IANAL, and I definitely am not an expert on UK copyright law, but the current US construction of digital copies is that, in fact, the replication of digital materials in RAM for the purposes of using the information is , in fact, a copy.
The way UK law is actually written is that not only is whatever is in the "RAM" a copy, but also image on the TV, the image on the retina and whatever chemical changes might happen in people's brains.
There are elements of the current code that try to work around it, but the basic principle is essentially held as appropriate.
Whilst the details appear different from one side of the Atlantic to the other what is actually going on is similar. Probably because the same interests were involved in the lobbying.
Conventional software is even more specific, you have to press that "ok" button for the software is installed and once you've done that, you've signed the EULA in a legally binding matter.
So you've bought software that's not encumbered by any licensing agreements, and you take it home. But then it demands that you license. Well, I guess you're screwed....
So maybe they have also offered you a licence to use the game, if needed by applicable law.
Another point Re: EULAs - while it's true that you don't neccesarily have to sign to agree to a license, you DO have to agree - if you aren't presented with opporunity to rejet it, then you aren't bound by it.
Also implicit in the idea of contracts is that until explictally agreed by all parties they are part of negotiations between the parties.
I've never been asked to sign a EULA contract before buying a piece of retail software, therefore no contract is agreed upon at sale.
Since most EULA's are hidden inside the box, or even in the install program, not displayed in the store or printed on the box, the so-called "click-thru licenses" are conditions imposed unilaterally after the sale, and thus are meaningless babble.
Hence the likes of UCITA to actually give such entities a status similar to contracts. Whilst you don't actually need a signature in the UK (as you don't for various kinds of contracts in most places, imagine trying to run a bus or train service if you did) you do, IIRC, need all parties to actually know each other exist. (Which is only possible with software which must be registered in order to work at all.)
The manufacturer can put any bullshit he likes in the EULA; just because it's written in small print with the word "License" at the top doesn't make it stop being meaningless bullshit. You may worship bullshit in small print as if it were stone tablets handed down from Mt. Sinai;
Even if some of it might have some legal standing it dosn't mean that all of it does. Contracts can't alter or revoke statutes, nor can they oblige people to break the law.
The license agreement is a (supposedly) legally-binding contract that defines the conditions by which you use the material you've bought. If the license says you can only use it between noon and 3pm then that's what you should, in theory, do. So if a license says "This software is licensed for use in the UK only" then that's the only place the software is legal. Whether we like it or not, that's the law.
Except that if the licence is intended to work as a "contract" then laws about contracts come into play. Trying to make a contract where one party does not even know if another party exists is in itself rather questionable under contract law in most parts of the world. Also it matters a lot if the other party is or isn't a minor (many organisations won't knowingly make contracts with minors in the UK, because they would no standing in court whilst the minor party would.) Effectivly if "shrinkwrap" contracts were legal then "letter opening" contracts would probably also be legal. Sony wouldn't like it if they got a letter saying "by the action of opening this letter you transfer ownership of Sony to me".
Having the ability to pirate and being a pirate are two very differen things.
Anyway actual "piracy" in terms of producing and distributing copies always has been against the law. If not against copyright then issues such as counterfitting and fraud can easily arise (especially with a "commercial pirate".)
I have a mod chip on my original PSX. If I wanted to, I could play ISO images off of CD-Rs. But I don't. I got the chip solely for the purpose of playing import games. Now, whether you think that playing an import game on a domestic system is piracy, then yes I'm a pirate by your definition. But I had better not be one by the law's definition.
That's exactly what Sony wants the law to be. Also for there to be no distinction between you and someone who is selling ripped off copies of their games by the box load. (Wouldn't want public outcry, since that might get the law changed. Assuming politicans actually cared one way or the other about this.)
What law says I can't buy a foreign dvd? Since when has customs confiscated such items?
Whilst there probably isn't such a law and probably can't be, due to various treaties on "free trade", what the people involved are trying to do is make things such that you cannot actually do anything useful with such an import. Effectivly you have paid good money for something only fit for sitting under your coffee cup.
Isn't it absurd that legality could depend on an internal technical detail of the device? We're not talking about persistent copies here.
However it isn't "obviously daft" to professional lawyers, especially when translated into legal jargon. Also laws are rarely written to exclude obviously daft applications, because that is "obvious".
