to someone else.

      But then common sense tends to cloud my judgement on such legalistic crap.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    16. Re:Broad Application by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Not so much, that my friend is most definitely licensed and if modify any of it, including the boot software, you're in violation. I'm also pretty sure that removing the chip that contains the software and placing a new chip on still qualifies as changing the software that you 'licensed'.

      You can modify the software you bought all you want. Sell that to someone else (which includes the manufacturer's copyrighted software) and now you have problems. Notice the Pauline version of Donkey Kong was eventually released as a diff file with a patch tool. As long as you have the original already, you can patch yours to match. But he couldn't include Donkey Kong in his changes legally.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    17. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely correct. The reasoning behind treating things differently is faulty. This nonsense is highly related to the so-called privacy issue of putting public documents online. The courts felt that it was ok for people to drive to the courthouse and read documents but putting them online made it "too easy" for people to check on other people. That is not different from the idea that a book written on electronic media deserves a different protection than one printed on paper as the electronic media is too easy to duplicate.
                                Really it is a battle of fundamental basics. our ancestors would be shocked that playing a musical instrument or writing a book or being an actor could earn any real living at all. The net faced the same fate. The net is not here to allow people to make a living. That is where the plague starts. Yes we can tolerate business on the net but not when it starts to crowd out the idea of a net and net community.
                              Our colleges now are confronted with an ignorant public that wants college to be turned into a trade school. College is about love of learning, arts and sciences. Colleges are not designed to provide a mode of income for graduates. If they are educated enough the income issue vanishes. But when you graduate the me too crowd who learns little but just walks the path and gets paper in hand you risk loss of nations and societies. Seriously, education is designed to exclude the less able. That can be proven and it is why we all are not running about with a fistful of Ph.D. diplomas. It is simply because that very, very few others can acquire that ph.D. that gives it value.

    18. Re:Broad Application by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How about an iPhone.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Broad Application by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What is illegal about running software on an XBox that was not supposed to run on an XBox if I can somehow pull that stunt off? As long as it's not someone else's copyrighted work, I cannot see the problem with it.

      The main problem MS has with me using my XBoxes the way I use it them that they made a loss selling them to me and wanted to reclaim it by me buying some games. Sadly, I don't need the XBoxes for games. But their hardware sure is quite cool for a lot of other tricks, and you got a lot of CPU (and even more GPU) power for the buck.

      Of course, that has changed by now. But I guess they wouldn't mind if I bought the box now, IIRC they turn a profit with them by now, anyway.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:Broad Application by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So? It's not in my country. Welcome to the great game of whack-a-mole.

      Not to mention that I somehow doubt you can keep me from doing with my hardware what I want to do to it. If everything fails, I make my own chips.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Broad Application by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's a given, using an online service is subject to the service contract rules, and I'm pretty sure one of those rules is "thou shalt not mod".

      But what keeps me from modifying the hardware (or rather, its OS) in such a way that it connects to some other service for online gaming?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Broad Application by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      If you go back to the original XBOX days, Microsoft was suing people who sold mod chips that let you run your own applications on your XBOX. So no, you can't modify the hardware all you want.

    23. Re:Broad Application by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Along the same lines: You buy a DVD disc. It should now be legal to do whatever you want with that video short of making copies for others. You can sell it, give it away, rip it for your personal electronic collection (deleting it if you sell/give away the disc), or use it for target practice. The publisher has no say in your use of the DVD.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    24. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it would have required him to modify the software, he'd be profitting from violating the DMCA, already ruled to be illegal in the PS3 case. You cannot modify something you're only renting. Essentially you're paying for the priveledge of paying them to use software and then paying to get rid of the hardware for them.

    25. Re:Broad Application by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Nope. You won't get 'prosecuted' for doing your own mods, but it's still just as illegal :) The violation is copyright itself but the 'do not circumvent' clause of the DMCA.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    26. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was true 20 years ago. It isn't now. Go modify your Xbox software and send Microsoft's legal department a detailed rundown of what you did and how you did it, and especially tell them how not illegal you think it is. Don't bother to reply, we can all read about it in the news. Maybe I'll print up some "Free PRMan" bumper stickers.

    27. Re:Broad Application by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      Mmm, chips. You should get some cheese, and make nachos!

    28. Re:Broad Application by Zimluura · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have to agree to a EULA to play xbox games. At least I never have, also typically when I buy them at a store i get a "sales receipt" these two things together seem like pretty good evidence for me having purchased the software.

      I am still legally bound by copyright laws in my country, but just because your copy of windows tells you it is licensed doesn't mean all software is licensed...not even entirely sure your copy of windows is licensed, because any agreements were made after you legally purchased it (and you do have an invoice or receipt).

    29. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see this too.

      If uSoft claims Copyright protection for their SW, then they should have to abide by only the protections offered by Copyright.
        No additional claims of license with additional restrictions.

      I won't hold my breath until that happens.

    30. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC'ing because I can't be arsed to log in, but doesn't that have a dangerous implication for computers in general?

      M$'s new angle: You can't install [Linux/BSD/etc] because that's a violation of the DMCA! You're using the hardware for some purpose we didn't intend it to be used for!

      Protecting content creators good. Punishing content consumers for consuming to prevent those who actually need punished bad. The hardware is my business; the software and infrastructure to support it is theirs. When I modded my Wii, the last of my concerns was whether I'd have Nintendo's support to use their network, run their games, or so forth anymore. I think I was much more interested in Mr. Lait's work at that point in time: http://www.zincland.com/powder/

      Not to mention my desire to experiment with the hardware as a student in video game design.

    31. Re:Broad Application by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Along the same lines, this is also why it must be illegal for a carrier to keep your cell phone locked after you've bought it and paid for it entirely via the 2-3 year contract.

    32. Re:Broad Application by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      The key to your sentence there was the word "SOLD". They did not and have never sued someone for modifying there own xbox, they do actively ban them from using online services though. Modifying your box is not illegal, selling devices that circumvent protection mechanisms in many countries however is illegal.

    33. Re:Broad Application by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Not having an Xbox I'll leave a little room for 'possibly' it not having an initial 'you agree to...' screen, but just a little. That is so absolutely common place that it would be mind boggling if it didn't have something like that at startup the first time or even just something in the box...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    34. Re:Broad Application by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Dangerous implications? You bet. It's one of the reasons why people opposed UEFI secure boot initiative.

      It doesn't realistically affect your modding your own stuff for your own use though that's still technically illegal. It's just something that *could* be used against you should they discover it and it become convenient. Sort of like the posted speed limit on roads. Almost nobody does it, so everybody can technically be pulled over at any time because they are technically breaking the law. And yes car analogies are wildly overused and never really appropriate but I thought it sounded good :)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    35. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, this applies to sw licenses too. Amazon US may not want to ship to Canada, but nothing stops you from going to the US, purchase sw, and import it yourself.

    36. Re:Broad Application by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      pre-flashed modchips generally contained a modified bios that had parts from the original, making them a copyright violation.

      so the chips ended up being made so that you flashed 'em yourself. those were sold quite freely without any quibble from ms at least in most of the western world.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    37. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can modify the hardware all you want, you can't play on x-box live with modified hardware. online service is different than hardware you own.

      What's more, you are not guaranteed to have any of the games or the next OS update to work on your modified hardware.

    38. Re:Broad Application by Immerman · · Score: 2

      As far as copyright is concerned, nothing. However the DMCA has very little to do with copyright, name notwithstanding. It has to do with technological measures designed to enforce copyright, and it makes it illegal to circumvent DRM except in a narrow range of explicitly states cases subject to periodic revision. Disabling the XBox DRM to run unsigned software is not one of those narrow cases, therefore it is illegal.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    39. Re:Broad Application by Zimluura · · Score: 1

      I don't think contract law has quite devolved to the state of "By having read this license agreement you have accepted it". Though with the state of EULAs i can' fault you for assuming it's that bad.

      lets try an experiment though:
      by having read this comment you've agreed to send me 10 dollars.

    40. Re:Broad Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't you just have an agent in the US buy the software for you and transfer the licenses?

    41. Re:Broad Application by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And why should I care about a law from abroad?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    42. Re:Broad Application by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't, at least not until they manage to cram it down your throats as well (so don't let your legislature sign any of the BS treaties we're continuously pushing). So why are you wasting your time reading a discussion about a U.S. Supreme court decision?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  6. E-books by balsy2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't be surprised to see a bigger push towards e-books. That is a way around the "problem" for the publishers.

    --
    GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:E-books by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

      It won't be for long. The E.U. high court's decision to allow the resale of used software (Usedsoft vs. Oracle) stated that giving a permanent license for an one-time payment concludes a sale, and the First Sale doctrine applies. Just because you name your EULA in a fancy manner, it doesn't change that it covers a sale. At least for the E.U., all ebook providers thus have to implement the infrastructure to allow a resale of used ebooks.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:E-books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will rue the day when the firemen are sysadmins.

    3. Re:E-books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It still works in the favour of the publishers. If I die, then my heirs will go through my phyiscal collection of books and CDs and probably sell them off in bulk to a used bookstore or record store. They probably not bother to go through my collection of ebooks and mp3s to see what needs to be sold.

    4. Re:E-books by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the issue would be that the DMCA, unless substantially amended, would make first sale irrelevant, not that fancy-EULA-talk would eliminate first sale in theory:

      If my DRM system is sufficiently robust that you would have to break it(either to transfer the file to the party you are selling to, or for the party you are selling to to read/execute the file), you can have your precious little 'first sale' rights, it's just that somebody still needs to commit a federal felony to make the goods sold actually worth more than $0 to anybody who I don't approve(since the value of an encrypted ebook you can't read, or software that won't run because the authentication server isn't giving it the thumbs up, isn't very high..)

    5. Re:E-books by eth1 · · Score: 1

      It won't be for long. The E.U. high court's decision to allow the resale of used software (Usedsoft vs. Oracle) stated that giving a permanent license for an one-time payment concludes a sale, and the First Sale doctrine applies. Just because you name your EULA in a fancy manner, it doesn't change that it covers a sale. At least for the E.U., all ebook providers thus have to implement the infrastructure to allow a resale of used ebooks.

      These are textbooks. They'd just stop giving you a "permanent license," and only license them for the term of the course (for the same price as the original dead tree edition, I'm sure).

    6. Re:E-books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I die, then

      That's keeping a positive attitude!!

    7. Re:E-books by Sique · · Score: 1

      The interesting part (and the one currently being prosecuted) is the fact that the original publisher probably has to allow for the sale or can be forced to effect it. So DMCA be damned, at least in the E.U., it seems likely that the publisher in future has to lift the DRM at least for the time of the sale.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:E-books by Sique · · Score: 1

      Then it's a rent and not a sale, and all the usual renting rules apply (at least in the E.U.), especially "keeping the rented object in usable shape for the time of the contract" as the first obligation of the publisher.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:E-books by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised to see a bigger push towards e-books. That is a way around the "problem" for the publishers.

      That would be fine with me. I have The Paxil Diaries in ebook form and you can have a copy for free. I plan on putting it in dead tree form and if I make any money it will be from sale of a physical object; I see ebooks and MP3s as a way to get it in front of a wider audience and hey, the more people read it and like it, the more the word will spread. I put it on TPB (or made the attempt, even registered so I could upload the .tor file). Give away as many copies as you like, that means more real physical books will get sold.

      I'm working on a second right now. It's only partly finished and what's done is a very rough draft, but you can read what's done right here at slashdot. It's unfinished (I'll post a new chapter tonight or tomorrow), rough, has inconsistencies and typos that I need to fix, but you can read it for free and when it's finished and fixed and polished the e-version will be free as well. Like Doctorow, I say if you like it and want to contribute and don't have room for real books, buy a copy and donate it to a library or someone.

      I've already sold a copy and its first draft isn't finished! Free sells, if what you're giving away is something people want.

      I think it will be a long time before bookshelves are obsolete. If the major publishers go for DRM ebooks and stop selling real books, that's a great opportunity for people like me. I hope they do!

    10. Re:E-books by richlv · · Score: 1

      there is a short story in russian about a father being surprised that his son wants to buy an extremely expensive electronic version of a russian classic book that they already have (but it's uncool to read paper books), where the author is dead for too long for copyright period (but at some point copyright got extended to "indefinite"), and they have to purchase it from an american company (which bought all the rights).
      and the book can be only read by a single person via biologically imprinted glasses.

      i think it ended with the expression from the son - "where the fuck have you been for the last 20 years ?"

      haven't seen it translated to english. if anybody knows of that, please, let me know :)

      --
      Rich
    11. Re:E-books by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      That is a way around the "problem" for the publishers.

      Particularly when they convince the schools to include the e-book license fee as part of the cost of the class. "We don't care where you download the copy, we get paid regardless."

    12. Re:E-books by Reschekle · · Score: 1

      It will happen eventually but the developing world can't afford to give each of their college students iPads or Kindles or whatever. Paper textbooks are cheap outside of the USA because that is what the market will bear over there.

      They will be on paper for at least a little while longer.

    13. Re:E-books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does this "federal felony" stuff come from? Violation of federal statutes has no separation into felonies and misdemeanors.

    14. Re:E-books by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I bought my textbooks, and I didn't sell very many of them. I like having them. I'm not that unusual.

      I think if they tried to go towards rented books, a market would spring up for access to the materials in a more permanent fashion. Student groups would pressure profs to select textbook options that are more flexible.

    15. Re:E-books by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Last I read, it didn't even have to be particularly "robust". I could ROT13 the text, and prosecute under the DMCA anyone who doesn't use my special "reader" software to ROT13 it again for circumventing my copy protection.

    16. Re:E-books by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      We will rue the day when the firemen are sysadmins.

      Only because we use Halon/halocarbon instead of water. "300 people died from suffocation, but we saved the building, computers, and network. Good job team!"

  7. Wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this apply to the first sale of any media abroad?

  8. Very good leveller of the playing field... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now lots of online businesses peddling second hand goods will spring up in no time.

    What about pdf books and eBooks? Can they be traded online or offered free by the legitimate purchaser?

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  9. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by alen · · Score: 5, Funny

    you can already resell your Oxycontin scripts on the street. i know of people who may or may not make $1000 a month doing so.

    but copyright is the least of your problems

  10. Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously? Reselling a physical product you bought legally needed the highest court in the land to adjudicate?

    I'm not surprised to see Justices "Whatever helps big corporations the most is best for the country" Kennedy, and "Whatever the republican party says today is the founder's original intent" Scalia writing a dissent, though. I don't know what could have made Ginsberg side with them though.

    1. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'm certain Kennedy and Scalia would have decided otherwise had the product in question been guns instead of books.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Seriously? Reselling a physical product you bought legally needed the highest court in the land to adjudicate?"

      Yes, it did. BUT, you're wrong about one thing. It isn't the "physical product" that is at issue here. it's the copyrighted work.

      This has BIG implications for copyrighted works. In essence, it upholds the 100-year-old rule that says publishers' "terms" bedamned: if you bought it, it's YOURS. You can sell it, burn it, or whatever you want.

      Although lower courts have upheld First Sale Doctrine re: copyrighted software for resale on Ebay and Amazon, it was reaffirmed here by the Supreme Court.

      So unless you have an existing contract with the publisher when you buy software, you can pretty much ignore their "license agreement". You bought it, it's yours. Once you have paid for it, you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of any "license agreement" inside the box or in a popup window. But you still can't legally distribute copies without the copyright holder's permission.

    3. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Maybe because Ginsberg fucking sucks too?

      Remember the 5-4 decision saying that the government could take your house, give you a few bucks for it, and then hand the land over to someone with a business plan to build a mall? That was all "conservative" justices in the 4, with the swing siding with the "liberals" for the majority.

      This should have been 9 fucking 0.

    4. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      It wasn't apparent from my post, but I understand that abstraction here. The physical product just neatly embodies that character.

    5. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Even though I consider the second amendment poorly advised in a nuclear age, weapon(never sure why weapons that use a small explosive charge to propel a metal slug are particularly special in this regard) ownership is nevertheless a guaranteed right according to the highest law of the land, and I would very much like any court of the country to protect any individual right we have collectively decided is innate.

      I'd personally like a supermajority of Americans to reconsider the value of the second amendment and amend it like we did with the 18th, but my current political views shouldn't dictate the rule of law.

    6. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Oh, no, this isn't a liberal/conservative thing. It's a hating Scalia and Kennedy thing. I know you could get that impression from the fact that I was accusing Scalia of being a republican lapdog, but that's just his particular method of being terrible. The man seems intent on attacking/defending things in court on a strictly partisan basis.

    7. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by mjr167 · · Score: 2

      The 18th was repealed... Outlawing booze accomplished nothing other than turn normal people into criminals.

    8. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the key to this is that they were publisher created "original copies". Nothing was pirated/copied illegally, the publisher presumably has the rights (copyright) to publish the work, they printed it, they sold it - they aren't entitled to collect additional fees for the purchaser of the book reselling it to someone else, once sold that person owns it.

      If someone was re-printing copies of the book, that would be a copyright violation - but they weren't, they were reselling legally obtained original copies.

      I mean, in all seriousness - I go to the toystore and buy a boxed set of Monopoly for $10. I turn around and resell it to you for $15, that's none of their business - I paid them the price they asked, legally. Now, if I turned around and got some cardboard boards printed up and printed up Monopoly money and had little plastic pieces & houses & hotels made up, I'd be infringing on their business (profiting from their game idea, while they get nothing) - but me reselling the game I bought legally from them is fine (although I'm sure they would *rather* people bought new ones).

      Change that and you'd put thrift stores (Salvation Army, etc) out of business, no more yard sales, etc. Heck, might as well start banning selling used cars, because y'know those cars contain *patented* technology that the car companies own...

    9. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the notes, Ginsberg didn't side with them.

      BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, J., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined except as to Parts III and V–B–1.

      They sided with her, at least in part for Scalia.

    10. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Quila · · Score: 1

      Ginsburg wrote the dissent -- they sided with her, Scalia in part.

    11. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by u19925 · · Score: 1

      Because of this, it had to go to the supreme court.

    12. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Without it any large scale redevelopment project would be impossible. Any old lady that wants to die in the house she has lived in all her life can essentially bring the whole thing to a halt.

    13. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Even though I consider the second amendment poorly advised in a nuclear age,

      Why? The second amendment is intended to protect the right to possess a weapon of a type that would be used by their militia. So if cops can carry nukes (or machine guns, mortars, etc.) then so should the citizens. If the citizens can't have them, then neither can the cops.

      Makes perfect sense to me. And it doesn't allow for an unrestricted variety of weapons in private hands.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    14. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by chill · · Score: 2

      The irony is thick with this one.

      "i kan reed" might want to start by reading the linked opinion. The document contains not only the majority opinion, but the dissenting opinion(s) as well. In this case, it was authored by Justice Ginsberg.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    15. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without it any large scale redevelopment project would be impossible. Any old lady that wants to die in the house she has lived in all her life can essentially bring the whole thing to a halt.

      Why is that a bad thing for anybody except the private corporation who willingly risked their private capital in hopes of making a private profit?

    16. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Um, yes, that's the parallel I was drawing. A poorly considered amendment too focused on the issues of the time without the broader sense of fundamental, enduring good attached.

    17. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      Without it any large scale redevelopment project would be impossible. Any old lady that wants to die in the house she has lived in all her life can essentially bring the whole thing to a halt.

      And what is wrong with that? It is her house. She has lived there her whole life. Why should she need to give it up because someone else wants to make a few bucks? I think the old lady who owns the land should have more rights to it than some developer that really, really wishes it owned the land.

    18. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      The why is easy. All it takes is one militia that goes to far to have untold death and destruction. Our government has checks and balances innate to its structure that are designed to limit abuse(not even counting the whole voting thing). There's no reason to assume the same about a militia.

    19. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I guess there are always miscarriages of justice that define precedent in this country. sigh

    20. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      What a fucking tragedy that would be.

      Seriously, she's kept that house all her life, how dare anyone take exception with her being forced to sell it against her will?!

    21. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does she own the house, or does she not?

    22. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      And if that happens? Good. Just because you really really want something doesn't mean you should get it. If you didn't offer her enough to make her want to sell, you don't get it. "But Judge, she really is being unreasonable, I really want that land, and she just won't sell it to us!"

      It's a development project, you can modify your project, or find a different location. Lack of long term planning to reserve space for future development by the city should not be a reason for them to seize your home.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    23. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Because economic activity in the form of money spent to build infrastructure benefits not just the developer but the economy as a whole as jobs are created and GDP grows.

    24. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume that militia = cops? That's not in the Constitution.

      So the parts that make perfect sense to you are based on your limited and made-up assumptions about the words. That's no better than anyone else's sense based on their own definitions of "right" or "arms" or "militia".

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    25. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      Although lower courts have upheld First Sale Doctrine re: copyrighted software for resale on Ebay and Amazon, it was reaffirmed here by the Supreme Court.

      But what's really scary is 3 dissenting opinions on what should have been a clear-cut slam-dunk 9-0.

    26. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by mjr167 · · Score: 2

      So you do not consider the ability of the people to revolt and toss aside an undesirable government fundamental or good? Do you trust your government that much? How many governments in the past 10 years have required toppling via force and how many more need to go? Peaceful resolution of problems with the government is obviously preferable to armed revolt, but what do you do when peaceful solutions do not work? What do you do when dissidents become criminalized and people begin to disappear?

      Or are you referring to the fact that 2nd amendment simply says "bear arms" and everyone interprets this as "guns" when in fact armament should probably refer to any weapon?

    27. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I mean, in all seriousness - I go to the toystore and buy a boxed set of Monopoly for $10. I turn around and resell it to you for $15, that's none of their business - I paid them the price they asked, legally."

      Yes, the history of this is interesting. The manufacturers of just about every kind of product in existence, at one time or another, has tried to put restrictions on the after-sale use of their products. Even hammers and shovels. They tried putting "agreements" on the labels, inside and outside the packages, etc. The courts ruled, in EVERY case except (recently) software, that if you walk into a retail store (or mail order), and plunk down your money, it is YOURS and you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of any "agreement" on or in the package.

      The only reason software has been an exception has been corporate lobbying. And I'd sure like to see that go away. I don't understand why software should be any different from any other copyrighted work. And in fact it wasn't, until pretty recently.

      A little more than 100 years ago, software became common, in the form of those paper rolls of music for player pianos. They are software, in every real sense. Publishers didn't like that people were copying them with paper punches. (Sound familiar? That's what Bill Gates took exception to when his company sold a BASIC interpreter for the Altair on paper tape.) And they tried to put restrictions on their use after first sale, arguing that they were different from other published works, because they controlled a machine. The courts said no. The form of the work didn't matter. Paper rolls with holes in them were nothing more than a different form of the published sheet music.

      So what's different with today's software? Nothing. Software is also a written work. Some coder(s) had to sit down and write it. And yes, it might control a machine (a computer), but so did player piano rolls, and punch cards for looms 200 years ago. Same same.

    28. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Who gives a flying fuck?

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    29. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jobs and economy are not a banner under which businesses can steamroll our rights as citizens to choose whether or not we sell our home. They want my property? They offer what they believe it's worth. If I think it's worth more, then they're shit out of luck, and should maybe try offering more money.

      Being a corporation and 'job-creator' does not exempt you from playing by the rules the rest of us play by.

    30. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      never sure why weapons that use a small explosive charge to propel a metal slug are particularly special in this regard

      Arms aren't "weapons that use a small explosive charge to propel a metal slug".

      Arms are weapons that you can carry. Cannon are weapons that need help. (horse & or carriage)

      Individuals were allowed to own weapons they could carry, but not the big stuff. Your example is apt. The Supremes have decided that some small weapons *could* be regulated, regardless of the 2nd amendment. No backpack nukes.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    31. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      "Our government has checks and balances innate to its structure that are designed to limit abuse"

      Ask the people of say, Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Afghanistan or Iraq how well those checks and balances on government are doing at limiting "abuses".

      Even if two rival militias fought a war, the resulting death and destruction would be absolutely trivial as compared to the untold death and destruction that governments can and do cause.

    32. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Will I certainly agree that the government should have no-role in determining what we cannot ingest of our on fully informed free will. You're statement that it accomplished nothing is false.

      Domestic violence fell by almost 50% during the prohibition years for instance. There was also a substantial drop in alcohol related related deaths during the period.

      So actually the temperance movement/prohibition was quite successful addressing the social ills it sought to address. Even if it did create new and by some judgments more serious problems and cross a moral boundary infringing freedom in a way that continues to harm our nation today.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    33. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by srmalloy · · Score: 2

      The intent was that the government would be unable to deny private citizens the right to own and carry weapons equivalent to those that the members of a standing army would carry. There aren't many gun-rights advocates who would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to own an ICBM, for example (although the unrestricted private ownership of cannon and armed ships in that period provides the basis for the argument that private ownership of any weapon a standing military employs is protected). However, the ownership of assault rifles (the select-fire shoulder arm, not the media invention "it looks like a military weapon, so it's evil" tern 'assault weapon') would be protected, because these weapons are issued to individual soldiers.

    34. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      This was true in the 18th century as well, and we still considered the second amendment imperative. The biggest difference is the constitution was not intended to apply to state laws. That is a consequence of the 14th

    35. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Seriously how is that bad. If one private entity wants to acquire my property because they feel they can make better use of it that I can why should the government side with them. If they want it bad enough they should ask me to submit in writing what it will take to part with the property and then either accept, decline or make a counter offer. It is not like that had been unheard of previously. I also remember a similar story about Rockefeller or Carnegie where 2 people refused to sell property where one didn't want to sell and the other was trying to get some truly absurd amount and Rockefeller or Carnegie gave up trying to acquire either property. I tried looking for it and couldn't find anything on it.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    36. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "Without it any large scale redevelopment project would be impossible."

      Nonsense. Large scale development projects happen all the time without the government forcibly evicting people from their property. Most people will sell to the developer if the price is right. If the little old lady wants to keep her house, they can move the development project somewhere else.

      Eminent Domain is about "public use" of a particular piece of land. The Kelo case was an abomination that twisted this into "private use with a public fringe benefit of higher tax revenue".

      Then, the supposed "public benefit" hardly even materialized. The developers never actually followed through on the project, then, in 2009, Pfizer pulled out of New London entirely.

    37. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there is any requirement for the software to function forever.
      The author can clamp it by date, making it useless with
      no warning or indication of the future time bomb it holds.

      This also needs to be changed, or at least part of the
      VISIBLE sale agreement, not buried in the EULA.

      jr

    38. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does everyone ignore the "a well regulated militia" part?

      Guess who regulates the militia? The same government you fear.

    39. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You have got to be kidding. Look at the Wikipedia pages for the 5 that decided the government can take your land and give it to a corporation:

      Ginsberg, Ruth Bader - Appointed by Bill Clinton, liberal
      Breyer, Steven Gerald - Appointed by Bill Clinton, liberal
      Stevens, John Paul - Appointed by Gerald Ford, started out conservative, but by 2003 was the most liberal member, upheld abortion rights and affirmative action
      Kennedy, Anthony - Appointed by Ronald Reagan, swing vote, joined liberal block to uphold Roe v. Wade and limit capital punishment
      Souter, David - Appointed by George H. W. Bush, started out conservative but moved left of Ginsberg, upheld abortion and sided with Gore in 2000

      So, just because three of those were appointed by Republican presidents, does not mean they were conservative Justices. I point out that all three supported abortion rights not because I don't, but because that seems to be the litmus test for liberals. (Hint: I neither support nor oppose abortion, for my own reasons.) The other issues are just supplemental hot topic decisions.

      But to claim that those evil conservatives are taking your property, when the dissenting Justices were Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Conner, is rewriting history to a disgusting extreme.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    40. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      You know what? Why not? Unlike a corporation, she's not going to live forever.

    41. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are:

      A) A real estate developer
      B) The most brain washed, ass sucking, corporate whore ever.
      C) All the above

      Heaven forbid that corporations aren't allowed to throw granny out on the street so they can make a buck.

      Fuck you

    42. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure, I mean, anyone willing to sell you their gun has to be some pinko commie, for any true blooded american you'd have to pry it from their cold, dead hands.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    43. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      My cat, who is not part of a well regulated militia, has sharp claws.

      Does the 'well regulated militia' part of that sentence make a bit of difference to whether my cat has claws?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    44. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't think voting was a good example for "checks and balances that are designed to limit abuse". Designed maybe, the process has just been warped so much that it doesn't fit the design anymore.

      Maybe the constitution does need an overhaul. Quite a few things are pretty much dead law by now (just think about the 3rd, there's a reason you never hear about it). The main reason why I'm against it is that the people who COULD do it are also the ones I would trust the least to do it right.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they had also upheld the ela clauses limiting yo to arbitration and not court action etc , so it is not true you bought it you can do what you please with it, as you cant go to court if its defective?

    46. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domestic violence fell by almost 50% during the prohibition years for instance. There was also a substantial drop in alcohol related related deaths during the period.

      Harder product to get your hands on, and you have to leave home to get it. In a place where there are often women for you to but for pleasure. I'm sure domestic violence fell. It's also expensive as hell so people didn't drink *as much*.

    47. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to carry a weapon on parity with the criminals and the local police ought to be good enough. Bad government here in the US is a far fetched story. Murderous cop, not so much.

      If you look up the old readings of English law, you will find that a police officer forcing his way across a threshold without a warrant is liable to be shot as a trespasser. We the people don't hold that way today, but such a time might come again.

    48. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      From what I understood alcohol related deaths increased due to things like bathtub gin. That stuff would literally kill you. That is actually where cocktails came from, they had to add juices and stuff to the booze to even make it consumable. Of course if you have a source for your data that has scientific backing (No religious or crazy organizations like MADD) I would be glad to read through it. If you ask I will also look to provide sources to you as well.

    49. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I indeed do not consider violence an innate right. It is a sometimes necessary tool that should be reserved for cases of need.

    50. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      A. Limit is not the same as prevent.
      B. Two militias fighting a war do cause quite serious systemic problems where it happens, e.g. gang wars. Just because they aren't called militias doesn't mean they aren't.

    51. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      The main reason why I'm against it is that the people who COULD do it are also the ones I would trust the least to do it right.

      Yep. I envy other countries that had a chance to look at the mistakes and successes made in the US constitution before moving to a constitutional democracy.

    52. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The why is easy. All it takes is one militia that goes to far to have untold death and destruction. Our government has checks and balances innate to its structure that are designed to limit abuse(not even counting the whole voting thing). There's no reason to assume the same about a militia.

      Heh.

      Optimism in this regard would be cute, if not so dangerous.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    53. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Caveat: I agree, wholeheartedly, with your position.

      Without it any large scale redevelopment project would be impossible. Any old lady that wants to die in the house she has lived in all her life can essentially bring the whole thing to a halt.

      And what is wrong with that? It is her house. She has lived there her whole life. Why should she need to give it up because someone else wants to make a few bucks? I think the old lady who owns the land should have more rights to it than some developer that really, really wishes it owned the land.

      This is the US - She doesn't own shit. Neither does anyone else.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    54. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Actually that would be the state governments, not the federal government.

    55. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You'll find the actual de-facto jurisprudence is that many hand-held things, such as RPGs are not covered by the 2nd amendment.

    56. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ginsberg and Scalia team up often.

      Usually in procedural cases though. However, having not read Ginsberg's ruling, maybe it was procedural, but I doubt it.

    57. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The author can clamp it by date, making it useless with no warning or indication of the future time bomb it holds.

      This also needs to be changed, or at least part of the VISIBLE sale agreement, not buried in the EULA."

      That was part of my point: EULAs and "shrink wrap licenses" have been tried for everything under the sun before, and courts have ruled that they have absolutely no legal force... except for software. And my question is: why is, or should, software be any different? In fact it WASN'T any different, until pretty recently, when Congress made some exceptions for it. But I don't believe those exceptions should exist. Software worked just like every other copyrighted work, for close to 100 years. I don't see any valid reason to change that now.

    58. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though I consider the second amendment poorly advised in a nuclear age,

      Why?

      The argument that the second amendment no longer makes sense is largely this:

      The main purpose of the second amendment is to act as a check on government power. That is to make sure that "sending in the troops" isn't a viable solution to civil unrest. It can be argued that freedom of communication technology is more valuable there than freedom to own weapons (driving a tank over a protest will likely cause more dissent once the video hits youtube than letting the protest run it's coarse). And that it is not practical for a private citizen to own the sort of weaponry they'd need to go toe to toe with the U.S. Army.

    59. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Reselling a physical product you bought legally needed the highest court in the land to adjudicate?

      Yes, because the law that decided whether reselling was legal or not was written in such a way that a reasonable judge could decide either way. If that law had been clearer, it wouldn't have gone that high up. Of course the law could have been clearer in a way that makes reselling imported books illegal. But it wasn't.

    60. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Guess who regulates the militia?

      The People.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    61. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      I didn't know Republicans were so pro-copyright compared to Democrats... Neither did the Supreme Court... Because they are no different...

    62. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you have failed, like so many others, to understand that the right to keep and bear arms applies to arms and not ordnance. So, swords, guns, and such. Not cannons and explosively-charged rockets.

      The word "arms" does not just mean any old weapon you can think of.

      Bonus education: The phrase "well regulated" does not mean government red tape, it refers to standardized bore sizes so that supply chain issues with supplying ammo to the militia are eased. So essentially in this day and age, this means that you should probably own an AR-15 in 5.56 NATO.

    63. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Arms is guns, swords, pistols, clubs, that sort of thing. It was a well defined military term in the 1770s. Note that the 2nd Amendment does not state that you have the right to ordnance. So next time shrieking hysterical anti-gun nut tries to imply that "regulation" (also a term that is badly misunderstood thanks to very poor judgement) is necessary to keep you from getting ahold of nukes, you can slap them and then tell them about the meaning of these terms.

    64. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're full of shit. I'll try to find your comment when I can log in and say it again so you can attempt to rebut it. You talk like prohibition stopped people from drinking when actually Alcohol consumption doubled during prohibition. My grandmother, who was born in 1920, explained it succinctly: before prohibition, it was socially unacceptable for US women to drink. A salloon was no place for a respectable women; the few women who did drink did so in secret.

      During prohibition, the speakeasies came about. It was as "socially unacceptable" (because it was illegal) for men to drink as women, and unlike the pre-prohibition saloons, women went there.

      As to the "drop in alcohol-related deaths," that too is bullshit. There were more alcohol related deaths, mostly because you can't regulate an illegal product. Not just deaths, but blindness. People were sold wood alcohol, people were sold alcohol that was distilled using old radiators with the resultant poisoning from the antifreeze residue. There were a lot of deaths from food poisoning from bathtub gin as well.

      Citation here, I took a history class as an undergrad, and the linked book was required reading; the 1920s was the subject of the class. Where did you get your "information," from MADD or the Partnership for a Drug Free America? Because WHAT YOU SAY IS NOT TRUE.

      BTW, Grandma borrowed the book and she said the only thing the writer got wrong was that the "roaring twenties" only roared for the rich, everybody else was struggling badly.

    65. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You seem to equate misinformative propaganda with education. There's not actually historical precedent to that.

      Points of fact:
      1. The weapons the British attempted to seize from colonial militias in the early stages of the war were, in fact, canon, not muskets. That's what the British had actually set out to do before the battles Lexington and Concord. Even if this isn't explicitly spelled out in the federalist/antifederalist papers, the histories I've read implies that that action was what provoked the 2nd amendment.
      2. No dictionary I checked( I just checked 3) refers to arms that way. I know that dictionaries become a common tool after the revolution, but it certainly doesn't lend credence to your bare assertion. In fact, several of them refer specifically to weapons of war, rather than hand-held weapons.
      3. I will personally give you $20, if you can find any sort of historical(i.e. period) document that supports your obsessively, almost autistic, idea of what well regulated means. For the obvious thing that even you should be able to identify, the "well regulated" adjective applies to the word "militia", not "arms" for any semantically viable parsing of the English there.

    66. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Guess who regulates the militia?

      The People.

      By means of democracy. WHOOOA WAIT A MINUTE. That's the government(s) again!

    67. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      I see the problem here. You have already decided what these terms must mean to you, in order to support the current regime of poor judgement and government interference, and in order to support this you have carefully pruned your research and beliefs to stroke your own ego.

      If you have so badly mistaken the definitions of the terms arms and ordnance, which have had well known definitions for hundreds of years, forgive my lack of faith in your ability to understand any of the rest of what I wrote, though it was quite simple. I will of course let you persist in your ignorance, if it makes you happy, but don't try to convince me that our deliberate misunderstanding is honest or requires any sort of debate. It would be impossible to talk sense into you.

    68. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If you see violence as sometimes necessary, it must be accessible to people when those cases of need arise. So why isn't it a right?

      It's like saying habeas corpus is only REALLY needed sometimes (when the imprisonment is unlawful) so it's not a right.

    69. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by tqk · · Score: 1

      Any old lady that wants to die in the house she has lived in all her life can essentially bring the whole thing to a halt.

      So, make her an offer she can't refuse. Put her up in a suite in the Ritz-Carlton including housekeeper, personal care assistant and chauffeur. She might even go for just full coverage health insurance.

      Otherwise, suck it up. You shouldn't get special favours from your government just because you're a rich corporation wanting to develop something. She's been paying taxes all her life too.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    70. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Cite your goddamn lies. Oddly enough, if I search for historical books referencing both canon and arms, I can find several situations, such as this one or that, where cannon are referred to as firearms, and NONE supporting your goddamn position.

      I wasted 20 minutes, trying vainly to find something, anything, having any support for what you're saying, and all I find is contrary evidence.

      I tried. I tried to pretend you weren't a liar. Why don't you provide me with the evidence that it's true. Moreover, you certainly haven't defended your obsessive almost moronic point I addressed with #3.

    71. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, that's not the same at all. Violence is specifically a means to deny someone else their right to life. Inherently violent resolution cannot co-exist with the belief in natural rights. That's an absurdity.

    72. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      One more fun thing. I searched on my favorite search engine for "arms versus ordnance", and the first result was this, which includes the choice quote: "Ordnance = arms and ammunition". Literally the opposite of what you said.

    73. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      The problem with fundamentally dishonest people like yourself, is that you think you can impress people with shoddy accusations and research. Your first web result? Congratulations! If you had the mental capacity to understand my points, you would never had attempted such a foolish tactic. Why would you look at "weaponsman.com" for the definition of a word from a document created several hundred years ago? Who mentioned the word "firearms" specifically? This is another example of your shameful practice of attempting to change the scope of the discussion to suit your dishonest purposes.

      Fundamentally dishonest people like yourself even invented a word for their underhanded bullshit. Chutzpah. The word essentially means, feeling pride when one should instead feel shame.

      If you actually take the time to read about the revolution, understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and research the relatively new innovation around that period in history known (and still known) as the "regular army" you will understand your errors. I suspect, however, that you have chutzpah, which ultimately means that even if you do understand all of this (and I suspect you do) your pride will not allow you to admit it, as it would incur a loss of face that would badly damage your fragile ego.

      Suffice to say, that if you actually research the subject you will see the light. A superficial web search is not enough.

    74. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So unless you have an existing contract with the publisher when you buy software, you can pretty much ignore their "license agreement".

      So the next step for publishers will be to get you to sign an "agreement to become a customer" before you can purchase anything off them?

      (the captcha is "immature" which is how they behave).

    75. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you now feel it is necessary to blindly attack my character, without, notably providing a single source for your claims. You seriously need to grow up. I would have been willing to accept your barely on-topic technical correct, if there was the slightest hint of reason to believe it.

      You then pretend like you have a in-depth knowledge of American History because you know what a regular army is(what is this, high school?) I don't know why you assume me to be ignorant, but seriously, this is stupid.

      Look, read the wikipedia article on lexington and concord. The purpose there was to seize the weapons. I'm aware that it's synthesis to state that that's why the right to firearms is enshrined in the constitution, but that position came from a historians who wrote the revolutionary era histories I studied. I believe there were letters cited in those books too, but I don't have them on hand to look up the names.

      Suffice it to say, CITE YOUR SOURCES.

    76. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it did. BUT, you're wrong about one thing. It isn't the "physical product" that is at issue here. it's the copyrighted work.

      he actual decision makes some rather insightful observations:

      Things like :

      noting your microwave has software in it, and that selling your microwave made in China would now have copyright implications. -- you would need the rights holders permission to sell.

      ditto your car if it was an import, or perhaps ditto your car even if it domestic if the computer module component was made abroad.

      and then there's the note that product packaging is copyright, so that box of markers in a cardboard box with a picture of a dog on it... well it was made abroad and you can't re-sell it until you get permission from the photographer who took that picture.

      Wiley's desired interpretation of the copyright act had far far wider implications than just books, or even media. It would have affected practically anything sold with an an instruction manual, anything with a picture on it, anything with a picture on the box, anything with software in it...

    77. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Zinho · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, that's not the same at all. Violence is specifically a means to deny someone else their right to life. Inherently violent resolution cannot co-exist with the belief in natural rights. That's an absurdity.

      (emphasis added)

      I disagree, and I'll give a clear counter-example. I believe in natural rights, specifically that life, liberty, and property are rights inherent to every living human. A robber disagrees with me, and is happy to relieve me of my property at gunpoint. How will this situation resolve itself?

      * I calmly assert my natural rights, and the robber says, "oh, man!" and slinks away like Swiper the fox
      * I calmly assert my natural rights, The robber shoots me and takes both my property and my life
      * I give my property to the robber and think myself lucky to retain my life
      * I draw my concealed firearm and encourage the robber to choose a different lifestyle

      The first example is rather unlikely.

      In the second example my belief in natural rights and an inherently violent resolution coexist perfectly, to the benefit of the robber.

      In the third example I dare say that I've abandoned my belief in my natural rights in order to avoid violence. This is the correct response in many circumstances; I've heard many concealed firearm bearers say that "here's my wallet, take it and go" is a safe alternative to a gunfight, and one that should be seriously considered. It is, however, not optimal - I'd really rather keep all of my natural rights (both life and property in this case).

      I believe that the fourth example is a proper example of maintaining my belief in my natural rights while offering an inherently violent resolution to conflict. Violent resolution is an option whether I'm armed or not, but it's only an option for the robber if I'm not. When I am armed I have the choice of defending my natural rights.

      Why should I even be worried about the natural rights of someone actively depriving me of mine?

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    78. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "So the next step for publishers will be to get you to sign an "agreement to become a customer" before you can purchase anything off them?"

      A lot of software is "sold" (or leased, or licensed, or whatever they call it) to companies on a contract basis. Microsoft, for example, has annual package deals for their software on a contract basis. If you agree up front that you are going to be bound by some kind of license agreement, then that is your limit of rights, not copyright laws.

    79. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, the law refers to the copyrighted work itself. Whether some physical object is attached to it or not. Or to put it a different way: the courts have long held that a copyrighted work is a copyrighted work, whether it is in electronic form, or embodied in the form of a book, or firmware, or bumps or holes in paper. It's still just a copyrighted work.

    80. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "But what's really scary is 3 dissenting opinions on what should have been a clear-cut slam-dunk 9-0."

      So true.

    81. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume that militia = cops? That's not in the Constitution.

      Yes, it is.

      US Constitution, Article 1, Section. 8.

      The Congress shall have Power ....

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      "To provide for organizing, arming,"

      The states can't arm a militia. That right is reserved to Congress. And you can't circumvent a law or constitutional clause with a definition. Police, Sheriff, Parking Enforcement, Dog Catcher. Whatever you want to call them, you (the States) can't arm them.

      So all you are left with is an unarmed force. Or, thanks to the wisdom of the authors of the Bil of Rights, you can hire armed citizens, whose right to be armed is protected by the Second Amendment. But if you make membership in such a force a condition of carrying arms, or some particular type of arms, that would be a violation of the Constitution.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    82. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by PPH · · Score: 1

      The intent was that the government would be unable to deny private citizens the right to own and carry weapons equivalent to those that the members of a standing army would carry.

      Militia, actually. Not standing army.

      Congress has the power to assemble a standing army and arm it. Or to bring States militias under its control and arm them as they see fit. Its all the other things that States might desire to organize that are restricted to being essentially armed private citizens.

      Theoretically, a state could ban all firearms. But then they would be in direct violation of the Constitution if they turned around and handed their cops handguns (or whatever).

      Since the standing army and parts of the militia are restricted from performing many law enforcement duties within the US (see the Posse Comitatus Act), that's not an unreasonable position to take. It more or less protects citizens from having to deal with a militarized police force. But the most important thing (and this is what all the anti-gun folks don't like to talk about) is that it gives the private citizen the ability to defend him or herself with the same level of skill and equipment as the local 'professional' police department. This prevents local politicians from ordering the police to look the other way should some armed thugs with sympathetic political views run loose*. If the cops don't show up, you just handle them yourself. If does not give the population the ability to stand up to an army directed by a corrupt administration. Good luck with that.

      *Take a look at how oppression is conducted in some third world countries. Not always by the officials, but by bands of armed sympathizers. Particularly when being armed is a right granted as a whim of some political party.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    83. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Your poor research, enshrined in your attempt to use the first hyperlink you came across to supposedly invalidate a point, just shows that your supposed abilities in this arena are lacking. I don't see the point in referring you to any information, when it is clear that you don't have any intention of displaying honor or integrity in a conversation. Your feigned indignity at a character assault is even more hilarious because you brought that cat out of the bag first! This is what I say when you're dishonest, and that you have chutzpah. It's meant to be insulting to your character, which I believe is already sorely lacking.

      Your ignorance is something that you demonstrated to me - I didn't have to assume it at all. You displayed it, I merely pointed it out. As I said, if you can't understand the difference between the technical military terms arms, weapons, and ordnance you are pretty much beyond hope. Also your ignorance as to the meaning of "regular army" just demonstrates the conclusion that you have no particular urge to be honest or thoughtful. Calling the right to bear arms a synthesis created by historians just further demonstrates this point. Cast not pearls before swine.

    84. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Shame on the founding fathers for not explicitly pointing out weapons they did not know about in the 1770's! Seriously though, when people talk about "arming" the Seryian rebels, are they talking about giving them swords, pistols, and muskets? No. They are talking about giving them modern weapons.

      You must also agree that the right to be secure in our papers should not apply to electronic communications because, again, the founding fathers did not specify emails and phone conversations...

    85. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Meh. Stopped caring, you don't cite anything still. I can just assume you don't know anything.

    86. Re:Why did this need to go to the supreme court? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, prototypes rarely have all the kinks ironed out already. That's why they are usually replaced by the real deal after a while.

      But like I said, I don't think this would be a good time to do this.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Wow by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This may be one of the most important decisions this court has gotten right in years. This was absolutely huge because of the implications of what would have happened if it had gone the other way. This is critical in terms of the idea of actually owning what you buy, without this manufactures could simply make things out of country and avoid first sale rights. This could have affected pretty much every aspect of Americans daily life and is a good first step in restoring Intellectual Property sanity.

    It's funny how property rights have historically been a right wring agenda item until they are shown to be just as important to the left as well...