THe whole reason for this is to prevent free trade.
Whilst many nations, including all of G8, claim to be pro "free trade".
If you can partitian a market, to the level of world regions, countries, states, cities, or even individuals, then you can always charge more.
Especially if you are setting these partitions yourself, rather than using boundries set by a third party
These artificial price distinctions allow 'value based pricing', where the price paid for a good is the same as its percieved value.
When customers, be they end users or retailers find out this is happening they tend to be displeased. When they find out that it's not illegal they are even more displeased, should they find out that the law can be used to prevent their doing anything about it they have every reason to be angry.
As there is (at least some) free trade, producers of goods cannot do that. They must sell at a uniform price, for otherwise, people will just ship the goods from where they are cheap to where they are artificially expensive. This makes economic sense, because it insures that goods will be sold closer to their marginal costs of production.
Howevere the megacorps want this to only work to their advantage. Sony is probably quite happy to have a "global market" for it to obtain labour, materials and parts to produce game consoles and game media. However when it comes to their selling they want a market partitioned to their liking.
Its also the reason that manufactures don't liked used goods. Because used goods also threaten those artificially inflated prices. Because 'the new economy is different', they've managed to shut down used software.
The only comparable market would be diamonds, De Beers came up with the advertising "A diamond is forever" because their whole existance relies on control of supply. Any major trading in second hand diamonds would destroy their control. Software can be even more indestructable than diamonds.
Because the license in question gives you rights above what copyright law (in the UK at least) provides you with.
Which would be fine, were it not the the little matter of Sony (amongst others) having been working hard to have copyright laws altered to work in that way. Effectivly over most of the world we no longer have "copyright", but instead "useright". But the extra bits only apply to big corporates. Could you even imagine something like an OS programmer using the DMCA (or similar) to tear up Microsoft.
It says so in the Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 [hmso.gov.uk] in the UK, and the DMCA in the US. It's perfectly clear, we just didn't realise how badly we'd been buttfucked until recently.
Most people still don't realise. Not also that there are consistant attempts to link actual "piracy" with activities which look more like people trying to follow sensible interpretations of the basic idea of copyright.
North American English speakers have been insulated slightly because they get region 1 English-only DVD's first with all the extra features, while everybody else has to wait and get a compromise.
Also insulated because TV series tend to be shown first in the US, though because of the strange way things work there, it's possible for the final parts of a series to be shown first somewhere else in the world.
If regioning was really a language issue, as was originally claimed, why is the UK in Region 2 with Europe (so we'd get English language with all the extra features rather than several different European language versions) rather than in Region 1 with North America?
Let alone that English is the official language of another continent and various places through Africa and Asia.
Yes, but copying the game into memory is unauthorised unless the copyright holder gives you permission under UK law. The copyright holder is at liberty to only give you permission in certain areas of the world.
It's also the case in the US, IIRC. Even though it involves a bogus argument, but one obscrated and jargonised enough that professional lawyers would accept it as valid. Though they did eventually realise that banning caching proxies was too silly. Had these kind of machines been around 2-300 years ago then the distinction between "copying" as an integral part of using, "copying" for the purpose of presevartion and "copying" the the purpose of actually distributing copies would have probably been "hard coded" into the US (and anywhere derived from it) constitution.
'Judge Jacob stated that Sony licensed games for the territory that they were issued, the licensing of these games did not allow for their use in other territories, therefore whether they were imported for private and domestic use by personal purchase for instance via the internet, or purchased abroad on holiday, they were not allowed by Sony to be played outside of the licensed territory, this argument should be upheld.' Ok, so now I am not allowed to leave where I live and play my games where I travel to? I don't understand this.
You could apply much the same argument and get "Sony only make games using resources available in the area they intend to sell them in". In other words a "level playing field". Alternativly if Sony wants to pick and choose where in the world it manufactures and sources then the "territory" should automatically be (something like) "anywhere within a spherical volume of 1 million miles from the Earth's core".
Someone had a small housefire that destroyed most of his CD collection, and argued that the music companies, because they had stated that the CD wasn't the actual thing that people were buying, but the license to listen to the music ON the CD, that they should replace said disc, because his license was an intangible and did not perish with the physical medium.