    1. Re:Wow by alen · · Score: 1

      no one is suing the guy selling his one text book after class ends

      this person didn't really buy the books for himself which is what the first sale doctrine is for? he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money

      i'm surprised SCOTUS didn't find for the publisher. this is a pretty big expansion of the first sale doctrine

    2. Re:Wow by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except you don't normally get to ask someone what they want to do with it before you sell it to them. Once the transaction takes place, the purchaser's "intent" doesn't count.

      "I changed my mind" is all it would take.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

      Follow the links on "alienation of goods" and "restraint of alienation" if you want to dig into it.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a good first step in restoring Intellectual Property sanity.

      I came to the opposite conclusion. This case aside, the erosion of our copyright rights is happening with digital media. Each time the digital version of a particular class of product becomes mainstream we lose a few rights. This is happening gradually and most people don't notice.

      Had the decision gone the other way, the consequences could have been enormous. The frogs might have noticed that the water was getting hotter, and there might have been a real copyright reform for the digital age. But that's not going to happen now. It's business as usual and property rights will continue to gradually diminish.

      This explains the curious split in the Supreme Court. The dissenters wanted to fuck us immediately; the majority knew the slow fuck was more effective in the long term.

    4. Re:Wow by PRMan · · Score: 1

      no one is suing the guy selling his one text book after class ends

      this person didn't really buy the books for himself which is what the first sale doctrine is for? he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money

      i'm surprised SCOTUS didn't find for the publisher. this is a pretty big expansion of the first sale doctrine

      So what? This is EXACTLY the same case as was fought for books about 100 years ago.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how property rights have historically been a right wring agenda item until they are shown to be just as important to the left as well...

      Based on the split of the justices, partisan politics have very little to do with copyright. Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Scalia all dissented, and nobody believes for a second that they sit anywhere close to each other on the political spectrum.

    6. Re:Wow by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      this person didn't really buy the books for himself which is what the first sale doctrine is for? he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money.

      It doesn't matter why they were bought. The first-sale doctrine says that you only control it until you sell it. Once you have sold it, it is no longer yours to control. If you want control over something, then don't give control to someone else by selling it to them.

    7. Re:Wow by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Expansion? Where's the expansion? I only see a first sale doctrine that has been upheld.

      It would have been a huge exemption if they ruled otherwise.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Wow by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This was absolutely huge because of the implications of what would have happened if it had gone the other way.

      Both sides rejected as unlikely the "horribles" as unrealistic conjurations. That's all that crap about copyrighted labels, user manuals, packaging, art works on loan from museums, and so on, being unworkably burdensome.

      Congress could still address the issue. Both sides also acknowledged the intent of Congress in deliberately allowing copyright holders to take advantage of price differentials afforded between richer and poorer areas of the world when carving up distribution contracts.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Wow by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      this person didn't really buy the books for himself which is what the first sale doctrine is for?

      Ah, no. Read it, it says absolutely nothing about the purpose of the purchase.

      he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money

      In other words, Capitalism at work.

      i'm surprised SCOTUS didn't find for the publisher.

      Really? You're surprised that the SCOTUS didn't declare capitalism illegal?

      this is a pretty big expansion of the first sale doctrine

      No, it's not.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Wow by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      First sale doctrine is not specific as you would like to think. It allows the resale, rental, etc etc etc right that you would have with any other physical good to apply to copyright and trademarked goods.

      It's perfectly reasonable for somebody to buy Colgate toothpaste overseas import it into america and sell it as Colgate toothpaste. If they choose to sell there product at a cheaper price oversea's and somebody takes the opportunity and risk to turn a profit more power to them. This is part of the definition of open markets.

      Drug companies are great at doing this having pushed to get laws to specifically protect them.

      For awhile hardware companies were trying to say the firmware was not transferable and you had to buy it again (often for close to the cost of the hardware new), the EU nipped that pretty quickly.

      First sale pretty much just limits copyright/trademark holders from trying to retain control over there products after they sell them.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    11. Re:Wow by tqk · · Score: 1

      he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money

      So, they had first sale rights. They were paid for, which is all the seller should care about and be able to expect.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Wow by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      this person didn't really buy the books for himself which is what the first sale doctrine is for? he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money

      i'm surprised SCOTUS didn't find for the publisher. this is a pretty big expansion of the first sale doctrine

      No, first sale has always covered used book stores, video rental stores, and other for-profit enterprises. There is no expansion here. All the doctrine ever said was that the copyright holder has no right -- under copyright, at least -- to control distribution after the first one. There are a few caveats here and there (when lobbying groups got Congress to do their bidding), but that's basically it.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    13. Re:Wow by dywolf · · Score: 1

      its important to actually read the opinions of the court. its far FAR more complex than simple First Sale Doctrine.

      There are multiple sections of the United Staes Code related to first sale, copyright, and importation, that are all at odds here, or at least not compeltely in agreement.

      Some of these sections have a geographical limitation/interpretation, which is why the fact these books were manufactured outside the country was relevant. some of the sections relating to first sale imply it only applied within the country, to things made in the country, though the court has seemingly said it should be interpretted universally.

      In the dissenting opinion, theres other considerations that come out. such as, that one of the intents of the copyright act of 1976 (the main law affecting the decision) was to protect american manufacturers against the importation of cheap knockoffs made by someone else. Now its key to note that in this case, the books were still made by the same company, or one of its subsidieries. But the decision does seem to open the door for copyright knockoff/imitations made by other people. its not specifically or concretely addressed (that i can see), so its still a gray market area, but the door is now wider than before.

      Im not arguing for or against, I'm just saying, its actualy a really complicated case, and the justices set out to clarify a great many things, as you can see if you read the opinions, both Concurring and Dissenting.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re:Wow by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Link to opinions: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf

      Main opinion is first.
      Concurring opinion begins at 38.
      Dissenting (written by Ginsburg) begins on page 42.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    15. Re:Wow by organgtool · · Score: 1

      This may be one of the most important decisions this court has gotten right in years

      It might also be one of the only decisions it has gotten right in years.

  12. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by Zcar · · Score: 1

    Of course, now they'll start publishing region-specific versions of the texts so the Asian version will have the wrong problem set for North American coursework and prices will increase.

  13. Country without copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if a country has no copyright law so all copies are legal? Can we then get all of our softwares/books/music/movie for next-to-nothing legally?

    1. Re:Country without copyright? by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What happens when you import a pound of marijuana from a country where it's legal to a country where it's illegal?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Country without copyright? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, possession of cannabis (the word marijuana was invented to link it to mexicans) is itself illegal, so it's irrelevant where you buy it.

      With copyright, you're not allowed to distribute copies within most countries, but owning a copy is not illegal, so this situation is somewhat different. I don't see how a consumer is expected to investigate whether a tradesperson has a license to distribute a specific work, so I would imagine that importing copyright works would be perfectly legal. (This constitutes legal advice and I am YOUR lawyer).

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    3. Re:Country without copyright? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      The legality (or not) of the object would override any first-sale doctrine.

      Your example is a good one, as is purchasing fully-automatic AK-47s in Africa/Eastern Europe and trying to bring them into the US.

      In this case you aren't importing something, you are trafficking it.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    4. Re:Country without copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to what a weed-addled mind might think after reading Slashdot for too long, the whole law system doesn't depend on copyright only :-)

    5. Re:Country without copyright? by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, there is no such a country.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    6. Re:Country without copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when you import a pound of marijuana from a country where it's legal to a country where it's illegal?

      You get sent to pound me in the ass prison.

      Or, in some countries, drug dealers get the death penalty.

    7. Re:Country without copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You go to jail.

    8. Re:Country without copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, you are an owner of legal marijuana until you cross the border and become an illegal importer. Nothing unusual there, countries vary a lot in what substances they permit.

    9. Re:Country without copyright? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Party in the evidence room?

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    10. Re:Country without copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you import it into say Saudi Arabia, you get your head chopped off.

  14. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by RandomFactor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they wrote it....they'll want the latest edition.

    --
    --- Mercutio was right.
  15. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by pollarda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There will be a huge push now for electronic books under the guise of "convenience" but what it really comes down to is that they will want to "license" the book rather than sell it. At the same time, the electronic versions will simply continue to make the publishers less and less relevant especially for new titles.

  16. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by firex726 · · Score: 1

    Don't you have to show ID when picking them up?
    If it's prescribed for Joe Bob then the pharmacist will want to see the ID of Joe Bob.

  17. Seriously? 6-3??? by nedlohs · · Score: 0

    It's so clear cut how do 3 judges find the other way?

    Surely they don't also think that if I buy a pair of shoes at Target I'm not allowed to turn around and sell them to someone else? But they think if I buy a book at Target I shouldn't be allowed to sell it to someone else? Or it's just that if that Target store happens to be across the border in Canada that changes everything and in that case no I can't resell the shoes?

    1. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by Antipater · · Score: 5, Informative

      Legally it wasn't so clear-cut. The case hinged on the wording of the Copyright Act, which grants first-sale doctrine to copies "lawfully made under this title [the Act]." The crucial debate was over the word under. Wiley alleged, and the lower courts agreed, that "under" meant "under the jurisdiction of": since the books were produced outside the US, they were made outside the jurisdiction of the Copyright Act and thus not made under the Act. Kirtsaeng alleged that "under" meant "corresponding to the rules set forth in" and thus the doctrine applied. SCOTUS held with Kirtsaeng.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    2. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think the border issue is a big deal.

      I know people who used to take Levi's jeans to Europe to resell them since they cost so much more there than in North America. People had been prosecuted for this by claims of trademark infringement, which is not the same but similar.

      Trademark infringement is what shut down re-importers of cigarettes that were popular in the early 2000s.

    3. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the manufacturer wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted the goods to be protected by our copyright laws without the limitations thereof. The proper alternate ruling should have been that if they were not made under the act then they received NO copyright protection at all. Now that would have been an awesome ruling.

    4. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First sale rights are not something that should depend on a statute to begin with. They should be a self-evident aspect of personal property right that are so taken for granted that they aren't explicitly stated anywhere.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't; first sale rights were first recognized by the courts, not codified by statute. They have, after the Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus decision, been codified in law.

    6. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This crap has been going on for a while. Too bad, as you say, this is about copyrights and first sales might still not apply to trademarked goods.

      Beanie Babies are no longer illegal immigrants. The maker of the much sought-after toys, Ty Inc., agreed Friday to allow international travelers to bring up to 30 of the stuffed animals into the country. The previous limit was one."I'm glad they loosened their grip on them," said U.S. Customs Supervisor Bill Timothy in Port Huron, where the Blue Water Bridge links Michigan to Canada. "It makes our job easier." Until this week, border inspectors had to tell people carrying too many Beanies from Canada to either return them or turn them over. Customs has already seized thousands of undeclared Beanie Babies. They will probably be burned, said Pat Jones, a Customs Service spokesman in Washington.

    7. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, parties are free to make binding contracts about anything at all unless there are special limitations in the law. You can sell a lot with an easement (say, a right to build a road through it or a right to use a well). However, when it comes to copyrights, the law has made an exception: contracts that violate the first-sale doctrine are not enforceable.

    8. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by wickerprints · · Score: 1

      Even so, the publisher's argument, as relayed by you, is obviously untenable. To claim that the word "under" refers to jurisdiction and in particular the location of production, would invalidate the copyright provisions of any product manufactured outside the US--that would include iPhones, which are designed in California but assembled and produced in China. Analogously, that a publisher may manufacture (i.e., print) a text outside the US whereas the author of its content may have written it anywhere in the world, does not and should not automatically mean that they are not subject to US copyright law.

      So for instance, if Wiley's argument were to be considered valid, one would be forced to invalidate the doctrine of first sale for any device or product not made on American soil, even if it was designed or substantively created therein. That is so overly broad as to nullify the intent of the provision in the first place. And I would think that this must have been part of the rationale that the Supreme Court used in their judgment.

    9. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by happylight · · Score: 1

      If the shoes you bought were subsidized with taxpayer money would you still feel right about it? What if you go get free food from the homeless shelter and then turn around and sell it for profit?

      A lot of countries subsidize textbooks so they cost next to nothing for the general public. This guy is profiting off of public good will.

    10. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      In many ways, the legal system reminds me of my time spent growing up in an Orthodox temple. The people there would study every word of the Torah (and various other writings held in high regard) and would make arguments based on words used or even how the words were written. ("This letter here is pointed on top just like that other letter there so therefore it means this.") Meanwhile, lawyers, especially when dealing with matters involving the Constitution, seem to frequently argue over wording or even punctuation. (Second amendment arguments will frequently take the form of "The comma is here which means that." "No, but this word here means that this is true.")

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    11. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

    12. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course those were also abuses as long as the items really were of that trademarked brand, there couldn't be a violation. I'm sure everyone involved knew that very well.

      That's the sort of thing that makes people hate lawyers.

    13. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The case hinged on the wording of the Copyright Act, which grants first-sale doctrine to copies "lawfully made under this title [the Act]."

      Except that it shouldn't have been up to the Copyright Act to "grant" first-sale rights in the first place; first-sale rights (also known as plain-old property rights) should exist by default except where specifically restricted by the Copyright Act.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Yes, they were legitimate goods.

      These people lost their businesses as the trademark owners shut them down.

    15. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by WizADSL · · Score: 1

      If the shoes you bought were subsidized with taxpayer money would you still feel right about it? What if you go get free food from the homeless shelter and then turn around and sell it for profit?

      A lot of countries subsidize textbooks so they cost next to nothing for the general public. This guy is profiting off of public good will.

      If that's true then the sale of those items should be better controlled. If I walk into a government subsidized bookstore and they let me buy 1000 copies of the same book and walk out the door then there is a problem.

    16. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by afidel · · Score: 1

      No, because the US is a signatory to the Berne convention the author would still retain all rights, it's the same reason the GPL works, if you don't have an explicit license to the work you have no rights to the work at all since those rights are retained by the author.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    17. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Suddenly I wish the publisher had proven their case that their works didn't fall under copyright. Then reselling them would have been legal, but so too would photocopying, re-printing, and doing anything else you want with it!

      Wouldn't it be wonderful if we got rid of copyright on all imported products?

    18. Re:Seriously? 6-3??? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      first sale rights are an old idea. but as applied in the USC its not so clearly worded. and its not compeltely in agreement witht he wording of the copyright act, acts regarding importation, etc etc. and that's what this case was about, was clarifying the way these various parts of the USC interact.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  18. The text of the judgment. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    may be found at this link. Surprisingly, Scalia was the only justice from the conservative wing to dissent.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no surprise Scalia was in favour of corporate rights over individual rights.

    2. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by Quila · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not surprisingly. Don't make the mistake of seeing the conservatives as being against the people, and the liberals being for the people. It's all over the board.

    3. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 1

      Not surprisingly. Don't make the mistake of seeing the conservatives as being against the people, and the liberals being for the people. It's all over the board.

      Exactly. It's totally foolish to think the liberals are for the people. No one is for the people. Once you realize that at least you'll start to understand politics in the US.

    4. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kennedy is a conservative as well. He just occasionally breaks from the Conservative side.

    5. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The Republicans are for oil and cars and manufacturing, the Democrats are for government workers, unions and artists. But neither one is for you.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by Quila · · Score: 1

      If by "artists" you mean the megacorporations of the copyright cartel that habitually screw over artists, and by "unions" you mean the megacorporations that use worker money to elect those politicians that funnel more money their way, we agree.

    7. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly, Scalia was the only justice from the conservative wing to dissent.

      Don't think left <---> right. Think liberty <---> oppression.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Oppression and liberty are all in the eye of the beholder.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    9. Re:The text of the judgment. . . by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, these are very measurable.

      Liberty can be summed up as:
      1) can a man do as he wishes, so long as he doesn't infringe on another man's ability to do the same? If so, there is liberty (c.f. Fredrick Douglass).
      2) can one class of man do things that other classes of man are forbidden from doing? If so, there is oppression. (c.f. Frederic Bastiat).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    Where do you think the current books on the shelves are printed?

  20. How are 3 judges so stupid? by Aboroth · · Score: 0

    It is great that this happened, but seriously, it is bad that 3 of our supreme court judges disagreed. I know I read the decisions for the exact reasons why, but I'm afraid of lawyer-speak infecting my brain and giving me an aneurysm.

    1. Re:How are 3 judges so stupid? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      As another poster point out you can read the opinion here. From what I have read of previous supreme court opinions they are fairly readable unlike the laws that are drafted. I haven't read this one but that may be a task for lunch time today. This is also the same court that ruled that something can be both a tax and not a tax within the same ruling so strangeness is to be expected.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:How are 3 judges so stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It isn't bad that 3 disagreed, it just means that this wasn't as legally cut and dry as you would assume. The 3 judges who dissented looked primarily at three separate sections of the law in question, 106(3), 109(a), and
      602(a)(1).

      Section 106 defines the exclusive rights to distribution that a copyright holder is allowed to control.

      109 overrides 106 is some instances and is where first sale doctrine comes from:

              "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3),
              the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord
              lawfully made under this title . . . is entitled,
              without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
              otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or
              phonorecord.” "

      Their difference with the majority was in their reading of 602(a)(1). They felt that that 602(a)(1) overrides section 109 in this case because it directly addresses importation and distribution. By selling 600 copies of a book, they felt this section of the law was broken.

              “Importation into the United States, without the
              authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of
              copies or phonorecords of a work that have been
              acquired outside the United States is an infringe-
              ment of the exclusive right to distribute copies or
              phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sec
              tion 501.”

  21. 6-3? by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    6-3? What did the 3 think? This is mind boggling. And kind of frightening.

    1. Re:6-3? by thereitis · · Score: 1

      It is amazing how many different opinions judges have among/within the various levels of courts. When even judges can't agree, it certainly muddies the definition of "right" and "wrong".

    2. Re:6-3? by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only they wrote a dissenting opinion. I guess we'll never know what they were thinking!

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:6-3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is amazing how many different opinions judges have among/within the various levels of courts. When even judges can't agree, it certainly muddies the definition of "right" and "wrong".

      First off, this isn't about "right" or "wrong", it's about "legal" and "illegal". The two concepts (rightness/wrongness) vs (legality/illegality) are orthogonal.

      Second, I think it's pretty neat. There's a reason these cases go to the Supreme Court, and it's because both sides (yeah, even the side you disagree with) have made pretty damn compelling arguments as to why their view ought to be the law of the land. It's to be expected that the decisions aren't going to be unanimous, even at the highest level.

      If most of your supreme court's decisions are unanimous, it means something's amiss at the level of your lower courts, because it means they're having unresolvable disagreements on matters that your top court says should be obvious. Split supreme court decisions are a sign of a working legal system.

    4. Re:6-3? by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 1

      6-3? What did the 3 think? This is mind boggling. And kind of frightening.

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who asked this question. I think the concurring opinion by Kagan and Alito does a marvelous job of summing up the idiocy that is the dissent and refuting it in a mere 3.5 pages.

    5. Re:6-3? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It doesn't muddy the definition of "right" and "wrong". Only the definition of "legal" and "illegal".

      Right and wrong have nothing to do with legal issues, but with moral issues.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:6-3? by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      lol, "think"

      well, you're an optimist

  22. Can it be extended to cell phone unlocking? by parallel_prankster · · Score: 2

    Is there any way we can say the same about cell phones? Even if they were bought under contract? As long as I am still using their service I should be able to unlock the phone!!

    1. Re:Can it be extended to cell phone unlocking? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Is there any way we can say the same about cell phones? Even if they were bought under contract? As long as I am still using their service I should be able to unlock the phone!!

      No. In this case it was a claim by a private party against a private party in which both were claiming 'rights'.

      In the cell phone unlocking mess, it doesn't matter if the private party (Mobile carriers) do anything. There is a clear ban on cell phone unlocking in clear legal language. 'Thou shalt not do this.' type of language. Even if the carriers do nothing, the prohibition stands and the action is illegal in all circumstances.

      In this case, there is no law which says 'It is illegal to import, without authorization, copyrighted information without explicit permission of the copyright owner'.

      It seems similar, but the two issues are only related in that they both deal with copyright, but that's where the similarities end.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:Can it be extended to cell phone unlocking? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But you are able to unlock the phone. You may only not be allowed to do it.

      They never took away your ability to do something. Actually, it's pretty hard to do that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Can it be extended to cell phone unlocking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you didn't buy the phone if it is under contract.

      You have a contract that included a provision that discounts a phone. You can cancel the contract, but you need to pay the early termination fee.

      If you have a phone out of contract, you should be able to unlock it. But this ruling does not void a legal contract between two willing parties.

    4. Re:Can it be extended to cell phone unlocking? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      There is also an explicit contract between the mobile carrier and the person buying a discounted phone. If this case nulls these private contracts, there is no reason why it wouldn't null NDAs and other private contracts.

    5. Re:Can it be extended to cell phone unlocking? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Is it iillegal to import, without authorization, a cell phone that has been entirely legally unlocked outside of the jurisdiction where cell phone unlocking is prohibited?

    6. Re:Can it be extended to cell phone unlocking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any way we can say the same about cell phones? Even if they were bought under contract? As long as I am still using their service I should be able to unlock the phone!!

      Phone unlocking is different.

      But you are fully entitled to sell the locked phone to anybody.

    7. Re:Can it be extended to cell phone unlocking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to keep using the service. ...You only need to keep paying for it.
      The whole point is that the phone was subsidized. You paid a lower than retail price for the phone in exchange for a contract that says you will subscribe to your providers service for a period of time. Why the providers should care if the phone is unlocked (to work on another network) is beyond me. They already have a legally binding contract to keep you paying for their service even if you don't actually use it.
      Now if we are talking about devices unlocked to run ANY code, ...well I can see why the providers might be uncomfortable with the idea of allowing unlocked hardware on their network which is capable of running software that they haven't seen, tested, or approved.

  23. Judges that voted against by roccomaglio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer and he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. The majority opinion was that you loose control when you sell something. Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito said that congress was free to change the law if they wanted, but sided with the majority. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.

    1. Re:Judges that voted against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Alito not voting the same as Scalia? Has he all of sudden grown an independent brain?

    2. Re:Judges that voted against by rahvin112 · · Score: 0

      I new Scalia was one of the dissenters. Any chance he gets to fuck the little guy. I'm going to have to read it so I can understand what justification the Troll (Scalia) used to justify fucking the little guy.

    3. Re:Judges that voted against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time you saw Scalia on the same side as Kennedy and Ginsburg? Troll indeed. (I count three trolls, you partisan hack).

    4. Re:Judges that voted against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder - do they throw dice to come up with random permutations of majority and dissenting groupings?

    5. Re:Judges that voted against by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      And what Partisan would that be? You forgot the label you think applies. I've found the biggest "partisans" are the ones running around calling others out.

      Scalia is a big believer in totalitarian control by government/business, he didn't used to be, but the last 10 years or so he hasn't seen government or corporate power he doesn't like. Why do you think he's the only "Conservative" justice siding with the courts two biggest liberals?

      Scalia has been a Troll for the past decade. He probably spent too much time with Cheney.

  24. Where First Sale fails, DMCA prevails! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's come to this. Time for publishers to get the region-locked books out there as soon as possible! Then, as everyone knows, it becomes a DMCA issue, and that's one they'll NEVER get rid of! It has the word "millennium" right there in it! That means it's futuristic*!

    *: For definitions of "futuristic" locked in a period of time when marketeers thought the word "millennium" was futuristic.

    1. Re:Where First Sale fails, DMCA prevails! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The millennium is over. It's time the DMCA follows its example.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by alen · · Score: 2

    i don't know exactly how its done, but there are scam doctors who will write lots of scripts for it

    and its pretty easy to fake a NY State driver's license or state ID card

  26. Private property rights by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many here do not understand event the definition of capitalism:
    private ownership and operation of property
    that's all it is.

    Denying people's right to private ownership and operation of property is denying capitalism. It's a good thing that this judge went in the right direction, but what is troubling is that this was ever even a question: can people own property?