Except that it would be hard to prove that he ever had the licence if the media were totally destroyed. If they had obsolete, broken, damaged (but recognisable) media then they would have had a point. Or they had other evidence e.g. from retailers. Of course he may have got further had it been his insurance company making this point.
Nobody bought it, of course; the problem with MegaOmniCorp&Congomeration is that they play by one set of rules when it pleases them, and another when it doesn't.
Actually the rule is know as "heads I win, tails you lose"...
I know the feeling. I've got this box of 8 track tapes from the 70's that won't play properly any more. The pressure pads have fallen off and the tape splices keep breaking. None of the music shops will trade them for replacements. I still have the license to play these if only I could. My box of LP's are not in too good of shape either, but they still play.
However the music publishing companies don't want to to be able to say "here's my old media (which proves I have a licence to the music) and a nominal fee can I have the same thing on new media please". The old media might be obsolete or it might be simply damaged or worn out. If the new media really does have additional content on then a fair "trade in" would be in proportion with the added content. However the people doing the publishing don't want this, even though it's the logical consequence of selling a licence to use.
The kids' consoles (he has more than one of some platforms) have been modded to accept copies -- except the Mega CD which doesn't need to be modded. He never lets them near the originals, he burns a copy that they use and when (not if) they've killed it he burns another. If he can't make a backup for the kids to play, then the product is of much less use to him.
In many places this is actually against the letter of the law (no doubt in places where it isn't there are armies of lawyers and professional lobbiests working on getting the law changed.)
Obviously you don't have kids. If you had, you'd be all for backups. Yes, all my Final Fantasy Discs are in mint condition. Yes, all my classical CDs are in mint condition. However, looking at the kids CDs and kids discs, they're all pretty beat up.
The sensible option would be to copy, use the copies and keep the originals secure. But not only can that have technical difficulties it can also be illegal. Effectivly you can end up with the law obliging you to use the original media, even though what you have supposedly bought is an abstract permission to use.
Just recently, my 5yo snapped a PS2 disc trying to take it out of the case. OK, it was his fault, he was a little too eager, and I ate the $50 loss. But that's exactly why we should be allowed to create and use backups.
Of course if you really had just purchased a licence for the game you'd be able to exchange your broken disk for a new disk for something under 5 USD.
As to wheather I expect the judge not to apply the law, yes I do expect he should rule as the law is printed, and as he sees fit. However, I also think that perhaps he should make it his problem to highlight the fact that the law being presented was passed well before the technology it's being applied to.
Is their no procedure by which a judge can effect refer the case to legislature. In cases where there are mutually exclusive laws or where the letter of the law is against a well publicised government policy.
You are legally allowed to make and keep backups of your software. Right or wrong, the hardware manuf. is not legally obligated to allow you to use the backups, though.
But should they have the ability to prevent you being able to use your backups or to prevent a third party providing something to enable you to do so. Effectivly it's case of "we can't take that right away from people, but we can manipulate things such that for all practical purposes the right is useles". The difference between these situations is really a matter of hair splitting.
If any of you actually bothered to read the article, you would see that the judge acknowledge that there were plenty of legal things this chip allowed you to do, but because it also allowed the illegal playing of pirated games this outweighed the good points and THAT IS WHY SONY WON THE CASE. RTFM!!!
Which is a very dangerous ruling, maybe someone should ban the judge using the same reasoning that his potential for illegal acts outways any posible good he might do...
"We want a global economy, but we don't really want you to participate in it.
Where "we" only includes menbers of an exclusive club. Which dosn't include regular people and dosn't even include the vast majority of corporates, outside of some very specific areas of business.
No, what we mean by 'Global' is that we (the companies of the world) will be free to sell our crap world-wide and determine who gets it, for how much, and just when/how they can use it."
It's not even all the "companies of the world" since those who's business is actually selling things to people (including some quite large ones) are also being excluded. If you had a "global" economy there would be no such thing as "grey"/"parallel"/etc imports. If say a major supermarket chain wanted to sell jeans at cut price then if the manufacturer wanted to go to court then the judge would tell them go away and invoice them for wasting his or her time.
But this is the NEW economy. You're supposed to want what they want to sell you. And if the economy isn't looking too healthy it's your patriotic duty to mindlessly consume.
It all sounds a bit too close to Soylent Green.
Not quite, more like a set of short stories, by Fred Poul, IIRC. Called "Midas World".
If Sony of America Inc can't compete in terms of price and
availability with Sony of Japan Inc, then they SHOULDN'T be
getting any money.
Is Sony of America Inc obliged to operate in such a way that it must use components manufactured in North America and assembly performed by Americans? Similarly for Sony of Japan, and Sony of Europe. Or is it the case that these companies are quite willing to scour the planet when it comes to making their products. In which case why shouldn't customers (and retailers) be able to do the same? As for the possibility of various devisions of SOny "competing" this dosn't appear to be a problem for the likes of Unilever who populate supermarkets with supposely competing brands of products.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, and I definitely am not an expert on UK copyright law, but the current US construction of digital copies is that, in fact, the replication of digital materials in RAM for the purposes of using the information is , in fact, a copy.
The way UK law is actually written is that not only is whatever is in the "RAM" a copy, but also image on the TV, the image on the retina and whatever chemical changes might happen in people's brains.
There are elements of the current code that try to work around it, but the basic principle is essentially held as appropriate.
Whilst the details appear different from one side of the Atlantic to the other what is actually going on is similar. Probably because the same interests were involved in the lobbying.
Conventional software is even more specific, you have to press that "ok" button for the software is installed and once you've done that, you've signed the EULA in a legally binding matter.
If they were why do you thing UCITA exists?
So you've bought software that's not encumbered by any licensing agreements, and you take it home. But then it demands that you license. Well, I guess you're screwed....
So maybe they have also offered you a licence to use the game, if needed by applicable law.
Another point Re: EULAs - while it's true that you don't neccesarily have to sign to agree to a license, you DO have to agree - if you aren't presented with opporunity to rejet it, then you aren't bound by it.
Also implicit in the idea of contracts is that until explictally agreed by all parties they are part of negotiations between the parties.
I've never been asked to sign a EULA contract before buying a piece of retail software, therefore no contract is agreed upon at sale.
Since most EULA's are hidden inside the box, or even in the install program, not displayed in the store or printed on the box, the so-called "click-thru licenses" are conditions imposed unilaterally after the sale, and thus are meaningless babble.
Hence the likes of UCITA to actually give such entities a status similar to contracts.
Whilst you don't actually need a signature in the UK (as you don't for various kinds of contracts in most places, imagine trying to run a bus or train service if you did) you do, IIRC, need all parties to actually know each other exist. (Which is only possible with software which must be registered in order to work at all.)
The manufacturer can put any bullshit he likes in the EULA; just because it's written in small print with the word "License" at the top doesn't make it stop being meaningless bullshit. You may worship bullshit in small print as if it were stone tablets handed down from Mt. Sinai;
Even if some of it might have some legal standing it dosn't mean that all of it does. Contracts can't alter or revoke statutes, nor can they oblige people to break the law.
The license agreement is a (supposedly) legally-binding contract that defines the conditions by which you use the material you've bought. If the license says you can only use it between noon and 3pm then that's what you should, in theory, do. So if a license says "This software is licensed for use in the UK only" then that's the only place the software is legal. Whether we like it or not, that's the law.
Except that if the licence is intended to work as a "contract" then laws about contracts come into play. Trying to make a contract where one party does not even know if another party exists is in itself rather questionable under contract law in most parts of the world. Also it matters a lot if the other party is or isn't a minor (many organisations won't knowingly make contracts with minors in the UK, because they would no standing in court whilst the minor party would.)
Effectivly if "shrinkwrap" contracts were legal then "letter opening" contracts would probably also be legal. Sony wouldn't like it if they got a letter saying "by the action of opening this letter you transfer ownership of Sony to me".
Having the ability to pirate and being a pirate are two very differen things.
Anyway actual "piracy" in terms of producing and distributing copies always has been against the law. If not against copyright then issues such as counterfitting and fraud can easily arise (especially with a "commercial pirate".)
I have a mod chip on my original PSX. If I wanted to, I could play ISO images off of CD-Rs. But I don't. I got the chip solely for the purpose of playing import games. Now, whether you think that playing an import game on a domestic system is piracy, then yes I'm a pirate by your definition. But I had better not be one by the law's definition.
That's exactly what Sony wants the law to be. Also for there to be no distinction between you and someone who is selling ripped off copies of their games by the box load. (Wouldn't want public outcry, since that might get the law changed. Assuming politicans actually cared one way or the other about this.)