    Can people own and operate private property? Can you sell your own stuff that you made or bought? Isn't that a strange thing to ask in a society that is supposedly capitalist? But of-course it is not a strange thing to ask, because the society is no longer capitalist. Capitalism really exists as a concept in a free market economy, because capitalism in fact requires individual freedom. Denying freedom to the individuals will automatically deny capitalism and what do you have when you do not have capitalism because you do not have freedom?

    Well, you may still end up with some people owning and operating private property but not all people being able to do it, because the governing principles changed to deny all people equal protection against government intervention by law.

    It is when you do not have equal treatment of people in the context of their relationship with their government by law when you really no longer have free market but you also lose the principles of capitalism for most people.

    Again: capitalism is ownership and operation of private property. This is a basic fundamental right, all other rights are only an extension of this one right. If you have no right to own and operate private property, you will not be able to have resources, you will not even be allowed to own and operate your own body. And that's true even today, look at this lack of capitalism, lack of free market and thus lack of freedom even to do what you want with your own body. All these government officials telling you what you must or are not allowed to do, eat, smoke, drink, ingest, who you can and cannot have sex with, etc.

    Unfortunately it is now news when a judge actually protects individual freedoms in a rare case of outbreak of common sense or decency or something like that, it's no longer the rule, it's the exception.

    1. Re:Private property rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You basically cannot buy anything without the approval of the federal government; toilets, light bulbs; clothes; food; drugs; housing products; need I go on?

      Your money isn't yours, we are already in the hole by 100's of 1000s of dollars per taxpayer, and that number is going up not down.

      There is very little capitalism going on lately, and it's funny. The less private ownership we see, the fewer freedoms we have, exactly as you observe.

    2. Re:Private property rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the question is, can you sell a property with easements? Generally, you can. However, when it comes to copyrights, the law says you can't.

    3. Re:Private property rights by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      BS, easement doesn't have anything to do with this, there is no 'right of way', there is not even imminent domain (which in itself is an affront to the right of owning private property, most of the time it's used by the government to steal from an individual and give the property to a preferred individual, and has nothing to do with 'public good' (a nonsensical concept in itself) or anything like that).

    4. Re:Private property rights by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What gives you the idea that this is still a capitalist society?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Private property rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could sell you a car and the sales contract could stipulate that I get to use the car every Sunday. Nothing in the law would make that kind of contract unenforceable.

      Similarly, land in California is generally sold without the mineral rights. If the mineral rights holder wants to start mining on your property, they can because of private, enforceable contracts.

    6. Re:Private property rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your rights end where my rights begin - they are not unlimited. And government is the only means to enforce it without violent anarchy.

      Capitalism is a tool, nothing more.

    7. Re:Private property rights by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Nothing in the law would make that kind of contract unenforceable.

      - nothing in the law says that simply by buying something you 'signed' any contract in the first place. The money was exchanged, not signatures and contract signings.

    8. Re:Private property rights by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is the right to own and operate private property.

      Free market prevents government from denying this right to various people based on selective criteria that is not uniform, so the government can decide that some people will have different set of rules apply to them than other people. This steals the right to engage in capitalism, to own and operate private property without government interference from some people, while some others get extra entitlements at the expense of the rights that were stolen from others.

    9. Re:Private property rights by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Nothing. It's supposed to be but it is not. The reason to speak about it in this case is the surprise at the ruling.

    10. Re:Private property rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that definition capitalism ended in this country on January 1, 1863.

    11. Re:Private property rights by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I said ALL people, capitalism started in USA on that day.

    12. Re:Private property rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way you are defining capitalism by definition brings up issues that needs some way of resolution outside the framework of "private ownership". As soon as that resolution occurs, you call the situation non-capitalistic. This is a simplistic view a la Ron Paul. Going by an example you brought up, does a 12 year old own her body? Or do her parents have some say in it? If the former is true, a 50 year old man can have sex with her by getting her consent (but not her parents'), and thus take advantage of her. A law (democratic or not) is a way to resolve the rights of the parents against the rights of the child in this case.

    13. Re:Private property rights by kermidge · · Score: 1

      You elucidate a definition so fundamental that few anymore seem to grasp it; rather, many seem to start from a body of unexamined assumptions that make up what they think they know.

      Thanks.

  27. Very strange breakdown of votes by JDG1980 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The breakdown of votes is very different to what I'm used to seeing on Supreme Court cases – you've got Breyer, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the majority, and Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg in dissent. That's really weird; usually you've got Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts on the conservative wing voting together, with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor as the liberal bloc. Kennedy is a bit of a swing vote, though he's gone more with the conservatives recently, and Scalia used to occasionally vote with the liberals on civil liberties cases, but he doesn't any more and is now pretty much an elderly partisan crank. Roberts occasionally crosses the line (as with the decision upholding PPACA) but it's rather unusual to see so much intermixing between the liberal and conservative blocs.

    Just goes to show that copyright as a political issue doesn't neatly break down along existing partisan lines.

    1. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      ...it's rather unusual to see so much intermixing between the liberal and conservative blocs.

      Yeah really, it's like interracial marriage in the 50s. I'm not sure if it's even legal.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The breakdown of votes is very different to what I'm used to seeing on Supreme Court cases – you've got Breyer, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the majority, and Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg in dissent. That's really weird; usually you've got Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts on the conservative wing voting together, with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor as the liberal bloc. Kennedy is a bit of a swing vote, though he's gone more with the conservatives recently, and Scalia used to occasionally vote with the liberals on civil liberties cases, but he doesn't any more and is now pretty much an elderly partisan crank. Roberts occasionally crosses the line (as with the decision upholding PPACA) but it's rather unusual to see so much intermixing between the liberal and conservative blocs.

      Just goes to show that copyright as a political issue doesn't neatly break down along existing partisan lines.

      You might not be from the USA, but Supreme Court judges have no political affiliation and neutrally interpret the law. Of course, some might have philosophical leanings, but they don't rule based on whether or not a ruling benefits the Republicans or Democrats.

    3. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by alen · · Score: 1

      liberal doesn't mean hippy and free

      the biggest corporations are in the most liberal areas of the US. liberals have protected hollywood for decades. Ginsburg used to be a corporate lawyer.

    4. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't say Roberts "crossed the line" with PPACA when his decision really came down to:

      1. The commerce clause is overbroad and doesn't uphold PPACA. Fortunately,
      2. Obama lied. It's a tax.

    5. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2

      The breakdown of votes is very different to what I'm used to seeing on Supreme Court cases – you've got Breyer, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the majority, and Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg in dissent.

      Actually, if you look at actual voting records, it's not unusual at all. 2012 2011. In 2012, of note is that the lowest affinity with the majority was Sotomayor at 82.5% (she was around 79% for 2011). This suggests all justices, regardless of political affiliation, agree more often than they disagree. If the breakdown was along conservative vs. liberal lines like the media would have you believe (hot Supreme Court catfights! more on TMZ!), you'd see a lot more clustering somewhere closer to 50% than 90%.

      Also note that the links above are just for the opinions. Those are the ones that are supposed to be most controversial of all the SCOTUS hears!

    6. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, Ginsburg has the hots for Scalia.

    7. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      ...Scalia used to occasionally vote with the liberals on civil liberties cases, but he doesn't any more and is now pretty much an elderly partisan crank.

      Love that!

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    8. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's surprising to Kennedy on the dissent side. He's a libertarian who should be opposed to the very idea of copyright, much less strong copyrights. Ginsburg on the dissent is also a surprise. Scalia is not.

      Alito is a surprise on the majority. I've always found him more pro-corporate than the others, and would have expected him to be the first to strike down the first sale doctrine. Both he and Kagan are open to it being removed by legislation however, which means we may see some bills being pushed to eliminate first sale very soon.

      Kagan's stance is particularly alarming. It also means that the DMCA probably wouldn't be struck down. Alito and Kagan would've swung to the other side if this had been a case about the DMCA.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    9. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      It's not surprising about Alito. Think about this: if copies made in foreign countries are not lawfully made as far as US copyright law goes, then what about copyrighted works including software manufactured (made) in Asian countries and brought into the US by the manufacturer for sale? Suddenly all those Windows discs that Microsoft has made in cheaper Asian factories? Not legal for sale in the US even if Microsoft themselves is selling them, they weren't lawfully made in accordance with the interpretation of copyright law the lower courts wanted to use.

    10. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Take this quiz http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz to help you understand. It's actually quite simple.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    11. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by ilmtitan3696 · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, it broke down along not party but age lines. Justices born after 1937 supported the majority decision, those born before joined the dissent. The second oldest of the majority is Clarence Thomas, born 1948.

    12. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      If only that nonsense about mixed marriages had ended in the 50s. In fact, it wasn't until 2001 that Alabama became the last state to drop its laws against mixed marriages. My own mother, a northerner all her life, was less than happy that I married a Native American girl, and that was in 1984. Of course, now my mother likes my wife more than she likes me, so I don't know what to tell you.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

    13. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      If that were the case, the voting pattern would not have elicited so much consideration.

    14. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not that unusual, you just normally dont pay attention to non-partisan cases, Im guessing.

    15. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The thing that concerns me is that the case is so narrow. Yes, when I went to China I picked up a textbook I didn't need for $5 that would have cost $100 or more in the US (just because I could). But one of the previous issues is things that are made in the US, then exported. They aren't made abroad then imported, but made domestically and exported, only to be re-imported. Drugs are the obvious thing, but I heard about a case with perfume made in the US and sent to France, then confiscated upon re-importation. The legal basis was similar to the arguments here, that First Sale is a US idea that doesn't apply if you buy it outside the US.

      That and most people don't think of copyright correctly. The way it's implemented in these cases it's distributionright, copying is *never* done and it's still a violation of copyright (or so the lawyers say).

    16. Re:Very strange breakdown of votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I hate people who do this, but I am going to do it.

      You really need to put more information in your writing. Do you love the fact that Scalia is now a partisan hack, or do you love the comment made by the poster? Please consider the fact that when you post something for others to read, you must provide at least the minimum amount of information to make it understandable. I don't ask for punctuation, or even stellar grammar. You do need to at least put a complete thought down though. If I had mod points I would have nodded you overrated.

  28. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when was the last time you actually showed an ID to pick up a prescription?

  29. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    They'll just stop publishing in countries where the cost of parallel imports is more than the profit they make from those countries.

  30. drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws.

    And obama care 2.0 may even put in to some price controls as well.

    1. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Yes, the pharmaceutical industry does gouge whenever they can, but the assumption that if every country limits the price of individual prescriptions that things will be just peachy is rather naive. Pharmaceutical companies subsidize the unprofitable medication lines like antibiotics with more profitable lines of product. What's more, pharmaceutical lines are risky, it's relatively common to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, on a line only to find out that it can't be approved, and if it does get approved and then yanked, you can be on the hook for huge sums of money from people who suffered ill effects.

      The real injustice here is that you have the Canadians and much of the developed world freeriding on US funding.

    2. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might like to check your facts - not all of the pharmaceutical companies (and even less of their research) is US based. Most of the companies spend approximately 10% of their income on R&D - an expense that is offset against the tax they pay, and so is effectively free for a profitable company (they are all profitable).

    3. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      What's more, pharmaceutical lines are risky, it's relatively common to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, on a line only to find out that it can't be approved, and if it does get approved and then yanked, you can be on the hook for huge sums of money from people who suffered ill effects.

      At least here in the United States, the problem is the FDA.

      At one point the FDA's only job was to clear a drug on the issue of safety alone. The FDA did not care if a drug did or did not do what was claimed, as such matters were left to the market to deal with.

      But now the FDA's primary job seems to be to require that a drug does what is claimed, but far less so that a drug is actually safe. In fact, lots of unsafe drugs are now sold and we get a huge list of disclaimers about all the negative consequences of taking them which often clearly outweigh the benefits of the actual problem the drug is trying to treat.

      We need to restore the FDA to its original mission, rather than its current mission which is to allow only the chosen winners to win.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to read the post you're responding to before making an ass of yourself.

      The US does pay for most of it, the US is the largest market for the blockbuster drugs as it's the 3rd largest nation by population and spends more than any other nation per capita. So, yes, the US does pay for most of this.

      As for the R&D budget, you might want to compare that with other industries where product lines don't have a built in sunset provision. Those antibiotics are a terrible investment to make, the more of them you sell, the less effective they become, but they're no less inexpensive to develop than more profitable lines. But, they have to do it because public outcry would be great.

    5. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. Poor, poor Big Pharma is destitute, don't you see?

      That's why you need to be reminded to ask your Doctor about Dickwadix (Tetradoucheamine) every other commercial.

    6. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot. There is no such thing as a "safe" drug. They all work by fucking with biological processes. Every single one.

      Oh, and by the way, the drug doing what's claimed is a huge part of the safety of the drug. Taking a placebo instead of getting treated is often unsafe, as it lets you die of the disease.

      I'm pretty damn right-wing, but you're a fucking idiot. How does "the market" determine if the drug does what's advertised? Do you really believe that the GNC advertising approach is reasonable?

    7. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Big Pharma spends about twice as much on advertising and marketing than research. While hedward's points are valid, they are rather irrelevant.

      Now, they do spend a lot on research. Just think of how much marketing that corresponds to.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I seem to hear a pitch for Intellectual Property here.

      Sure, they are subsidizing less popular drugs. And, that justifies fleecing us for popular and/or necessary drugs? Huh, wut?

      Sorry, I can't generate much sympathy for corporations that invest a few millions, claim to have invested hundreds of millions, and expect to reap profits in the billions. The only industry that is seedier than big pharmaceuticals are the agros like Monsanto. Oh wait - there really is only one company like Monsanto, isn't there?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      But now the FDA's primary job seems to be to require that a drug does what is claimed, but far less so that a drug is actually safe.

      Oh, please, how naive! The FDA now works almost exclusively for pharmaceutical companies, to help them make better profits. They do swat-style raids on food co-opts and Amish farms while drugs are advertised that clearly have side effects more harmful than the condition they claim to treat. The FDA has even gone as far as to BAN natural plant and agricultural products so that the drug companies have a monopoly on the same chemical, artificially produced and patented. Red yeast rice was the first I heard of, resulting in the most profitable US drug ever produced. They are now planning to ban the pyridoxamine form of Vitamin B6 so that it can be sold as a drug instead. There are many other examples.

      So, no, the FDA's job is to keep people unhealthy, stupid, and beholden to the pharmaceutical companies. Period.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    10. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One problem is that pharmaceutical companies spend SO MUCH on marketing. They used to not be allowed to advertise directly to the public until fairly recently. In hindsight it may have been decision to remove this restriction

    11. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The FDA has even gone as far as to BAN natural plant and agricultural products so that the drug companies have a monopoly on the same chemical, artificially produced and patented.

      The reason given that they haven't proven efficacy. Rather than saying "it's safe, have fun - but not too much" they say "That treatment hasn't been proven to have the effect you claim, so we are confiscating it all." You are agreeing with the GP in a most disagreeable way.

    12. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      The FDA has even gone as far as to BAN natural plant and agricultural products so that the drug companies have a monopoly on the same chemical, artificially produced and patented.

      The reason given that they haven't proven efficacy. Rather than saying "it's safe, have fun - but not too much" they say "That treatment hasn't been proven to have the effect you claim, so we are confiscating it all." You are agreeing with the GP in a most disagreeable way.

      No, you misinterpret. The "reason" isn't because efficacy hasn't been proven - it's because it has. The drug companies then pay hundreds of thousands in fees for "approval" to sell a compound that has been used for hundreds of years, and in return the FDA bans the naturally-occurring version so they have a monopoly on sales and can charge 100 times as much.

      In other words, it's all about government enabling private profits at the expense of the public (something that used to be called fascism). To claim that it's just a shift from guarding for "safety" to guarding for "efficacy" misses the mark by a wide margin.

      Sorry if I came off too "disagreeable" - it just seems way beyond credible any more to see those guys as doing anything beneficial for the general welfare.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    13. Re:drugs are controlled by FDA / health care laws by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, you misinterpret. The "reason" isn't because efficacy hasn't been proven - it's because it has. The drug companies then pay hundreds of thousands in fees for "approval" to sell a compound that has been used for hundreds of years, and in return the FDA bans the naturally-occurring version so they have a monopoly on sales and can charge 100 times as much.

      Ah, I had my "conspiracy loon" filter applied. The FDA doesn't ban the naturally-occurring version to enforce a monopoly for the corporate overlords. The natural substances are banned because they haven't been proven to be effective. Yes, it's absurd when aspirin is discovered by observing natives chewing on bark, then getting approval on the bark extract for treating pain, and banning bark for treating pain. The natural substances are banned because the "proof" for the FDA includes delivery method. So bark has an unknown rate of drug delivery, and chewed absorption rates may differ from pill form.

      So the *only* reason a "drug" is banned is lack of proof of efficacy. Though sometimes that's statutory (marijuana). And it may be a bad reason, but it's what they are tasked with, and how they work. It's clear, consistent, and well-understood. The problem is that the over-reach when they disallow informed consent (except in monitored trials, where is is allowed/required). You aren't allowed to disagree with their opinion on whether marijuana is a good treatment for a disease (glaucoma) or symptoms (nausea). Neither is "proven" in an FDA test. That the reason is the FDA refuses to grant permission for such a test is a separate issue.

  31. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    Prescription? I don't recall, but over the counter cold meds, every freaking time.

  32. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's funny -- there are all kinds of incentives for big business to move jobs offshore, or import cheap labor, but when the general public makes use of the same process, they complain. And they got 3 judges on their side, including a "liberal" judge (Ginsburg) and a lieralish judge (Kenedy) and of course Scalia. Expect a legislative solution to be purchased soon so that this "egregious" decision can be fixed and we can go back to falling wages and increasing corporate profits.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  33. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by jittles · · Score: 2

    I'm willing to bet that they sell the prescription after they fill it. Now its possible they have a doctor friend write them a half a dozen fake scripts with fake names and aliases, but that's a good way for a doctor to have their license revoked. The FDA requires doctors to have a certain level of safe guards in place to prescribe a serious quantity of prescription pain meds. Now I suppose they could be writing a bunch of small prescriptions for 10 or 15 pills here and there, but the FDA tracks all those prescriptions.

  34. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Informative

    will not stop the publishers from making DMCA requests / filling strikes that can cost you $35 a pop.

    DMCA request doesn't apply here at all, because no copies are being made. And anything else can now be classified as tortuous interference with a business, so that could get expensive.

  35. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by hedwards · · Score: 2

    Guise of convenience? I'm pretty sure they really are more convenient, my room is rather small and I do a lot of traveling, I can easily break the DRM on my books so that I have backups, but with paperbooks, I'd never be able to keep as many of them.

    It's easy to say greedy publishers, and to an extent they are, but unless you're in the habit of buying used books or live in a huge house, you're going to have to get rid of them over time anyways, but with ebooks, you won't likely ever hit that point.

  36. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Err, electronic versions make them more relevant. Lazy college professors require you to purchase the online license from publishers like those in question(Wiley) because the website comes setup already with all the quizzes, homework, and tests preconfigured. This is basically standard in every university and community college I've researched in the past 6 years or so. It's too easy for the professor to pass up

  37. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by alen · · Score: 1

    if you have insurance what is the point of an ID when picking up your prescription?

  38. Not so strange by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

    Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsburg are over all much more authoritarian than the rest. Being authoritarian is in some ways at right angles to liberal vs. conservative. So they grant greater latitude for the Government to enforce rules.

  39. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by SteelKidney · · Score: 2

    Not quite. From what I've seen, at least in some online-only colleges, it's web software that displays textbook material in a non-portable form. You don't purchase, license, or have any rights to the content at all. You pay for the right to use the reader.

  40. This is a really tough case. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

    This is a very tough case.

    Copyright Law exists in order to further the useful arts by balancing the needs of the producer and the needs of the public. Let's look beyond the cheap shots that have already begun to permetate this thread and discuss in those terms.

    Basically, this ruling amounts to telling wiley and sons (the producers) that they cannot reliably price discriminate for foreign markets. you might say "so what? tough cookies." but let's think about that for a moment.

    basically, wiley has two choices at what price to set the textbooks at in thailand -

    Price A - low price that thais can afford.
    Price B - USA price or near to it

    with price A, they can engage in fair competition in the thai market and earn a fair profit. at this price, they dont have too much to fear from piracy.
    with price B, they can expect to sell few copies as piracy will be rampant. as it is highly unlikely that this is at the profit maximizing price, their profits will be lower.

    this ruling basically compels them to either sell in thailand (a presumably much smaller market than the usa) at a price closer to price B or to make economically useless changes to their textbooks to make them unsaleable in the USA, such as printing them only in the thai language. or, they can do even worse stuff like arguing for import tarriffs from thailand to the usa on books.

    even worse, it prevents them from doing things like giving away their textbooks in africa at a loss.

    and even then, if they have to price at price B in thailand, their unit cost goes up and presumably they might have to raise the prices of US textbooks. a lose-lose.

    first sale doctrine is important, but i dont see why it must apply accross borders given that there are other legitimate considerations, including the need to educate globally.

    i cant say that this is a bad ruling, as ive not read the rulings, but offhand this issue is far more complex and in need of serious thought than some are giving it credit for here.

    1. Re:This is a really tough case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading (or skimming) through the dissenting opinion, the major concern seems to be the international degradation of copyright (ie copyright holders have less control over works due to trying to maintain said copyrights across the globe). So on the one hand we have, as you describe, the question of what control structure will allow publishers to effectively get their product out to the most number of people around the world. On the other, we have the market rearing its head in an otherwise controlled global economy.

      The answer to the question of price A or price B is that this ruling will create a new equilibrium spot between the two that will allow more competition (if prices go up in Thailand, then local publishing will become more feasible). For years, corporations have benefitted from being able to shop around for the cheapest resources including workers while constraining the consumers to localized markets for the most part. Now that the consumer side of the global economy is becoming stronger, the corporations will have to face losing their strangleholds (expect them to fight with everything they have), but the end result will be better for everyone.

    2. Re:This is a really tough case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't offer the book at the price that thais can afford, then alternatives will emerge which is good for everyone. Either their margins get thinner or more competition emerges. The market stands to gain either way. The point you make about selling books in africa at below production rates is BS. Wiley won't think of marginal losses on books with a charitable intent. Mark those books as for charity and those who matter won't buy it. Those who don't will be pirating it anyhow.

    3. Re:This is a really tough case. by YackoYak · · Score: 1

      Agree with the AC above.

      This issue is not unique to textbooks. Software sales in Australia are inflated. Labor rates for engineers in India are increasing (and correspondingly, some of the pay rates or demand in the US is flat-lining).

      even worse, it prevents them from doing things like giving away their textbooks in africa at a loss.

      1) Charity should not be factored into Supreme Court decisions.
      2) I highly doubt Wiley is using a significant chunk of the US profits on book sales to give away free books in Africa. But, if they are they are free to donate money and goods as easily as anyone (or any corp) can, and correspondingly write that off their taxes. It's up to me as a consumer to decide what I want to do with the money I save; I am certainly not going to look out for Wiley's interests. Maybe I will put the rest into a charity that I think will get it done better than Wiley?

      The company I work for manufactures low quantity, high cost widgets around the world, and also sells them to different markets. Guess how long it would take for customers to figure out which of our branches will net them the best deal? Our manufacturing costs (and quality) vary greatly around the world. As a company, we average it all out.

      To your specific example: If Wiley is selling textbooks at a profit in Thailand, then they should be able to sell the same textbook in the US (also at a profit) for around the same cost. Let the students decide if they want to pay $100 extra a hardback, or whatever other "features" they perceive. If Wiley was smart, they would cut out the eBay market for international-version textbooks and sell direct to students.

      My prediction for the future (other than e-books as other commenters pointed out): Bundled one-time activation codes to a website or software that comes with a new book, like a DLC for the used games market.

    4. Re:This is a really tough case. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      basically, wiley has two choices at what price to set the textbooks at in thailand -

      Price A - low price that thais can afford.
      Price B - USA price or near to it

      with price A, they can engage in fair competition in the thai market and earn a fair profit. at this price, they dont have too much to fear from piracy.

      this ruling basically compels them to either sell in thailand (a presumably much smaller market than the usa) at a price closer to price B or to make economically useless changes to their textbooks to make them unsaleable in the USA, such as printing them only in the thai language. or, they can do even worse stuff like arguing for import tarriffs from thailand to the usa on books.

      Yea, because, you know, not ass-raping US consumers just because they can is definitely not an option...

      Seriously, if they can sell the book for $25 US in Thailand and still turn a profit, there is no legitimate reason the same book could not be sold for the same price in the US.

      No reason other than pure, unadulterated greed, anyway.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:This is a really tough case. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if they can sell the book for $25 US in Thailand and still turn a profit, there is no legitimate reason the same book could not be sold for the same price in the US.

      So you think you are entitled to get books at the same cost as someone in a poor country with a tenth of your income. No reason other than pure, unadulterated greed.

    6. Re:This is a really tough case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already happened. If you go through other comments somebody mentioned how textbooks come with access to websites.

      Not as effective. I had textbooks like these and the online or CD program wasn't used. One class the prof said to try it, but it was just a learning tool and not needed.

      Profs aren't interested in using nonessential content that many of their students can't access unless they get a kickback from the publisher for each student that uses it. This is unlike online gaming servers which you must use thanks to fucking blizzard and the bentd ruling.

    7. Re:This is a really tough case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, if they can sell the book for $25 US in Thailand and still turn a profit, there is no legitimate reason the same book could not be sold for the same price in the US.

      So you think you are entitled to get books at the same cost as someone in a poor country with a tenth of your income. No reason other than pure, unadulterated greed.

      Another reason is so I can try to compete with the H1B's who went to university in a country where it cost 10% of what it costs here and feel entitled to come here and be payed at the same rate as me.

    8. Re:This is a really tough case. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do feel entitled, because I, as a US citizen, am fscking sick and tired of subsidizing "poor" countries with obnoxious prices that are several hundreds of percentage points above production costs.

      They're that poor? Well, time for them to figure out how to do that shit on their own or go without then, eh?

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    9. Re:This is a really tough case. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if they can sell the book for $25 US in Thailand and still turn a profit, there is no legitimate reason the same book could not be sold for the same price in the US.

      So you think you are entitled to get books at the same cost as someone in a poor country with a tenth of your income. No reason other than pure, unadulterated greed.

      I presume English is not your first language? Because, you know, if it were, you would likely realize that what I said and what you claim I said are not even close to the same thing.

      Assumptions - they most definitely make an ass out of you.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:This is a really tough case. by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      No, I think I can get the book at that cost because that's how much it fucking costs. I don't need to be upcharged because I'm white, or American, or any other bullshit. This is simple capitalism. If the cost of the book is too high for a Thai, that's a shame. If the cost is low enough for him, that's fantastic. But that doesn't mean I need to pay more, or have some goddamned Whiteboy tax. Take your imagined privilege-industry and shove it up your ass. I'll pay the actual price for the book, thanks much.

  41. costco vs omega by u19925 · · Score: 1

    This means this is overturned as well.
    Big win for Costco and Costco members.

    1. Re:costco vs omega by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

      Ideally, yes. Also applicable for grey market items in many areas and markets. The world just got a little flatter.

      --
      Organization? You must be joking..
    2. Re:costco vs omega by hawguy · · Score: 1

      This means this is overturned as well.
      Big win for Costco and Costco members.

      You dropped the trailing period from the URL:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_Corp.

    3. Re:costco vs omega by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

      So did you. I wonder if it's a /. forum thing. Let me try.

    4. Re:costco vs omega by poizan42 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter anyways - I created a redirect page.

  42. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by hedwards · · Score: 1

    The real question is why the Asian market texts were in English. I used to teach in China and all the books they were using were in Chinese, except the numbers and units of measure which were mostly in Arabic numerals with normal SI units using the normal alphabet used in Europe.

    I'm really surprised that they're printing enough international edition textbooks in English for this to be a real problem for them.

  43. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by John+Bodin · · Score: 1

    New York state now requires, as of about three weeks ago, that a valid photo id is shown when picking up some scripts.

    --
    John
  44. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I pick up my daughters ADD meds.

  45. If you read TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read TFA, "the Court held that a copyright owner’s right to control importation under 602(a)(1) is a component of the distribution right set forthin 106(3) and is therefore subject to 109(a)’s codificationof the first sale doctrine". That's their reasoning. Simply put, if you believe that the copyright holder has the right to control distribution, than importing (new or used) denies that right. This is, in itself, a reasonable interpretation, which is why this is a supreme court case, at the balance between two rights. I think sanity prevailed, which is important.

  46. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by u19925 · · Score: 2

    This is already the case. During my grad studies, only 20% of foreign editions were identical. The rest had either wrong page numbers or different questions (sometimes very similar questions with just a different set of numbers).

  47. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by pollarda · · Score: 1

    Yes, but the point is that they will push the electronic versions for reasons different than the reasons their advertising states.

  48. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Don't you have to show ID when picking them up?

    I drop off and pick up prescriptions for my wife and kids all the time. I don't recall ever being asked for an ID.

  49. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DMCA also gives teeth to those who are accused if they are falsely accused.

  50. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by hedwards · · Score: 2

    As opposed to the current system where they push things for reasons that are completely above the board?

  51. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A minor quibble, but those controls are primarily DEA requirements, not the FDA. One of the other methods they use is to look at the percentage of DEA controlled medicines being prescribed versus that of the non-controlled medicines. Too bad if your practice is a statistical anomaly, you must watch what you prescribe so that you do not go over the quota.

  52. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by pollarda · · Score: 2

    Perhaps for text books but what about novels? What about travel guides? What about how-to guides? Once a writer achieves a following, they can self publish the electronic versions and use FaceBook and other social media outlets to attract an audience. The self published books can be pushed on Amazon quite easily. Publishers may be useful though for an unknown author who needs assistance in getting the attention they deserve. However, after that first book published by the publisher I suspect many authors will jump ship.

  53. Region locked movies by hawguy · · Score: 1

    What does this mean (if anything) for region-locked movies - can I legally break the region lock (or buy a player that does it) so I can watch a movie I bought overseas?

    1. Re:Region locked movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the terms of purchase of electronic media state that you are essentially licensing the content rather than purchasing it.

    2. Re:Region locked movies by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      It doesn't imply anything about bypassing content restrictions. It does mean that someone could create an import business to buy region 2 and 3 players overseas and resell them in the US, along with region 2 and 3 DVDs.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:Region locked movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't address the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, since it was irrelevant to this case.

    4. Re:Region locked movies by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      What does this mean (if anything) for region-locked movies - can I legally break the region lock (or buy a player that does it) so I can watch a movie I bought overseas?

      Not comparable issues at all. This opinion is only about re-selling items.

      In your implied analogy, the book is the DVD, the re-seller is a re-seller. This case essentially says you can buy a Region X DVD in country X and re-sell it in the States provided that the Region X DVD was legally made. So this means if you buy a legal Chinese DVD in China, you can sell it in the US. It does not mean you can buy a pirated DVD in China and sell it in the US. It does not say anything about region unlocking.

      You should always read SCOTUS cases narrowly. Anything that the decision of the Court does not rest on is called "dicta" and has no controlling authority, but merely persuasive authority. This means if the decision of the Court does not rely on a statement in the opinion, then that statement can persuade other courts, but it doesn't instruct them to do anything.

    5. Re:Region locked movies by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      You can sell your movie locally that you bought overseas. Nobody said anything about breaking the region lock.

    6. Re:Region locked movies by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      If you buy them, you can do with them whatever you wish... Just as long as you aren't breaking the DMCA anti-circumvention laws. Same applies for a DVD you buy from your own region but would like to view on an internal home network.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  54. service after the sale.. by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    Camera makers have dealt with this in the US by making grey market items ineligible for US-based service. Not a major factor with books, but certainly a factor with lots of other grey market items. Many companies use this as a way to enforce higher US prices, as they argue the US warranty justifies the higher US price.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  55. Treaty will over ride this decision by bfmorgan · · Score: 1

    A cleaver media consultant will find a way to attach a clause to a treaty that will over ride this decision.

    --
    I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
  56. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Totally off topic, but you have to wonder. It's taking the DEA (not the FDA) years to prosecute doctors who are running obvious "pill mills". When you look at these docs, they're prescribing more than 2 standard deviation more narcotic scripts than the 'average' doc. Of course, there are occasionally some reasons for this - an oncologist or hospice doc for example, but too many of them are obviously fraudulent.

    If they can't get the guy writing 500 scripts for 250 80 mg Oxycontin tablets / month (suitable only for a seriously terminal cancer patient) then the onsey-twoseys are going to get mostly overlooked.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  57. Test Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I haven't seen it in recent years older international editions had different questions in the review sections.

    The instructor would say: go to page X and answer questions 1-5. When you turned in your homework you would quickly find out that your answers would be totally incorrect since the questions were different.

    I still have a few more semesters left, so I hope that the textbook manufacturers don't start utilizing that tactic again. At least not until next year. The difference in price is just ridiculous...sometimes well over $100 per text.

  58. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your doctor gives you a prescription, you buy the drugs in a pharmacy, and then sell those pills in a bar. You've never been in a seedy bar, I see.

  59. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by pollarda · · Score: 1

    It isn't one system v.s. another. The current system is deceptive as well. The point still holds.

  60. well plan B was the end of lot's US jobs as produc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well plan B was the end of lot's US jobs as this could of driven all kinds of production out side of the usa.

  61. The Dissenting Opinion by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

    If I'm interpreting the beginning of the dissent correctly (starting on page 42...) the excuse for dissenting is more or less "Congress is copyright-maximalist, so we should be, too." (They quote a portion of copyright law that apparently DOES seem to explicitly say that importation of foreign-made copies is a special case).

    I'm not going to wade through the entire 74 pages of opinion right now, but at a glance this does sort of look like "judicial activism" - nice to see such a thing happening in a "pro-human" manner more than "pro-corporate" for once, but it suggests we really need to be hitting Congress a lot harder to try to get this mess corrected.

  62. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a pharmacist in Virginia. It's the law to show an ID when picking up a schedule II script.

  63. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guise of convenience? I'm pretty sure they really are more convenient...

    Electronic copies can be more convenient. But currently, they are not. Why are they not more convenient? Well let me see if I can find a source... Oh yes here it is:

    I can easily break the DRM on my books so that I have backups...

    If you notice, this person here has to run cracking software just to get their files to play nicely and not destroy itself if this person tries to do the basic tasks of backup or use on an 'unauthorized device'.

    You see, they can be more convenient, but they are not. The eBook market is a minefield of incompatibility and artificial restriction. It takes away huge capabilities present in real books, and offers it back in a crippled/reduced capacity and calls it a 'bonus feature'.

    Want to give your book to a friend? Hand it to them. Done.

    Want to give your eBook to a friend? Well, first lets understand what format of eBook you have, which vendor did you purchase it from. Depending on the vendor, and their software, you might be able to lend it, but only once, or not at all. I'm not sure. Oh wait, your friend is using this specific type of software right? Oh he isn't? Well, guess you can't lend it to him. So he wants to use the software, hope he agrees to all the terms and conditions associated with the use of such software.

    Am I exaggerating? A little... No wait, I'm not exaggerating at all, it really is a mass of incompatible formats, competing ecosystems, overly-limited 'rights', and flawed laws which make even your simple 'remove the DRM' action illegal (depending on how cranky a prosecutor is on a given day)

    eBooks SHOULD be more convenient, but right now they certainly are not.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  64. Well by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They generally make decisions that are pro-establishment. Part of that is because the establishment has better lawyers (business v. individual cases) or the non-establishment is unsympathetic (criminals) or the establishment has some influence on which cases come up (if it loses in the Circuit Court of Appeals, the SG's office decides whether to appeal based on whether or not they think the case is a good test case--so the first circuit case for whether it's okay to record police officers on Boston Common, for example, doesn't get appealed because it's not a good test case for the government) or the justices have experiences on the prosecutorial side of the system and so tend to favor it.

    However, they're also nine people looking at the law and making decisions based on what seems to make sense to them, in situations where the law can be read to favor either side. Kind of like where all of the courts of appeals had said that committing a crime "with a firearm" included even having a firearm in your pocket at the time a crime was committed. The Supreme Court overturned every circuit because it was an idiotic reading of the law.

    Here, the law is more ambiguous--the question turned on whether a duplication in a foreign country, where the U.S. Copyright Act did not apply, was a duplication "under" the U.S. Copyright Act. Because duplications under the act are susceptible to the first sale doctrine.

    The Court held it was a duplication "Under" the act.

    1. Re:Well by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, the establishment by definition is the one that makes the laws.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Well by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      The bad part is, this was an interpretation of a law, not a constitutional decision. As such, proper lobbying/donations will get the law amended to make today's decision moot and restore the publishers profits.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    3. Re:Well by icebike · · Score: 1

      You phrase it as "duplication", when it was in fact a fully licensed publication printed in a foreign country at a much cheaper price.

      This was never really a copyright issue perse, the rights owners had already licensed the right to copy (print) the works abroad.
      At issue was the rights holders claim to the right to control subsequent resale of the books. A pure first sale doctrine issue.

      They wanted to divide the market to set prices differently in different markets, sort of like the movie industry. (Those guys must be worried about now).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  65. Shouldn't racketeering laws apply to the industry? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    The way textbook sales are handled has to be some kind of extortion violation.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  66. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Guise of convenience? I'm pretty sure they really are more convenient, my room is rather small and I do a lot of traveling, I can easily break the DRM on my books so that I have backups, but with paperbooks, I'd never be able to keep as many of them.

    It's easy to say greedy publishers, and to an extent they are, but unless you're in the habit of buying used books or live in a huge house, you're going to have to get rid of them over time anyways, but with ebooks, you won't likely ever hit that point.

    With a licensed ebook you don't have the option of reselling it. When you're done with those paper books, you can resell them and recoup some of your cash. If it weren't for getting screwed on your resale rights, I'd be on board. If the ebooks were like 50% cheaper than print it might be worth giving up on the resale rights. Unfortunately the ebooks I've looked at were the same or more expensive than printed books.

  67. Blood/Conflict Diamonds by turp182 · · Score: 2

    A better "edge" example would be blood/conflict diamonds. Diamonds are legal, generally.

    But the US does ban diamonds from certain countries, and requires certification from others:
    http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/conflict_diamonds.shtml

    As the link points out, there are ways around these restrictions (altering the "country of last export" by moving them around before importing them to the US).

    Blood/conflict diamonds are mined by people who are very oppressed. One could argue that many things from China are created by people who are very oppressed (low pay, terrible work conditions, high suicide rates, etc.).

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:Blood/Conflict Diamonds by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But ... but ... that's not anyone importing the crap from China, that's some corporation, so it's ok.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Blood/Conflict Diamonds by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Blood/conflict diamonds are mined by people who are very oppressed. One could argue that many things from China are created by people who are very oppressed (low pay, terrible work conditions, high suicide rates, etc.).

      I dunno, "Blood iPhone" seems like a term that would just encourage hipsters to buy even more of the damnable things...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  68. this will hurt developing countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what the companies in question will say. That they will not make available cheaper versions of books available for developing countries. IMO if you don't make your books available at a decnt price in developing countries, alternatives will appear. I wonder what would happen if users start shopping at the Indian version of itunes where mp3's are sold at 1/5th the price of the american version. What will courts say then?

    1. Re:this will hurt developing countries by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      This is what the companies in question will say. That they will not make available cheaper versions of books available for developing countries. IMO if you don't make your books available at a decnt price in developing countries, alternatives will appear. I wonder what would happen if users start shopping at the Indian version of itunes where mp3's are sold at 1/5th the price of the american version. What will courts say then?

      a beer and the pc costs the same for everyone. why shouldn't music? i reckon few people in the west want to listen to bollywood muzak anyhow and if nirvana is selling at 1/5th of the price(tax not taken into consideration)... then the label is fucking around with other rights holders anyhow.

      and they already have a solution. they don't just sell books but books with codes that get you the online portion quizzes that they lobby to be mandatory.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  69. Why was this not 9-0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or another way of phrasing the question, how can Supreme Court judges be such sociopaths (the dissenters), after all their education and a long and successful career and no longer needing to prove anything nor toe any party line?

    You'd think they'd know what is right and what is wrong, and vote 9-0.

    1. Re:Why was this not 9-0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because law is not dictated by your uninformed emotional needs.

  70. No wonder why is so hard to learn english by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    This till court decision "sale" meant "renting", or maybe "licensing", that you don't own what you think you are buying but you are given a very restricted set of permissions of whar you can do or not, even for "real life" objects. Publishers are getting hold on the abuses that they are able to do in the digital world and exporting them to the real one. If that trend continued, when you "buy", is not that you own something, but that you are the one that is owned.

  71. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    I take it that you're serious. Where do you have to show ID for over the counter cold medications?

    The only time that I can recall showing ID when picking up a prescription, was for some feminine stuff the wife needed. Can't remember what it was now, but it was a controlled substance, script was written for a female, and I'm obviously not female. Pharmacist asked for my ID, then when he walked behind his little hidey-wall, he called the wife to verify that I was her husband.

    Once in my life, did I have to show ID.

    "Over the counter" means "over the counter" - nothing needed except cold cash.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  72. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    80 mg Oxycontin tablets / month (suitable only for a seriously terminal cancer patient)

    I have back pain, you insensitive clod. BACK PAIN It hurts!

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  73. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Are any of those scripts:
    • Hydrocodone
    • Oxycodone(oxycontin)
    • Morphine
    • Fentanyl
    • Amphetamine Salts(adderall)
    • Hydromorphone
    • Methadone

    Or any other schedule 2 medication (in the USA anyway)? Maybe you just aren't using the right drugs?

    If you do, stop calling at three in the morning, your insurance will not buy you two 30 day supplies per month.

  74. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    They don't care about non-scheduled drugs, but you have to show ID to pick up anything at my Walgreens. Oddly enough they don't care if you're not the actual prescribee, though you do have to know their address and maybe SSN - can't recall. They did copy my license info.

  75. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the point really doesn't.

  76. Does it apply to prescription meds as well? by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The federal government protects the profits of big pharma by banning the re-importation of medications and medical devices sold in other countries. Hopefully this ruling sets a precedent for a challenge to that ridiculous prohibition. There's no valid reason that a drug should sell for $X in the USA and sell for a tiny fraction of that price just over the border.

    Funny how the government is all in favor of "free trade" until it threatens some deep-pocketed special interest group.

    1. Re:Does it apply to prescription meds as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prescription drugs are governed by patent law, not copyright law. First sale rules only apply to copyright. Patent law has a different thing called exhaustion, which means that if you buy a patented machine from the patent holder, you don't need a patent license to resell that machine to someone else. If you wanted to make more of that machine and sell them, then you would need a license.

      I would expect that prescription drugs are so expensive in the United States because they are patented. In other places, the patents don't apply, so they are cheap. But then, you can't resell them in the United States, because the patent rights on those pills were never exhausted, because the pills were created without a patent license, because no license was required in the country where they were created.

    2. Re:Does it apply to prescription meds as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patents have very little to do with copyright, and FDA regulations have even less to do with copyright. So this ruling pretty much doesn't affect pharma at all.

    3. Re:Does it apply to prescription meds as well? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      That's not the reason. Many other countries allow patents on pharmaceuticals.

      Here are 3 reasons why drugs are cheaper in Canada:

      The Canadian government puts a cap, or ceiling, on the amount that drug companies can charge pharmacies and other distributors of drugs. This reduces the wholesale cost of medication for most organizations throughout Canada by about five percent. The prices are determined by Canadaâ(TM)s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Since drugstores pay less for many medications, they can sell them for less.

      Each of the Canadian provinces, like Quebec and Ontario, has a drug formulary that puts restrictions on the use of new and expensive medications. Since the provinces provide the bulk of drugs to higher users of medication, (seniors), they have the power to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies to lower prices for a medication to get on the formulary. In Ontario, for example, the formulary includes less than 35 percent of new medications.

      Canadian pharmaceutical companies have lower liability costs than U.S. drug companies. Canadians are not only less likely than Americans to sue healthcare providers or drug companies but when they do sue, awards and damages are a lot lower than in the U.S. In the U.S., some economists consider the cost of liability insurance for a drug company to be similar to a âoetaxâ on medications.

    4. Re:Does it apply to prescription meds as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire medical industry is a special interest group (I say this as someone working inside it). I really don't understand why discussions of skyrocketing healthcare costs don't focus on all of the government regulations that (with various degrees of sincerity) claim to be protecting individuals' safety, but are really just creating artificial monopolies.

      If you want healthcare costs to decrease, you should be lobbying at every opportunity for the government to increase competition, usually by deregulating, but sometimes by exercising antimonopoly statutes: eliminate or drastically deregulate practitioner licenses, get rid of prescription laws, eliminate the sorts of rules you're talking about regarding importation of medical goods, breaking up local hospital monopolies, etc.

      The discussion about health care costs has been so one-sided and focused on who pays, when the real problem is why it costs so much in the first place. The Republican party should be all over this, but of course they're not, because their interests lie in protecting the special interest groups benefiting from the monopolies in the first place.

      We can't afford the costs associated with letting the government decide your healthcare instead of the consumer, which is what we've grown accustomed to.

    5. Re:Does it apply to prescription meds as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The federal government protects the profits of big pharma by banning the re-importation of medications and medical devices sold in other countries. Hopefully this ruling sets a precedent for a challenge to that ridiculous prohibition.

      That's different.

      Many other countries have a terrible history of regulating the health & safety of pharmaceutical manufacturing (and in some ways, the US can improve).

    6. Re:Does it apply to prescription meds as well? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      For drugs the special interest group includes those who have a condition not helped by current medicines. Some of the income from domestic sales funds research on new drugs. If you want all drug R and D funded by the tax payers and drug patents abolished I'm with you. All I take is over the OTC drugs so I don't care if any new ones are developed. I always find it amazing that only American companies can develop useful drugs. To bad India and China can't develop anything useful, drug prices would drop by 90%.

  77. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by muridae · · Score: 1

    but such that you need to take 250x80mg? 90 pills I can see, 3 a day. even 120 at 4 a day. But 250 pills a month is an 8 hour extended release every 2 hours; get yerself a fentanyl patch instead.

  78. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by tiptone · · Score: 1

    If you live in the US you can not purchase "over the counter" cold medicine that contains pseudoephedrine without presenting an ID. It's a possible precursor to methamphetamine and legislators had a knee-jerk "for the kids" reaction.

    --
    Please don't read my sig.
  79. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by muridae · · Score: 1

    Every month when I pick up my scheduled medications. The things that are schedule 3 and 2 are a surprising list of medications that one normally doesn't suspect.

  80. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by jittles · · Score: 1

    Totally off topic, but you have to wonder. It's taking the DEA (not the FDA) years to prosecute doctors who are running obvious "pill mills". When you look at these docs, they're prescribing more than 2 standard deviation more narcotic scripts than the 'average' doc. Of course, there are occasionally some reasons for this - an oncologist or hospice doc for example, but too many of them are obviously fraudulent.

    If they can't get the guy writing 500 scripts for 250 80 mg Oxycontin tablets / month (suitable only for a seriously terminal cancer patient) then the onsey-twoseys are going to get mostly overlooked.

    The FDA isn't prosecuting them, but will pull their license if they are found to be prescribing more than they are expected to. And it doesn't take them that long to bust the pill mills in FL these days. They're often raiding pill mills within 6 months these days.

  81. How does it affect earlier cases by zrelativity · · Score: 1
    I think the consequence of this decision will be two fold: (1) the cost of books overseas may go up significantly, and (2) books will be more localized (ie some portions translated to local language - already happens for Chinese market, but India teaching is in English).

    But for me, more importantly whether this changes the earlier cases, where retailers such as Costco could not buy in the grey market and resale them in the US (Omega watches).

    1. Re:How does it affect earlier cases by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it should change the omega watches case too... rightfully so. it's even wrong to call it gray market..

      it's basically the same thing. some guy importing products for profit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  82. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would be nice if an author now and then would actually find an editor before self-publishing.

    I've had a less than satisfactory experience when it comes to my purchases of self-published books.

  83. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    I take it that you're serious. Where do you have to show ID for over the counter cold medications?

    Missouri.

    Actually, that's not completely true; the full disclosure is that you have to show ID, give your address and phone number, have your name added to the database, and you get a little check-mark next to your name, along with the quantity of Pseudoephedrine you purchased. Try to buy too much in too short a period of time (the amounts and timeframe are, of course, unpublished information), and you get a knock from the friendly neighborhood Sheriff, wanting to know where your meth lab is.

    As it's absolutely fucking ridiculous to be treated like a damn criminal just for having a case of the sniffles, I tend to forgo the medication these days and just tough it out.

    The only time that I can recall showing ID when picking up a prescription, was for some feminine stuff the wife needed.

    Ready for some irony? They never card me when I go pick up prescriptions for my wife. Ever.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  84. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by jittles · · Score: 2

    80 mg Oxycontin tablets / month (suitable only for a seriously terminal cancer patient)

    I have back pain, you insensitive clod. BACK PAIN It hurts!

    So go see a chiropractor.

    It kinda surprises me how many "smart people" don't seem to realize that developing a heroin addiction isn't going to do shit to fix whatever's causing you pain.

    It's kind of surprising home many smart people think that doctors and chiropractors can do anything for certain types of neck and back problems. I have a friend who hurt her back playing college basketball. She had 4 surgeries that just made her back worse every time. She takes narcotics because she needs something for the pain. Otherwise she'd probably want to kill herself. Is she an addict? Certainly. But you can't take narcotics long term without becoming physically addicted. It is physiologically impossible. That doesn't mean she is abusing them and out on the street trying to supplement her prescriptions. Also, heroine is an opiate but not all opiates are heroine.

  85. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    No problem. I'll gladly crack the DRM and then share it with everyone. If the publishers want to be scumbags and time limit or not allow me to re-sell my ebooks when I am done with them, then I'll share them with everyone.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  86. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by show+me+altoids · · Score: 1

    You've never seen Breaking Bad? Cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine are used to make meth. Here in one of the self-proclaimed meth capitals of the country (Missouri) anything having pseudoephedrine in it is behind the counter and you have to show an ID. I'm pretty sure it's statewide, but it's at least in several counties surrounding St. Louis.

    --
    I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
  87. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

    Anything that contains pseudoephedrine requires ID now. I take it you haven't tried to buy any in the last five years.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  88. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Ken+D · · Score: 1

    And not only do they check your ID, they actually report the date, and amount of pseudo-ephedrine that you purchased against your ID. http://www.nplexservice.com/

  89. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    No more sublaxation talk. Dr Bob outed himself.

  90. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

    I take it that you're serious. Where do you have to show ID for over the counter cold medications?

    ...

    "Over the counter" means "over the counter" - nothing needed except cold cash.

    Incorrect. Since 2006, any over-the-counter medication with pseudoephrdrine (or one of several other ingredients) requires ID due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemic_Act_of_2005 . Thank the meth-heads.

  91. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A few things to consider.

    1: there is a very large and not particaully rich country called india where english is one of the official languages (the other being hindi but afaict that isn't used much for technical stuff)
    2: some countries deliberately establish english speaking universities in the hope of being more attractive to foreign talent.
    3: Even in the UK which is english speaking and fairly rich afaict there is far less tolerance and pushing of overpriced textbooks than in the USA.

    Put all of these together and at a university level there is going to be a pretty big market for textbooks in english outside the USA and in general those outside america aren't prepared to pay as much as those inside america. The textbook vendors want to split the market so they can choose a different "most profitable price" for the USA and the rest of the world.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  92. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And based on my meeting with a publisher rep yesterday (I work in education, publisher was Pearson) the book is only "yours" for a year. Retake the course, or take the next level up course more than a year later, and you can't even use your "own" book for reference/refresher.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  93. Mod all you want... by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    You can mod all you want, but you can't sell the device/process that makes the mods. Even selling you moded console after you are done with it is grey.

    Unless your console is a cell phone that was under contract with a cell carrier.

    Unless your local prosecutor is having a bad day.

    Unless ...

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  94. You can't COPY it... by HaeMaker · · Score: 1

    The defendant in this case made no copies, he simply imported paper books already sold in Asia.

    There are other cases winding their way though regarding First Sale in the ebook world, we will have to wait for one of them to get to SCOTUS.

  95. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Students ARE in the habit of buying and selling used books, at least here in the US.

  96. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To verify your identity.
    Sure, insurance paid (some of) the cost of the prescription, but what does that have to do with identifying the person who picks it up?

  97. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Ehh, I'm slipping. One of my sons bitched not long ago, because the store didn't want to sell him the cold medicine he wanted. Yeah, I should have realized.

    The wife does almost all the shopping, I suppose that she has her name in that database. I'm just out of touch, I guess.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  98. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by xevioso · · Score: 1

    Maybe the point might but I'm not really sure one way or the other.

  99. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do you have to show ID for over the counter cold medications?

    If you look like you might be under 18 and are trying to buy something with DXM in it, you're supposed to get ID'd(in the states, mind you).

  100. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Convenience? eBooks may be much, but convenient, they are not. Well, at least the ones that are for sale.

    A dead tree edition is convenient. My buddy needs to look something up or wants to read it? Here's the book, return it when you feel like it. The only equipment he needs to read it is a pair of working eyes and the knowledge how to translate the printed symbols into meaningful expressions (aka "reading").

    With an eBook, first of all the question arises if we have the same kind of reader. If not, well, there's a pretty good chance that he won't even be able to read it, even if I can give it to him, which is anything but a given either because of omnipresent DRM.

    If you were talking about some kind of open document then yes, I could easily agree, they're very convenient. I have the PDF version of quite a few papers that I need on my laptop, and it's heaps easier to take those along when I travel. I can also easily hand over a copy to people who want to read them as well (before anyone asks, yes, I do have the right to do so). I can store thousands of pages that would fill a laptop case by themselves and have still lots of room for more and for other stuff.

    That would be very convenient if it applied to other documents as well. But eBooks are usually not really like that. They are locked down by artificial restrictions that strip them of the convenience they COULD have.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  101. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by xevioso · · Score: 1

    The reason for this is that your state, more than any other, has HUGE amounts of meth addiction.

    Seriously, Missouri is so fucked.

    The only states even close are Ten. and Indiana. You guys actually need to be doing waaaaay more than making people show ID for over the counter meds.

    http://io9.com/5989152/a-map-of-state+by+state-meth-incidents-in-2012--what-can-we-take-away

  102. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by xevioso · · Score: 1

    it is not one of...it is THE meth capital of the country. Bar none.

    http://io9.com/5989152/a-map-of-state+by+state-meth-incidents-in-2012--what-can-we-take-away

  103. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are "open book cases" in my town now, think of it as some publicly accessible bookshelf where you put your old books and take home the ones that are there and are interesting to you. At first I thought they'd be plundered the nanosecond they are put up, but it seems to work out pretty well, and they see quite some use, too. One of those things is near the train station I frequent and no matter when I go there, someone's always standing there perusing the book, and people actually do bring books, too, not only take them out.

    I kinda cannot see anything like this with eBooks.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  104. From the dissenting opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The absence of such lawsuits [the owner of a consumer good authorized for sale in the United States being sued for copyright infringement after reselling the item or giving it away] is unsurprising. Routinely suing one's customers is hardly a best business practice."

    Yeah, well tell that to the fucking RIAA and MPAA mafias.

  105. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Well, considering how my profs usually were very keen to hawk their own books, I guess they really have to be VERY lazy to pass up the opportunity to force their students to buy their publications...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  106. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You look at our economy where we treat the symptom rather than curing the disease and you wonder why people do the same?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  107. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Last week. But then again, in our drug crazy system I'm wondering when they start tracking how many Aspirin you bought in the last month...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  108. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Last week... Opioid medications require picture ID to pick up.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  109. oh great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First you want us to RTFA.

    Then we have to RTFMO.

    Now we have to RTFDO.

    When will it end? Harry/Draco fic? Is that enough for you?

  110. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Hold it, wait, you can actually GET cold medicine that contains pseudoephedrine? And you can get it as OVER THE COUNTER medicine?

    And you're complaining?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  111. writing as media by alienzed · · Score: 1

    is outdated. I realize the importance of the medium to date, but with audio and video being so much more efficient, writing in all it's forms is on the way out.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    1. Re:writing as media by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      There's something ironic in communicating that writing is on the way out by writing a comment on a forum where you read the stories (or at least the summaries) and then write comments. Now if Slashdot institutes video comments... Then again, it could open up a whole new realm of moderation!

      Comment Moderated: -1 Screaming Baby In Background
      Comment Moderated: -50 Commenter Not Wearing Clothing
      Comment Moderated: +5000 Commenter Not Wearing Clothing (This one's theoretical but never actually applied)
      Comment Moderated: -1 Mumbles
      Comment Moderated: -1 Thick Accent

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  112. No, capitalism does not require freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    capitalism in fact requires individual freedom

    No, capitalism does not require individual freedom. That's free market. Free market and capitalism are not synonymous

    You don't even understand your own definition.

    Many here do not understand event the definition of capitalism:
    private ownership and operation of property
    that's all it is.

    Nowhere does that have individual freedom in it.

    It's entirely possible that people themselves become the private property of others. It's not actually possible, it happens all the time throughout history. It's called slavery.

    Principles of capitalism? That has not been lost. What has been lost is free market, and thus individual freedom. MOAR CAPITALISM will not bring that freedom back.

  113. Generational maybe? by Comboman · · Score: 1

    Copyright is seldom a partisan issue. Conservatives are especially conflicted on the issue since on the one hand they generally support big corporations; but on the other hand they support free markets and oppose government regulations (and copyright is essentially a government-granted monopoly).

    This particular decision seemed to break down generationally with the three oldest members of the court voting in dissent. I choose to take that as a hopeful sign that things will get better as the copyright maximalists eventually die off.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  114. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Hey doc, could you prescribe some $drug? And tell me what kinda disease I have to have too?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  115. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    A chiropractor?

    Anyway, you can probably live 30 or 40 years with a narcotics dependence. That's a lot better than you'll do if you stop moving around at all and stay in bed.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  116. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    This is the new China, not the revolution-communist-crap you may remember from the times of Mao.

    The new party creed: If there is a market for it, we will produce it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  117. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by LordLimecat · · Score: 0

    Am I exaggerating? A little... No wait, I'm not exaggerating at all, it really is a mass of incompatible formats, competing ecosystems

    This and most of the problems you state are not problems of DRM, they are problems of competing standards. Thats not a problem that magically disappears when you get rid of DRM.

    If you really want to fix things, you should come out with your own master standard that fits everyone's use case...

  118. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by afidel · · Score: 1

    legislators had a knee-jerk "for the kids" reaction

    It was hardly a knee-jerk reaction, if we had effective border control it would have been a very effective strategy. Meth is some seriously bad stuff, worse than Crack and about as bad as PCP but MUCH more common than PCP ever was.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  119. First Sale Doctrine and Unintended Consequences by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    The doctrine of first sale is a limitation to copyright, in that it holds that the copyright owner's right to monetize a copy of the work ends with the first sale of the copy. For what it is worth, with the sole exception of the US, the doctrine of first sale is not recognized by any major nation on the planet Basically, what the first sale doctrine means is that US companies end up facing competition from their own products via the resale market, as the continued existence of used car lots, used bookstores, and used record, tape, and CD stores in the US amply attest. Those resales are protected under the doctrine of first sale. In my opinion, this SCOTUS decision means that book publishers in the US now have one more incentive to stop selling dead tree books, which can legally be transferred for monetary gain by a non-copyright owner under the first sale doctrine, and switch over to renting digital ones, which would not be protected under first sale doctrine. Thus, this affirmation of the first sale doctrine by the highest court in the land is probably not a good thing for people in the US who want to own the books that they are paying for, because publishers are just going to stop publishing books that can be transferred for monetary gain without their permission.

  120. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by garcia · · Score: 1

    I guess it depends on the DRM that comes on your e-books. In the case of the courses I took over the last 3.25 years for my masters program, it was generally as simple as printing the chapters to PDF from the reader application.

    Yeah, it put my e-mail address on every page but they were then searchable PDFs and easily transferable. Being that the books were 'free' as part of my program, it was a no brainer to choose that route over regular books (my preferred method). It was doubly important being that I worked for the University and my entire tuition, up until the time I left just over a year ago, was covered as part of my employment.

    YMMV.

  121. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by berashith · · Score: 1

    I am sure that there have been many standards that are not in use as they dont implement the latest and greatest DRM offerings. The problem may not go away instantly and by magic, but I am certain that the standards could easily be settled when vendor lock in and DRM is made far less important than actual useability.

  122. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by berashith · · Score: 2

    yup, Pearson is absolute shit. Now that they say that you can use either IE or safari, you still cant use safari. Restricting all E-edition stuff tio active-x is just wonderful.

  123. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by tiptone · · Score: 1

    If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped.

    If grandma had balls she'd be grandpa.

    We don't have effective border control, so this did little to nothing to stem the availability of meth. It doesn't matter if it's worse than crack or PCP, this was legislation that didn't do what was intended which is a hallmark of knee-jerk legislation.

    --
    Please don't read my sig.
  124. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe more convenient to store, but I'd much rather read a dead-tree version. Not to mention, they also want to sell ebooks over dead-tree because they are cheaper to produce, but still sell at the same price.

    Same price to sell, no used market, cheaper to produce...
    Yep. Greed uber alles.

  125. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    So I'm at the Pharmacy:

    me: Hi, I'm here to pick up some prescriptions.
    Pharmacist: OK, here you go. amphetamine. That's $10.
    me: Oh, while I'm here, can I pick up some pseudoephedrine?
    Pharmacist: Driver's License please.

    I was required to show my ID to purchase Sudafed, because it could be made into methamphetamine... but not required to show my ID for actual amphetamines.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  126. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Moses48 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, DRM is the problem. Let's say that we have no DRM, but we still have different standards. Let's say we're talking about pictures, instead of books. Well, you have PNG, JPG, GIF.... Hrmm it appears it's pretty trivial to have one player that can handle all the formats when you don't have the DRM restrictions. The formats would need to differentiate themselves in functionality, or the best would win. The main differentiation right now is the DRM schemes.

  127. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are they convenient when the publisher's idea of an e-book is images of the book you have to view in their (slow) online viewer that has to be web-connected? Sure it is lighter, but I like books you don't have to log in to view. And flipping through pages is a pain when it involves loading more images in the slow viewer.

  128. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    While certainly not perfect, there's online converters out there that will automatically convert an e-book from over a dozen formats into almost as many. PDF->EPUB, for one example(though it's noted as being one of the ones more likely to have problems).

    Once you get rid of DRM, open source/free ebook reader programmers are free to implement a way to read that format. You're no longer tied to the publisher's choice in readers.

    Nothing is ever perfect, but my DRMless ebooks are a lot more usable to me than the few I have that are locked up with DRM*

    *Which I mostly got for free; having been burned by DRM in the past I place a serious discount on anything encumbered with it. Oddly enough, I don't crack anything anymore, I'm at a point in my life that I'm willing to pay for stuff, not to mention that a lawsuit, much less criminal charges, wouldn't be worth the even low risk. There's plenty of free media out there if I want it.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  129. first sale *abroad* by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Sounds like he's leaving the door open for domestic publishers to milk us dry.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:first sale *abroad* by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      They already do.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  130. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    cold pills? I thought Heisenberg made biker meth with phenyl acetone. I haven't seen the latest season, though

  131. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by berashith · · Score: 1

    and, once when I was denied, I found out that there is a per diem average that you are allowed to purchase. I wasnt sure if I could purchase a smaller amount that wouldnt trigger whatever rules are in place, so I asked how much I was allowed to buy " right now " . This triggered a phone call to security. I left.

    Basically I wanted to buy a 30 day supply 28 days after a previous 30 day supply, because I happened to be there and it would be convenient.

    I went to a doc, got a very similar perscrition that insurance has to now pay part of , for the great deal of only 4 times the OTC price. They will say that the perscription versions have higher consistency. I say the FDA wont allow inconsistent drug manufacturing at all. There is your wonderful insurance premiums skyrocketing again.

  132. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by ngc3242 · · Score: 1

    The only equipment he needs to read it is a pair of working eyes ...

    Actually one eye is sufficient. Even more convenient!

  133. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually if people are taking the opiates for the pain they are much less likely to get addicted.

  134. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by berashith · · Score: 1

    and it works best when you buy it with bleach, kitchen cleaning solutions, and a stack of rubber gloves...

  135. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    What he means by 'guise of convenience' is stuff like this "Users trade privacy for functionality" - Melissa Meyer, Yahoo CEO. Companies are designing everything to phone home, and are limiting functionality unless you fully submit.

    --
    Good-bye
  136. It must have been overcast by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Scalia didn't have his shadow (Thomas).

  137. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    You look at our economy where we treat the symptom rather than curing the disease and you wonder why people do the same?

    ...

    Touche, sir.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  138. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    80 mg Oxycontin tablets / month (suitable only for a seriously terminal cancer patient)

    I have back pain, you insensitive clod. BACK PAIN It hurts!

    So go see a chiropractor.

    It kinda surprises me how many "smart people" don't seem to realize that developing a heroin addiction isn't going to do shit to fix whatever's causing you pain.

    It's kind of surprising home many smart people think that doctors and chiropractors can do anything for certain types of neck and back problems. I have a friend who hurt her back playing college basketball. She had 4 surgeries that just made her back worse every time. She takes narcotics because she needs something for the pain. Otherwise she'd probably want to kill herself. Is she an addict? Certainly. But you can't take narcotics long term without becoming physically addicted. It is physiologically impossible. That doesn't mean she is abusing them and out on the street trying to supplement her prescriptions. Also, heroine is an opiate but not all opiates are heroine.

    Outliers exist in all things.

    Sorry 'bout your friend, that's gotta suck.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  139. I thought MS said EULAs were all that mattered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times has Slashdot promoted stories telling you that YOU have no Rights, because the provider of your goods can have you accept some form of EULA that controls what you may do with that product. Textbooks come with a EULA, just like that copy of Windows from Microsoft.

    If an item is bought outright, with no further regular payments required, and no 'termination' date when the item must be returned, it is a PRODUCT not a SERVICE. Software is not a special case. Do you betas get this? Software is NOT a special case. There are no special cases.

    'First sale doctrine' means yours to do with as you like (and here the shills will try to confuse you with suggestions that such freedom could include illegal copying, which is and always has been a nonsense). Yet, when people attempt to sell their copies of Microsoft products, not only does Microsoft illegally interfere with this trade, they also pay shills to spam sites like Slashdot with comments telling you that only a EULA defines your rights. These shills say "you are not a lawyer, and Microsoft pays for the best lawyers, so you are wrong, and the MS shills are correct".

    You do not need to be a lawyer to know your rights. You do not need to be a lawyer to understand the difference between a service and a product. The games on Valve's Steam, for instance, are PRODUCTS. You have an absolute right to sell and transfer these products. The disgrace with companies like Valve is that they will honour your rights ONLY if you make it clear that you know what they are. To other customers, they lie.

    Consumer Rights bodies were set up by governments in most civilised nations to compensate for the fact that few consumers had the confidence or knowledge of the law to demand appropriate treatment from the companies they did business with. Sadly, in recent years, governments have fallen back in lock-step with big business, and funding has been removed from consumer rights advocacy groups. This has been accompanied with a massive rise of corporate shilling on sites like this. Consumers hear big-mouths screaming "you can't sell your copy of Office- that would be WRONG- think about it- would MS allow that in the EULA you accepted when installing Office."

    This is why the shills HATE the first sale doctrine. You don't need to 'think' about it. You merely need to know that a product is yours to do with as you like, including re-selling it. And, by the way, the nonsense about the illegality of unlocking phones- well the moment your phone is no longer part of a 'service' (yours to keep without further payment), unlocking becomes your right and the US government admitted as much when they responded to the massive on-line protest.

  140. Common Law by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    The Copyright Act they were looking at was based on Common Law. Congress basically codified what was before a self-evident personal property right. The Supreme Court based their opinion on a Common Law interpretation of the Copyright Act.

  141. Right to "Bear Arms" by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Us Americans have the innate right to "bear arms". While some favor polar bear arms, I am sticking with my choice of "grizzly arms" and will get them as soon as they are available for implantation.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  142. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    A chiropractor?

    Yup; I went to one years ago when I threw my back out, and it's thanks to his work that I'm not stuck taking narco's for the rest of my life.

    Anyway, you can probably live 30 or 40 years with a narcotics dependence. That's a lot better than you'll do if you stop moving around at all and stay in bed.

    Seems "better" is subjective in this regard... Personally, I'm not sure I would prefer living in a perpetual, drug-induced haze.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  143. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by jittles · · Score: 1

    Outliers exist in all things.

    Sorry 'bout your friend, that's gotta suck.

    Isn't that the truth? I feel bad for her too. She was an amazing athlete, and thankfully the school was generous enough to keep her on her full ride athletic scholarship as a team manager (Title IX FTW there, they would have dumped her if she was male). She's been on the meds a long time, and there are days where she can't get out of bed. But she appreciates life far more than some people I know who have far fewer problems.

  144. Think this through... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

    Think this through. Yes, ebooks are more convenient, at least for some, because of lack of space, etc. They are also usually cheaper and we are told because there is no printing and shipping cost involved. Right now, the competition for ebooks is printed books. When printed books go the way of the dinosaur, what will be in place to hold prices down? Yes, they will still be more convenient from a storage perspective, but not a cost perspective. What if your ebook textbook costs you $300 like your paper texbook and your ebook version expires at the end of the semester?

    If you buy a paper version, you can always sell it to defray the cost. That is not the case with an ebook, at least not unless you break the DRM and violate the DMCA. So, yes, if you are willing to break the law, then just about anything can be more convenient than following the law. That is, unless you get caught. Those prison cells are probably a lot smaller than your dorm room and have even less storage space.

  145. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    So go see a chiropractor.

    Everyone I know who uses one is addicted to them. It's like they program in their adjustments a timeout, so that it needs to be re-applied. I don't know of anyone ever "cured" of pain by a chiropractor.

  146. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    You left out trying to use your ebook when your wifi is down or you are away from a wifi signal. One could argue that is a flaw in the design of tablets, but that is besides the point. Most tablets don't allow for you to easily store what you want on them and easily retrieve it. At least not tablets from a company that's logo is related to the concept of original sin.

  147. Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also a downside in the ruling. "Piracy" is used again to mean "unauthorized copying".

  148. Does this apply to medications and drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause paying $2000 a month for something that costs $4 a year overseas seems kind of insane to me.

    America!

  149. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I'm glad it worked for you - even surgery is usually not any more effective than placebo with back pain, so what the hell - you might as well try, right? My mom's chronic back pain went away when she was bucked off of a horse.

    That said, if the chiropractor doesn't work - if your back is so damaged that you are talking about narcotic dependence - then it is definitely the lesser of two evils to be physically dependent on opiates.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  150. Maybe they did their job, rather than legislate by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Perhaps one reason all four of those justices ruled that the law is X when they would have preferred Y is because they aren't supposed to decide what the law SHOULD be. That task belongs to Congress. The Court is supposed to read the law and apply it, not make it up based on their own preferences. To the extent any of the justices voted against their own preferences I applaud them.

  151. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by skine · · Score: 1

    And this is another reason why I am glad that I was a math major in college.

    Most of the books are old enough that you can choose to buy the original edition or the newest edition with the only difference being that some small errors are fixed. Unlike some subjects where one year is the first editions, the next year is the second, and up until the fifth, then they start a new series of textbooks, my eighth-edition textbook is the eighth since 1948.

    Then again, the most recently published textbook I own is Euclidean Geometry - With Computers!

  152. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    So go see a chiropractor.

    Everyone I know who uses one is addicted to them.

    Not sure if it was your intent, but I laughed my ass off when I read that. Excellent work.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  153. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by jbolden · · Score: 1

    OK lets talk about things that have nothing to do with lockin?

    1) Should the system export simple text or export typeset text? Typesetting can be important for advertising, poetry, math while untypeset works better for fiction?

    2) Should should the system allow bitmaps, and if it does multiple bitmaps for different sizes or should vector graphics be mandatory?

    3) How should graphics be grouped? Should they be attached to specific pages, i.e. the system preserves layout or just specific

    4) Should the system resolve advertising at time of read, at time of publish or at time of sale? If time or sale or time of read can the system make use of other information like: age, other ads you've responded to... Note this has a huge impact on the cost of books. People willing to tolerate ads get much cheaper media.

    5) Should the system support multimedia: sound and video or no? For example foreign language textbooks.

    6) Should the system support testing? Should the end user always be able to override the testing or should the testing be under the control of purchaser not the end user?

  154. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by jbolden · · Score: 1

    There was nothing knee-jerk about it. After years of discussing they put the ban in place and meth production dropped off sharply. They allowed the sale again and meth production shot back up. They banned it and meth production dropped sharply.

    You may not like it, but this piece of drug legislation is doing exactly what it is supposed to.

  155. Correct scenario by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Correct. This is the scenario that will prevail. Don't fight the first sale doctrine because we can just encrypt our way out of the problem. Since we - and only we - can say who may and may not decrypt, that is akin to complete control over the first sale doctrine.

    Even if they encrypted in ROT13, it stills counts as a DMCA violation if someone decrypts the book. It doesn't matter how trivial or hard breaking the encryption is.

    That's what I'd do. I'd implement a mild (easy) form of encryption and then selectively apply the DMCA as I please.

  156. Scalia did not write the dissent, he joined in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um actually Scalia did not write the dissent, Ginsberg wrote the dissent which Kennedy joined and Scalia partially joined in. (and reading the dissent, Ginsberg disagreed with the majority because she thinks that Congress "wanted" to limit first sale - interesting how she is willing to go for the author's "intent" here but refuses to look at the intent behind the 2nd amendment...)

  157. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Vicks formula 44: contains alcohol, often abused, despite danger of liver damage. Carded.

    Nyquil: same as above

    Pseudoephedrine: can't even buy it (the real thing) anymore, because of meth cooks. In the RARE event you actually find it as a generic and it is actually for sale, you get carded, and your purchase is recorded, to prevent you buying in bulk from multiple sources. This is to prevent meth cooks from making their product. Big brother is TOTALLY watching on that shit. Sucks to be you if you buy several boxes so you have some at work and some at home, or have several sick people in your house.

    Anymore, about the only things you don't get carded for are NSAIDs.

  158. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by router · · Score: 1

    FTFW

    andy

  159. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by arth1 · · Score: 1

    Where in the world do you live?
    Here, people would drive to the book cases, fetch all the books, and sell them on eBay, used book stores or thrift stores. And not even feel that they did anything morally wrong.

  160. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a college professor and I write my own tests, and insist on a real book, thank you very much.

  161. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really want to fix things, you should come out with your own master standard that fits everyone's use case...

    Obligatory...

  162. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by berashith · · Score: 1

    ok, some good points here, but... this goes well beyond the idea of a book available in electronic form. Increasing the experience isnt a bad thing, but a book can be just as useable in pdf form as in a dead tree form. Text, pictures, whitespace, all relaying thoughts and ideas.

    I see the direction you are going, is an e-book a file, an app that plays a file with rich content, or is it an entire classroom ecosystem?

  163. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Was going for "insightfully ironic", as the claim that chiropractors "cure" seems absurd to someone like me where everyone I know who goes to one does so indefinitely. Not like my physical therapist after my surgery, where I had an end date before my first treatment. Even my sister's acupuncturist had a treatment plan with an end date. Chiropractor addicts have their weekly adjustment scheduled indefinitely. That doesn't sound like a "cure" to me. At best, it's treating the cause of the pain, not the symptom of it, but that's still not a "fix."

  164. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think that it matters much what their motivations are, but rather, the stated rationale they give towards reaching their end goal (that is, shouting "eBooks are convenient!" when in reality they just want to lock that puppy down and circumvent first-sale doctrine entirely).

    I'm sure they are convenient for both publisher (drops the cost of ink and paper to practically nada), and for many consumers (store it on a tablet!)

    OTOH, while you may find it convenient and such, there are a lot of us old curmudgeons out here who prefer their books on paper.

    The old-school books don't require batteries or eyestrain, no DRM, and the format won't ever become obsolete. Sure, they take up space and weigh a lot in quantity. So what? I've had a going personal library for decades now, and it's not a bother to me. I have this habit of upgrading the pile once in awhile. This means I get rid of the obvious crap (and any books I no longer have a credible use for), keep the good stuff (the awesome books I want to read over and over again over the years, old textbooks, etc) and over time my little personal library has gained in quality. As a bonus, no publisher or author can ever take them away from me - and not a few of them are even autographed. By the way, I can read 'em anytime I want, even when the power goes out.

    Long story short - you go right ahead and chain yourself to the publisher's profit motives. I prefer mine on paper, and I prefer them to be mine once I buy them.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  165. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by jbolden · · Score: 1

    These problems don't go away with pdf. Assume I pick a pdf.

    1) PDF demands line by line spacing but I can either kern or not. Should the e-reader support both?
    2) PDF allows bitmaps and simple vector graphics. But if I want different resolutions I need to run different pdfs. How should I handle view (low dpi screens) vs. print?
    3) PDF group everything with fixed position on a page. The document has no idea what is grouped with what, grouping is a reader function? What should the e-reader do?
    4) PDFs don't allow for any variable content, so 4 is resolved.
    5) PDF's do allow for unlimited callouts and hyperlinks. They also can imbed arbitrary multimedia...
    6) PDFs don't support testing

    As an aside though, to a limited extent PDFs do support DRM.

  166. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by T.E.D. · · Score: 0

    Kennedy is not even a "liberalish" judge. He's a conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan. He perhaps isn't up to the wacky standards of Scalia and Thomas, but that doesn't change who he is.

    One of the things that really annoys me about the last 30 years is how Conservatives keep getting us to move the idealogical goalposts, even though the general public's ideology hasn't changed much at all.

  167. Long term addicts by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    That doesn't mean she is abusing them and out on the street trying to supplement her prescriptions.

    From my readings, it's quite possible to be an active addict(IE taking the substance) of opiates essentially for life and still be a productive citizen. Without all the controls we place on opiates, it would actually be quite cheap to provide heroin. I'm not a chemist, but from my research it's about equally difficult to make aspirin and heroin. A quick wiki trawl reveals that aspirin is salicylic acid(historically from willow bark) is treated with acetic anhydride and phosphoric or sulfuric acid. One of the ways to make heroin is treating anhydrous morphine with acetic anhydride.

    One report was that, under equal drug controls as aspirin, they'd be of similar price. IE a couple bucks a month for medical grade drugs at therapeutic doses.

    I understand that being addicted to a drug is a bad thing, but you have to consider the risks.
    1. Physical harm: Can mostly be mitigated via ensuring that the supply is clean and of consistent potency(not a problem for medical grade).
    2. Financial harm: Addicts will sacrifice anything for their fix. If said fix is $10/month, it's not much of a sacrifice
    3. Productivity harm: Does it matter there will be productivity loss is from pain without the drug? What if they're MORE productive because the pain being treated burns off most of the negative affects(not a doctor, but I've heard that therapeutic uses of opiates to treat pain don't lead to the same issues that using them for recreation does).

    Basically, at some point you need to consider that maybe just leaving them on the drug is the cheapest, most effective treatment for their addiction. Especially if their condition means they're still in pain. People pop enough pills already. My parents and grandparents are on at least 6 drugs each. Mom's closer to 12.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  168. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you have PNG, JPG, GIF.... Hrmm it appears it's pretty trivial to have one player that can handle all the formats when you don't have the DRM restrictions.

    So you're not just getting rid of DRM - you're getting rid patent restrictions as well? Then it becomes illegal to provide a device that handles all formats unless you pay all the owners of the formats... they'll get you either way.

    It's not that I disagree with you on the general idea - I'm just wondering how far you're willing to go.

  169. Bad example by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    Um... copyright does prohibit making (unlicensed) copies of software, just as it prohibits making unlicensed copies of books, paintings, musical recordings, and so on. That applies as much to a modern copy of Windows as to an archaic player piano paper roll. It also applies to textbooks. It is (legally) distinct from first sale.

    The difference is that the person in question here actually paid for each copy that was purchased, then re-sold those copies. The right to do that is what was upheld. Duplicating a copyrighted work without a license to do so - such as using a hole-punch to duplicate the information encoded in strips of hole-punched paper - is still illegal, and has been since well over 100 years ago.

    Just to be clear, I don't in any way disagree with the sentiment you were expressing (that software should be treated the same as other copyrighted works). I'm mostly objecting to your choice of example, implying that creating unlicensed copies of a purchased (but copyrighted) work should be legal just because you bought one copy and are therefore allowed to "do whatever you want with it". That has never been the case for copyrighted works, and copyright is an old, old law. If your example had been publishers trying to stop people from reselling the paper rolls, that would have been analogous.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    1. Re:Bad example by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Um... copyright does prohibit making (unlicensed) copies of software, just as it prohibits making unlicensed copies of books, paintings, musical recordings, and so on."

      Perhaps I should have been more clear. My point was that the First Sale Doctrine limits that "licensing" to either prior contractual agreement, or the first sale. If you don't have a prior agreement, a copyright holder has no power to impose restrictions on use after that sale. They can SAY SO all they like, but it has no force of law. You bought it; it's yours.

    2. Re:Bad example by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      " I'm mostly objecting to your choice of example, implying that creating unlicensed copies of a purchased (but copyrighted) work should be legal just because you bought one copy and are therefore allowed to "do whatever you want with it"."

      I did not "imply" that, I simply left any mention of it out. I didn't state it explicitly in this comment because I am averse to repeating myself. But I know that restrictions on copying still exist. In a reply to someone else I wrote "copyright law still prevents you from distributing copies without permission", or words to that effect.

      But it is copyright law doing the restricting, not some shrink-wrap "licensing agreement".

  170. OMG You're right it's happening already!!! by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    Now lots of online businesses peddling second hand goods will spring up in no time.

    You're right, it's happening already! Look at these evil merchants of second hand books I found just searching online:

    http://www.amazon.com/New-Used-Textbooks-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=465600
    http://www.abebooks.com/
    http://www.powells.com/

    If somebody doesn't do something soon, we'll be seeing merchants of second-hand records and CDs and videos as well!! I've even hear rumors that there are some brick-and-mortar institutions springing up and collecting second hand materials and LOANING THEM OUT FREELY TO ANYONE WHO ENTERS! Have we reached such a nadir of respect for commerce and capitalism that we're going to allow every moocher and freeloader in the 47% to simply BORROW someone's intellectual property without paying for it?! I'm shocked the Supreme Court would hand such a victory to the Marxists and Linuxists.

  171. uhhh by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Just because it gets you high doesn't make it "intellectual" property.

  172. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a symptom of rent-seeking.

    I wouldn't limit the practice to chiropractors - pretty much every doctor I ever went to, with the exception of my current one, was nothing more than a glorified drug-dealer. I always had a sneaking suspicion that they had no plans to actually diagnose me, since they were making a killing from prescribing useless drugs (had gallbladder disease).

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  173. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Yea, but it will be increasingly an American problem. The world consumes an unfortunate amount of American (pop) media, but more local content. This will be good for everyone! So happy to get to own things :)

  174. Different Interpretation of the Concurring Opinion by yakovlev · · Score: 1

    My take on the Kagan/Alito concurring opinion was basically "Either Congress or the court (not sure which) screwed up before, but that's no excuse for screwing things up more here."

    It seems to me that Kagan/Alito really didn't want first sale outside the US to permit import, but that was no excuse for making first sale not apply AFTER the item was legally imported into the US, which is what ruling the other way would effectively do. More or less, they wanted to vacate "Quality King" and even invited Congress to do so through legislation.

  175. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by rjstanford · · Score: 1

    If you notice, this person here has to run cracking software just to get their files to play nicely and not destroy itself if this person tries to do the basic tasks of backup or use on an 'unauthorized device'.

    How easy is it for you to make a backup of your paper book, anyway?

    By default, if you're in a "walled garden" at least, your book license survives your device and a new reader can easily be re-authorized; this is actually far easier than replacing the few books that were in your lost backpack (or, worse yet, your library that burned down with the rest of your house).

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  176. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Hrmm it appears it's pretty trivial to have one player that can handle all the formats when you don't have the DRM restrictions

    And it would be trivial to do so with a system WITH DRM restrictions.

    Say, what percentage of MP3 players support Ogg and FLAC? Just curious.

  177. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Yes, that was the joke.

  178. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    His original plan was to buy a bunch of cold medicine, Jesse warned him off of that. The next plan was to steal materials for making biker meth

  179. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Where in the world do you live? Here, people would drive to the book cases, fetch all the books, and sell them on eBay, used book stores or thrift stores. And not even feel that they did anything morally wrong.

    Yep, pretty sure that would happen here too (Florida, USA).

  180. bills by shentino · · Score: 2

    Good on scotus but I'm betting that legal fees still wiped out his profits.

  181. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 1

    Yup. When textbook vendors are pitching books for a course, I pretty much stop listening as soon as they start rambling on about all the digital bullshit. I sure as hell don't mention any of it to my students or recommend that they look at or sign up for any of it. Unfortunately, this kind of temporary license push for e-texts piggy-backs on the trend for education to be simply 'credentials for a fee'. Many of the students don't care about the material and wouldn't dream of keeping the text as a reference. You're lucky if they even bought the text, and luckier still if they wait until the end of term to sell it again. So the publishers, already living large off of the cash cow of academia (annual updates to core science texts? the fuck?), are simply adapting to the emerging niche of student apathy. Don't be surprised if they're soon selling even shorter term-licenses. Anything to make sure they get paid *every single time* a pair of eyeballs looks at their repetitive, inbred, regurgitated material. But I'm not bitter or anything...

  182. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 1

    Physical texts always come with that stuff too. Definitely not unique to digital.

  183. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by anagama · · Score: 1

    Well, he did side with (5/4) majority that murders under the age of 18 can't face life in prison without parole which in the ultra-conservative political climate we live in (I'm including the DNC in this characterization) coupled with the public's thirst for ever harsher prison sentences, it seems enough to call him liberalish. But yeah, I get your point. And agree with it.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  184. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um... have you tried a little program called Calibre?

  185. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by RelliK · · Score: 1

    > And it would be trivial to do so with a system WITH DRM restrictions.

    false. The way DRM works is that the content is cryptographically encrypted. And only the vendor has the decryption key.

    > Say, what percentage of MP3 players support Ogg and FLAC? Just curious.

    pretty much all of them.

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
  186. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's too crappy quality for my professors to use it. Perhaps you should find a decent university, with professors whom are actually advancing the field?

  187. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

    Being owner to a couple of different tablets I wouldn't mind trying out the eBook scene but the fact that eBooks cost just as much, if not more even, then the physical dead tree versions it just isn't economical to me.
    If both formats are around the same price then I would rather have the physical dead tree copy that I can do what I please with which includes re-sale rights under the First Sale Doctrine that corporate America has been hell bent on destroying for the past 200 years.

  188. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    false. The way DRM works is that the content is cryptographically encrypted. And only the vendor has the decryption key.

    WMA uses DRM, and a far sight more MP3 players support WMA than FLAC.

    pretty much all of them.

    ORLY? Blackberry, iPhone, Creative Zen dont support Ogg; the Sansa clip only added it with a later firmware. None of them support the free MonkeysAudio, or Opus, or Speex.

    Incidentally, they all support DRM'd WMA. So much for your argument that "DRM is the problem, not multiple standards".

  189. book scanning technology improvements by TechForensics · · Score: 1

    This comment is coming in kind of late, so no doubt it will be little seen, but everyone seems to be overlooking that it will take only a slight improvement of book scanning technology to let everyone with a paper book duplicate it as an e-book. Let the publishers try to offer their product by license only; left them try to evade the first sale doctrine; it just won't work. When you can buy a $300 scanner that will turn the pages of your book and produce either PDFs or an optically character recognized file, this whole issue is just going to go away.

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  190. Well, it's obvious you've been propagandized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hang-out on a college campus too long swooning over lefty profs who live outside the real world and you'll have no common sense left...

    The synthetic personhood of corporations is an absolute necessity in the modern world. It's pretty amusing that so many younger people miss the plain meaning of the very words "corporate" "incorporated" "incorporation"... education, sadly, no longer includes even a smidgen of Latin, so for the uneducated let me suggest you look-up "corpus". We give a business (a group of investors) a pretend "body" (legal personhood) so that the resulting entity has legal standing to be treated as a person under the laws... this is a benefit to the business because it can then enforce legal contracts and go into courts to sue, and it's also a burden to the business in that it is a legal "person" that can have laws and contracts enforced against it and can get dragged into court and sued. Without this personhood, a guy like Steve Jobs would have had no time to do anything productive; he would have had to spend all his time signing every contract for what we call "Apple" and would have had to appear in every court case involving what we call "Apple" etc. He would have been personally liable for everything Apple did and his personal finances would be at risk anytime any employee of his anywhere on Earth did anything... it's likely that in such a situation most entrpreneurs would never let their businesses grow beyond what they needed to support their families. Are you an employee? If you are, then in a world w/o corporate personhood you would have to have your employment agreement with the owner of the business himself... and if anything happened to him, the business would cease to exist (as happens with sole proprietorships) and your job would end. That's only a sliver of the complications of a world without "incorporation". You need to really THINK about all the implications of the utopias that are far-too-often pumped-out by academic dreamers in ivory towers...

  191. backward compatability by almechist · · Score: 1

    I have always maintained that in order for an ebook to validly claim to offer more features and more convenience than a regular book, it would have to be backward-compatible with printed books as they currently exist. This means that an ebook should have at least 20 (more might be better) paper-thin pages that can be easily leafed through, in between a front and a back cover. In short, it must have a form and function exactly like a real book, something you can pick up and handle exactly like you always have. The difference would be the utilization of a true overwrite-able high-res e-ink, so that you could download or store on-board whatever reading material you like, one book standing in for any and all books. With such a book you could do everything you can currently do with a book, and then some. Downloading different reading material is just the start, you could add functionality like an onboard dictionary for unfamiliar words, instant pop-up footnotes, fully animated pictures, web-connected hyperlinks, all kinds of possibilities open up with such a device. It would in every sense be a traditional book, and it would also have all the capabilities of the devices we currently call ebooks, but it would also be capable of so much more. Until such a book is created, ebooks will remain a crippled technology, lacking even basic functionality taken for granted since the days of Gutenberg. I can only hope that I live to see such a book, and I might, since the technology for it is almost there right now. But the ideal backward-compatible perfect ebook would contain no DRM! It couldn’t, because to do so would break the backward-compatibility, as there is no such DRM found on current printed books. This is my biggest fear: the tech will be there, but the industry will reject it and try to bury it, the way they have initially rejected every single attempt at an improved digital media experience to date. These people just refuse to learn.

    1. Re: backward compatability by farnham · · Score: 1

      If you had any familiarity with current ebooks, you would know already that the vast majority of what you called for is implemented. The only thing missing is your waste of perfectly good space idea for "Pages". There is no need for pages when you have hyperlinks and a back button. But you would know that if you had used a kindle.

      --
      pending committee review
  192. Actually, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Those laws were created by people chaffing against the abuses of what would most likely be compared to one of our modern multinational corporations. The notion of corporation as person would likely appall the whole lot of them regardless of political faction."

    You should actually try reading what our founders wrote; they were not on a rampage against businesses of any size or shape... they were trying to minimize and restrain government. Government has courts, police, jails, armies, soldiers and the belief that it has the right to seize your stuff and kill you with nobody else having the right to intervene. Business is in the private sphere and is constructed as a series of agreements freely entered into by free people who are free to participate or to walk away; our founders were very much in favor of free people coming together voluntarily in contractual arrangements. Business does not have the power to jail you (it has to go to government, where you and your peers have a say in order to try this) or take your stuff (again, it either has to go ask government for help in this, OR you have to have entered into a contract permitting this...and the business needs government to enforce said contract) or kill you (business has no right to do this at all... even "assisted suicide" where you WANT a business to kill you is mostly illegal in the US).

    We have long-permitted labor unions (often organized as corporations) to exercise "free speech" rights... so rulings like Citizens United which balance the scales are only fair and rational, no matter how much they are hated by extreme leftist whackjobs who'd grown very happy with a situation where their political allies had a big advantage. The only part of modern corporate personhood our founders would have an issue with is the manner in which Congress has rather recently allowed corporations who have bought copyright portfolios to shift the duration of the copyright from being relative to the life of the mortal human CREATOR of the work over to the potentially immortal imaginary person BUYER of the work; in a SANE world, the courts and congress would allow a business to get a copyright and enforce it as usual, BUT its duration would remain tied to the life of the human who was the primary creator of the work.

  193. Re: will not stop the publishers from making DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know whata even easier than breaking drm? Downloading the shit for free off bittorent . I have literally millions of books on my 1tb drive. Fuck these publishers, i hope they starve in the streets, and their piss covered corpses are gnawed upon by rats.

  194. Re: will not stop the publishers from making DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all your idiotic questions aside, pdf format works fine for me.

  195. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your friend is likely physically dependent on her pain meds, which is perfectly normal for longer term use. However, that is different to being addicted. I'm basically agreeing with you but physically dependent is the phrase you were after.

  196. Your understanding of history is weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our founders were not a bunch of anti-business "occupy" activists out to camp in city parks and crap on cop cars.... They were struggling against a big government that was far away from, and out of touch with, the people it ruled. They were opposing excessive taxes (which were MUCH lower than the taxes we now pay) which were, in part, being used to oppress them (the king thought he had the right to send troops into people's homes to take things and to live there with the homeowners for a while...among other things). The only businesses they attacked were the ones effectively aiding the king, and during the course of the war that followed, they were consistent in even destroying their own homes and businesses where necessary. There was no rally by our founders to trash all businesses... indeed almost every one of our founders was a businessman and they intended that the government be VERY small and do little more than national defense, international diplomacy, patents, trademarks, and making sure business (commerce) worked smoothly across state lines... they intended all else to be done by state governments, local governments, charities, businesses, families and individuals.

  197. The Supremes didn't ban NSLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Supremes weren't behind the ruling banning NSLs. That was one California judge. BTW, California does not have the highest reversal percentage (several districts had a 100% reversal rate), though they do have the most cases that go to the Supreme Court and the Supremes reverse, on average, something like 70-80% of the cases they take.

  198. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Go to a doctor with knee pain, and he'll "manage" the problem with drugs. I went to an orthopedic surgeon with a knee problem and he cut me open and re-arranged my parts until they worked again. Doctors suck at referrals. "I don't know, go see this guy instead."

    Though the surgeon prescribed Vioxx, and gave a month of samples for free. I asked whether Vioxx helps, he said it treats some of the symptoms of recovery (restricts blood flow to help restrict swelling). That sounded like it would retard healing, so I asked. And he said that yes, it would likely prolong healing to regularly take it. So I didn't. Even with a knee surgery, I took no pain meds. They wouldn't let me leave the hospital without narcotics, but they couldn't make me take them. I threw them a the Vioxx in the trash. This was just before the Vioxx recall.

  199. Not Wow at all by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    > this person didn't really buy the books for himself which is what the first sale doctrine is for? he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money. i'm surprised SCOTUS didn't find for the publisher. this is a pretty big expansion of the first sale doctrine

    That's because you are a consumer and are most familiar with goods being purchased for consumption. In fact most goods are purchased by merchants for reselling or adding value and reselling. Is a farmer selling a case of Apples to a wholesaler able to put their foot down when they learn they will resell them to a supermarket FOR A PROFIT? OMG! How unconscionable! Hardly: That's how they make a profit, and profit is what makes the world go around.

    One of the few good things about our courts is that they are very pro-capitalist. For example if you spot and and buy something from a seller who doesn't understand it's truth worth (the proverbial Botticelli at a garage sale) the courts will not reverse the sale even if it can be proved you knew and took advantage of them because that's capitalism, baby. They can reverse it on other grounds (e.g. seller was a minor, inebriated, fraud) but not for this. If your wish was granted and first-sale doctrine was wound back or blown up by Mythbusters then anyone selling anything would have a control over the operation of downstream businesses and be able to interfere with their ability to make a profit.

  200. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by ColdSam · · Score: 1

    Am I exaggerating? A little... No wait, I'm not exaggerating at all...

    Well yes, you are exaggerating. A lot.

    For every example you have that a printed book is more convenient there is another example where the eBook is more convenient. There is a use case for both, and some may prefer one over the other, but that does not warrant this one sided rant. If you want to argue that eBooks could be even more convenient, then be my guest - there is certainly room for improvement.

  201. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    There will be a huge push now for electronic books under the guise of "convenience" but what it really comes down to is that they will want to "license" the book rather than sell it. At the same time, the electronic versions will simply continue to make the publishers less and less relevant especially for new titles.

    While it's true that you only license the book when you get it electronically, for a large majority of cases, that's all the purchaser (or renter?) wants anyway.

  202. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by ooshna · · Score: 1

    That is probably b/c they change the order of the chapters every year slap on a new version number and tell the schools last years book is obsolete and force everyone to upgrade to the new book rendering all the old books being resold worthless.

  203. Monsanto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder how this will affect the Monsanto model...

    "The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next, a common farming practice" ---Wikipedia

  204. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eBooks are incredibly more convenient if you pirate them. otherwise, they are a PITA.

  205. Does this affect Omega vs Costco? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    A few years ago there was a lawsuit where Omega (a maker of fancy watches) sued Costco for copyright violation claiming that because designs on the watches were protected by copyright, Costco couldn't legally import the watches from overseas (which it was doing since it could source them cheaper than what Omega USA was asking for).
    Does this new supreme court decision override the decision in "Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp" and allow Costco (and others) to parallel import these products?

  206. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then somebody else will provide a different product that fills the unmet demand in those countries. Of course then the original provider just created a new competitor who will export their less expensive product back to the home country at a lower price.

  207. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    No way. You can't torrent a paperback.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  208. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    ORLY? Blackberry, iPhone, Creative Zen dont support Ogg; the Sansa clip only added it with a later firmware. None of them support the free MonkeysAudio, or Opus, or Speex.

    Incidentally, they all support DRM'd WMA. So much for your argument that "DRM is the problem, not multiple standards".

    If you have music in one format and need to convert it to another and there is no DRM involved, it is relatively easy to do (though only lossless if the formats are lossless).

    They might all support WMA's DRM, but that is only because none of the music publishers sell music players, well, besides Apple, and you'll note that the format they prefer only plays on their own players. If Apple decided to stop supporting WMA then you'd have the eBook mess all over again. That's a decision they will make based on what they feel their own best interests are, not what the consumer's are.

    Sure, you can have DRM that is more standardized, but in the case of eBooks that isn't the status quo, and it likely won't ever be until Amazon stops selling eBooks.

    In any case, the only real point of DRM seems to be to keep no-names out of the device business. If you want your Amazon eBooks to work you have to buy their reader, and if you want your Apple music to work you have to buy the iWhatever. It does nothing to prevent piracy, readily demonstrated by the fact that anything that anybody would care to pirate is already pirated DRM-free online.

    So, while you're right that a variety of standards is a big part of the problem, the fact is that it is DRM that helps publishers and device manufacturers to keep a variety of standards in place.

  209. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    To be clear, I wasnt defending DRM, I think it has issues, etc.

    So, while you're right that a variety of standards is a big part of the problem

    Thats all I was saying.

  210. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are just wrong. Its trivial to have a reader that handles a bunch of book formats, and really that hass been a non-issue for decades (had such readers on Palm back in the day), see your web browser or LibreOffice for examples. DRM is the only issue.

  211. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    will not stop the publishers from making DMCA requests / filling strikes that can cost you $35 a pop.

    ===
    As far as I understood, these were not copies, but legal copies, sold at Thai prices. The students paid for the books, and then resold them on Ebay, of course, they may have photocopied the entire book for personal use first.
    In this case, my sentiments go with the publisher. He and the author deserve compensation for the costs of production, and commissions. The author did not publish the book for his health, did he?

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  212. Re:Your Textbooks: Now Printed in China by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Given that now 18 states have now outlawed the Death Penalty entirely, up from 13 in 2007, I suspect a deep look crime issues may show that the general public really no longer has much of a "thirst for ever harsher prison sentences". These days I'm even hearing a lot of (generally younger) Republicans complaining about the excessive expense of it all.

  213. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Interesting tale about the Vioxx, I had never thought of that.

    Will definitely keep it in mind when/if I ever have to go under the knife. Thanks.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  214. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Oh, no need to, I still have a stack of rubber gloves. I usually buy them together with doggy treats and condoms. Just to see the sales person freak out.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  215. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    One of those pinko commie socialist countries in Europe. Ya know, one of those that cannot enjoy the wonders of capitalist achievements like a banking crisis.

    Surprisingly, people here are less concerned about making a quick buck if they notice how them making a buck causes more damage than they themselves gain from it. Maybe that's why we still have a working environment, a working economy and even a more or less working political system.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  216. Cool. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Now it is time to start going to nations in which the large companies sell their goods cheap at, buy them and simply bring them back and resell them here.

    It has always ticked me off that so many of the medical companies sell their drugs and equipment for a fraction of the price in all other nations compared to what they do here. And no, it has nothing to do with regs. After all, it is the exact same piece of equipment. It is called, you charge what the market will bear.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  217. Note that this is NOT about copying by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This case was NOT about copying the book and making it on a foreign press. It is about a company that charges 1/5 of the price overseas than what they charge Americans. Interestingly, the books were still made here and then shipped there (IOW, extra costs) and then sold there cheap. So, are they dumping on foreign nations? Or is that a profitable item that they are then gouging Americans on? Considering that they do not charge even Europeans what they Charge Americans, I would say that they are gouging the US.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Note that this is NOT about copying by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      whoops. Those particular books were made overseas. However, Wiley does produce books here, ships them elsewhere and then charges a fraction of what they do here.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  218. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    You take their word that production dropped sharply?

    I don't, if production dropped sharply I would expect a sharp jump in street prices. That never happened.

    What happened it that after a ban a pseudo they saw a sharp drop in sales of pseudo. Which they choose to interpret as a sharp drop in production.

    Abracadabra; it's working.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  219. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    Fortunately I teach a couple of Linux classes at the community college/AS degree level.

    I use lots of web resources, and quite a few books - a few pages from this, a chapter from that one, etc. Fortunately, our county library system has a Safari subscription (The Animal Books from O'Reiley) which my students can access free of charge.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  220. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by jbolden · · Score: 1

    You take their word that production dropped sharply?

    Yes. The FBI compiles and publishes crime statistics. If the aggregate statistics didn't coincide with local ones that would get noticed. If they do than you have hundreds of independent case studies.

    I don't, if production dropped sharply I would expect a sharp jump in street prices. That never happened.

    Not necessarily. That's called velocity. Supply changes induce demand changes or they induce price changes. In this case demand dropped off which was the desired result. Meth became harder to get. In general during the 1990s dealer prices were stable but street prices were slowly falling which made it less profitable. What does seem to happen though is sharp shifts in purity. Meth becomes rarer and harder to get, purity drops, Meth becomes less desirable and less available leading to lower demand... Eventually it stabilizes at a new lower level with high purity.

  221. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    I hate to be the one who tells you this. But the FBI crime statistics DON'T correlate with locally reported crime stats worth shit.

    FBI samples people, and reports their answers (e.g. were you the victim of a violent crime in the last year). So for drug labs they ask: did you cook tweak in the last year?

    Locally reported crime state are consistently under-reported as cities fight to have the best numbers, having their police paint a rosy picture.

    Neither method will get you a better picture of drug supplies then looking at the price on the street.

    Sacramento was where the tweakers started (H.A.s in the late 70s), nothing has changed, tweak and tweakers are still everywhere. It is cheap, 'pure' and common, same as always.

    The government has a long history of claiming success in the drug war. They claim to have won against cocaine while the average street price halved and the average purity doubled!

    The government has won exactly one battle in the drug war: ludes. They did that by shutting down legal production worldwide. Not an option for most drugs.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  222. what is "doctrine of first sale" by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    The result false in favour of the reseller of a used books and gives them the right to resell the book to others on ebay or other channels even if the book was purchased abroad.

  223. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    I currently have over 2000 books. About 1/3rd are hard cover, We too have a small home, but one entire wall in the living room is a book case. I also have the inexpensive Sauder book cases in my den, the shop and IIRC 7 of them in the basement Rec room to keep them neatly stored. We also have 5 computers that are networked with over 10 Terabytes of storage with, book, music and video (legally recorded). I also have 100's of VCR tapes, which I am about to erase and pitch. There are also, well over 30,000 digitized family photos covering generations It took a lot of years to accumulate these books, photos, and recordings Yes we (my wife and I) also have several e-book readers. The only and I do mean "only" time the readers are convenient are when traveling, or reading books from the library.. To sit back and read, the real book is far more convenient and comfortable. I have gone to purchase a new release only to find it available in e-book form, but not as a real book. There are many books I do not have because that was the only format in which it was available. IF I were still traveling a lot on business, I "might" purchase a few of these, otherwise I'll go with out which now days means "I ain't buying". As for DRM and the DMCA I have not purchased a single CD nor do I down load or stream music, since Sony screwed their customers with the root kit and the recording industry went bat shit over protecting everything. You would probably guess by now that we are avid readers, avid listeners of music. I have been a photographer for many decades. DRM and the DMCA have cost the entertainment and publishing industry literally many thousands of dollars where we are concerned. The industry claims they are losing massive sales to piracy, but I wonder if perchance, if there are many like us who have just stopped purchasing and have enough books and music on hand, or peruse used book and CD sales to keep us content. It wouldn't take all that many for the lost sales to amount to a very large sum. They'd never notice a few thousand sales to one household like us, but a few thousand such households would hurt, particularly if they mistakenly attribute the lost sales to piracy instead of customer disgust. I can't pass a yard sale with books or CDs showing.

  224. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice post. You sarcastically exposed the e-book scam. It's time folks realize that it is a greed driven industry not one of convenience. I can only read so many books a day so why not carry the hard copies. Sure if I were a student having to carrry 10 text books across an x acre campus then having them all on my tablet would be easier. But forget about reselling them after the semester is over, or sharing with a classmate who could not afford my $500 e-medical text. And in the future what will libraries look like? Oh, I forgot. there are none in our e-future.

  225. Re:When will this apply to medicines? by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    80 mg Oxycontin tablets / month (suitable only for a seriously terminal cancer patient)

    I have back pain, you insensitive clod. BACK PAIN It hurts!

    So go see a chiropractor.

    It kinda surprises me how many "smart people" don't seem to realize that developing a heroin addiction isn't going to do shit to fix whatever's causing you pain.

    It's kind of surprising home many smart people think that doctors and chiropractors can do anything for certain types of neck and back problems. I have a friend who hurt her back playing college basketball. She had 4 surgeries that just made her back worse every time. She takes narcotics because she needs something for the pain. Otherwise she'd probably want to kill herself. Is she an addict? Certainly. But you can't take narcotics long term without becoming physically addicted. It is physiologically impossible. That doesn't mean she is abusing them and out on the street trying to supplement her prescriptions. Also, heroine is an opiate but not all opiates are heroine.

    Almost. Heroin is an opioid as it has primary affinities to the mu opioid receptor. To be an opioid it must be a ligand for any opioid receptor(k,mu ect.). Now opiates are opioids derived from P. Somniferum (opium poppy) like morphine, codeine, thebaine. All opiates are opioids but not the reverse.

    Heroin is diacetyl-morphine (discovered when Bayer was acetylating everything they touched which led to their most well known drug ever, acetyl-salycitic acid or Aspirin.) which makes it a semi-synthetic opioid like hydrocodone, the former from morphine the latter generally from thebaine.

    It was developed to battle the cough from TB while being less reinforcing than morphine. They were truly embarrassed to discover heroin is inactive and bioactivates to it's pro-drug in the central nervous system, morphine. Due to the pharmacology heroin enters the brain more quickly following injection than morphine, after which the physiological effects are identical. The subjective size of the "rush" has to do with how quickly the brain reaches peak levels, making heroin preferable to people abusing it recreationally, and inconsequential for the treatment of pain (in most countries).

    Why Britain still uses Heroin in palliative care is beyond me when there are stronger, less stigmatized drugs like oxymorphone.

  226. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope. I have no idea how to make batteries, but I DO KNOW how to make a BOOK. You do not resell your books, you TREASURE them. (your market is just a dt slower than BOOKS).

  227. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    How easy is it for you to make a backup of your paper book, anyway?

    My paper book is as easy to backup as the mechanism I choose to use. I can choose the easiest method available to the medium.

    My non-DRM eBook is as easy to backup as the mechanism I choose to use. I can choose the easiest method available to the medium.

    My DRMed eBook is as easy to backup as the mechanism chosen for me to use. The chosen option will necessarily be more complex than necessary for the medium, it will never serve my best interest, and the option is very likely to be 'No option'.

    You see, to paraphrase the children's verse, "Anything DRM can do I can do better."

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  228. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    By default, if you're in a "walled garden" at least, your book license survives your device and a new reader can easily be re-authorized; this is actually far easier than replacing the few books that were in your lost backpack (or, worse yet, your library that burned down with the rest of your house).

    Please go back to point 1 in my post:

    "eBooks CAN be more convenient than books, but currently they are not."

    The reason they are not currently more convenient is due to DRM. For eBooks without DRM, they are actually very comparable to physical books in terms of convenience. The drawbacks associated with eBooks are almost all ameliorated by the benefits.

    I'm not here to say that physical books are superior to eBooks in all aspects, I'm saying that with DRM the benefits associated with eBooks are not being realized.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  229. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    Point one in my post:

    eBooks can be more convenient. They are currently not more convenient. The reason they are not more convenient is because the implementation of DRM negates a huge number of benefits that eBooks(as files) posess, but are unable to realize.

    If you take out DRM from eBooks, I have zero complaints which are not just byproducts of the medium. ie: Physical books require light to read, occupy space, etc; eBooks require electricity, require support equipment, etc.

    Those type of complaints I don't care about, because they are byproducts of the physical medium. The reason I complain about eBooks is that someone is inserting flaws and degrading the capability of eBooks. With those intentional degredations, I am stating that eBooks are not more convenient because it is impossible to make such a blanket statement about a condition (DRMbook capabilities) which may change with or without notice.

    When I say: "These are the benefits of books" those will remain the benefits of books forever. The concept of 'books' is static. Tremendous variations to be sure, but I can be reasonably sure that at least in my lifetime, the definition of 'book' will be the same.

    However, consider if you consider DRM to be an aspect of eBooks, you can't say, "Oh well here is what an eBook is, and this is what you can do with it." and have that definition remain static for more than a few months. If you had a DRM'd 'eBook, and asked me 'Can I read this?' I would have to ask you "Well, who controls the license?", "Is that company still in business, are they still running the licensing servers?", "What reader device are you using?", "Does that device support the DRM implementation of your particular eBook?"

    Then you might ask, "Can I give this book to a friend?" I would have to ask "Does the DRM permit you to give books to people?", "Has this particular eBook been licensed with 'giving' rights?", "Do these 'giving' rights transfer beyond the first 'give'?"

    These answers to these questions may change with time. As companies change their policies, so do the DRM rules and applicability. Therefore, you can't really define eBook when you include DRM in the definition of eBook, and if you can't define something, you can't state that it has any particular property or capability (or convenience), if such properties are subject to change from ebook to ebook and from one moment to the next.

    With a book, there is nothing between you and the content. With a DRM'd eBook, there is something between you and the content, and that 'something' is variable.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  230. dvd region coding by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    region-coded books in 3, 2, 1...

  231. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    there is no "guise of convenience"

    It's quite obviously extraordinarily convenient...for the publishers.

  232. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by ColdSam · · Score: 1

    eBooks can be more convenient. They are currently not more convenient. The reason they are not more convenient is because the implementation of DRM negates a huge number of benefits that eBooks(as files) posess, but are unable to realize.

    You keep conflating the two interpretations of "more convenient". Is an apple more convenient than an orange? You could certainly make that point as you don't have to peel an apple to eat. An apple would be even more convenient if it didn't have a core that was hard to eat or had to be thrown out afterwards.

    If you take out DRM from eBooks, I have zero complaints which are not just byproducts of the medium. ie: Physical books require light to read, occupy space, etc; eBooks require electricity, require support equipment, etc.

    The list goes on, ..., ebooks can be bought instantly, often in places where the physical books are not available; ebooks can be stored on multiple devices, I can read the same book on the subway as I'm reading on my bedside; I can easily find the ebook rather than looking for which shelf or in which box I put it or which friend I loaned it to; I can travel with 50 different ebooks in my carryon rather than 1; I can instantly look up a definition, a translation, do a text search on the book, see all references to a character or place; I can easily read with one hand or lay it on a flat surface (for workouts, bath tub, ...); I can receive corrections and updates to the ebook automatically; and several more.

    None of these features are "negated" by DRM. For you, personally, DRM is big issue, but it is clearly not for a huge number of people. All the problems you mention are trivial to me and many others and I expect you're exaggerating them for yourself as well. Let me address your issue with "Here is what an eBook is and this is what you can do with it." I primarily use Amazon, so I can easily tell you that it performs 99% of what I would do with a physical book right now and does a hell of a lot more. I have absolute confidence that I will still be able to read that eBook on any number of devices in a few months and I have little doubt that I will be able to access that book in 3, 5, 10 years. I even have a reasonable chance of being able to read that eBook in 20 or 50 years.

    No, I don't know that every specific feature will remain the same, but I don't care (much) as long as the primary function still works, which it has a very high probability of doing in the near future and decent probability in long term. About as high (in the case of Amazon, at least) as it would for a physical book, actually.

    In the rare case I want to "loan" a book to a friend I can send him a link electronically and he can download a copy of the eBook himself for a fee (which may very well be the same fee that I paid). All without the hassle of driving over to his house to hand the physical book, keeping track of it so I can pester him to give it back when he's done, only to find that he it's got coffee stains and many of the pages are wrinkled because he read it in the bath.

    Paper books and eBooks are not the same, they don't have to do everything that the other does for them to be tremendously useful - this includes loaning or reselling. It would be great if eBooks also had those features, but that is a bonus, not a requirement. If you can figure out a way to get rid of the DRM while still protecting the publishers and booksellers, I suggest you let them know. They're not idiots and they're only as greedy as every other for-profit business - it's just that this is a difficult problem with no easy solution. The absolute freedom and guarantee you demand is not reasonable and you wouldn't want to pay the high cost to pay for it.

  233. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by rjstanford · · Score: 1

    My paper book is as easy to backup as the mechanism I choose to use. I can choose the easiest method available to the medium.

    So... almost impossible then? Copying a file, even a DRM-encumbered file, is far easier than photocopying a book (or repurchasing it, which is the normal "backup" procedure.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  234. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EPub seems to be the most compatible and since it's just XHTML underneath you'll never lose the ability to read it. Many publishers layer DRM on top but boycotting them should help in the long run.

  235. Re:will not stop the publishers from making DMCA r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you haven't seen this, you'll like it:
    "* * * The Book * * *
    New Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge Device ..."

    http://www.simplysharing.com/book.htm

  236. cheapweddingdresses by lacepromdresses · · Score: 0

    In fact, purple prom dresses 2012 are very popular and outstanding these years.I think the answer isn't so much about adding more to our lives, but rather, more deeply enjoying the lives we have now.As a saying goes, all men search for beauty.Black dresses for prom come in all price ranges ranging from high to low ones.What you need to do is try to search for what you want on the internet. As a medical professional or caregiver, you may strapless sweetheart taffeta pick up wedding dresses with beaded applique wedding 2191 no choiceyou have to wear a uniform-medical scrubs. An empire waist dress with a shorter hem will give an illusion of a long cheap ball gown wedding dresses silhouette for girls with a fuller figure.Last but not the least, always reward the agent handsomely for hisher performance.Just because you select an even more modern way of shopping does not imply you need to lose the experience altogether.Bear in mind this - when getting discounted clothing on the internet, they usually come with a no return and no exchange policy.

    Browse below, find an affordable prom dress, and have a great prom night without bridesmaid dresses online the bank.There should be a fact based scorecard rating system that measures agent performance against performance indicators.However, there are always several types among the dresses that enjoy best sellingsee pictures above.This instills a level of confidence, even in the shyest girl.Finn escorts Lea and Kurt is accompanied by Blaine.Promenade evening can be an essential event for very a few not just youthful individuals on their own but in inclusion for mom and father who consider every solitary single opportunity to return to their relatively confidential club nights.These switch panels have environmental resistance to high and low temperatures, acids, fungus, salt, sand and dust. Well you don't have to worry to get one bridesmaid dress if you are a bridesmaid and the bride will get low v neck shimmer prom dress celebrity dresses bj 59414 bjv one for free.Probably you will babysit for a month as repayment, or clean out their basement or garage.If you'd like to keep your tradition, you can search for garments online along with your girlfriends and pick out dresses together.Available in bottles and coolers.Below are some on the more popular bridesmaids' robesA new - Line or Princess The desktop suits everyone.So a lot of ladies will spend much time looking for perfect prom dresses for themselves. Tags Seo forumsTips For Finding The Right Forum For You By Mike Morton Sep 28th 2012 - Finding the right discount prom dresses for you is not difficult as long as you follow these tips.When you meet your lady, spend some time to find out the kind of advice she has received from the agency.I was a teenager when she told me that, and to my astonishment, more than 20 years have passed since then.A growing number of retail merchants take their merchandise on the web market, and garments for prom night are not any exception.Whenever you have made up your mind to purchase a dress, it is sure that you hope the price is reasonable.Do not go through all the trouble of creating a life for two, unless you know this is what you both want.Last year, several New Directions members went in a group.

    Social SNS:facebook.com