What law says I can't buy a foreign dvd? Since when has customs confiscated such items?
Whilst there probably isn't such a law and probably can't be, due to various treaties on "free trade", what the people involved are trying to do is make things such that you cannot actually do anything useful with such an import. Effectivly you have paid good money for something only fit for sitting under your coffee cup.
Is it true that there's no "fair use" or "fair dealing" provision in UK copyright law?
There was, though those terms wern't used...
Isn't it absurd that legality could depend on an internal technical detail of the device? We're not talking about persistent copies here.
However it isn't "obviously daft" to professional lawyers, especially when translated into legal jargon. Also laws are rarely written to exclude obviously daft applications, because that is "obvious".
THe whole reason for this is to prevent free trade.
Whilst many nations, including all of G8, claim to be pro "free trade".
If you can partitian a market, to the level of world regions, countries, states, cities, or even individuals, then you can always charge more.
Especially if you are setting these partitions yourself, rather than using boundries set by a third party
These artificial price distinctions allow 'value based pricing', where the price paid for a good is the same as its percieved value.
When customers, be they end users or retailers find out this is happening they tend to be displeased. When they find out that it's not illegal they are even more displeased, should they find out that the law can be used to prevent their doing anything about it they have every reason to be angry.
As there is (at least some) free trade, producers of goods cannot do that. They must sell at a uniform price, for otherwise, people will just ship the goods from where they are cheap to where they are artificially expensive. This makes economic sense, because it insures that goods will be sold closer to their marginal costs of production.
Howevere the megacorps want this to only work to their advantage. Sony is probably quite happy to have a "global market" for it to obtain labour, materials and parts to produce game consoles and game media. However when it comes to their selling they want a market partitioned to their liking.
Its also the reason that manufactures don't liked used goods. Because used goods also threaten those artificially inflated prices. Because 'the new economy is different', they've managed to shut down used software.
The only comparable market would be diamonds, De Beers came up with the advertising "A diamond is forever" because their whole existance relies on control of supply. Any major trading in second hand diamonds would destroy their control. Software can be even more indestructable than diamonds.
Because the license in question gives you rights above what copyright law (in the UK at least) provides you with.
Which would be fine, were it not the the little matter of Sony (amongst others) having been working hard to have copyright laws altered to work in that way.
Effectivly over most of the world we no longer have "copyright", but instead "useright".
But the extra bits only apply to big corporates. Could you even imagine something like an OS programmer using the DMCA (or similar) to tear up Microsoft.
It says so in the Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 [hmso.gov.uk] in the UK, and the DMCA in the US. It's perfectly clear, we just didn't realise how badly we'd been buttfucked until recently.
Most people still don't realise. Not also that there are consistant attempts to link actual "piracy" with activities which look more like people trying to follow sensible interpretations of the basic idea of copyright.
North American English speakers have been insulated slightly because they get region 1 English-only DVD's first with all the extra features, while everybody else has to wait and get a compromise.
Also insulated because TV series tend to be shown first in the US, though because of the strange way things work there, it's possible for the final parts of a series to be shown first somewhere else in the world.
If regioning was really a language issue, as was originally claimed, why is the UK in Region 2 with Europe (so we'd get English language with all the extra features rather than several different European language versions) rather than in Region 1 with North America?
Let alone that English is the official language of another continent and various places through Africa and Asia.
Yes, but copying the game into memory is unauthorised unless the copyright holder gives you permission under UK law. The copyright holder is at liberty to only give you permission in certain areas of the world.
It's also the case in the US, IIRC. Even though it involves a bogus argument, but one obscrated and jargonised enough that professional lawyers would accept it as valid.
Though they did eventually realise that banning caching proxies was too silly.
Had these kind of machines been around 2-300 years ago then the distinction between "copying" as an integral part of using, "copying" for the purpose of presevartion and "copying" the the purpose of actually distributing copies would have probably been "hard coded" into the US (and anywhere derived from it) constitution.
'Judge Jacob stated that Sony licensed games for the territory that they were issued, the licensing of these games did not allow for their use in other territories, therefore whether they were imported for private and domestic use by personal purchase for instance via the internet, or purchased abroad on holiday, they were not allowed by Sony to be played outside of the licensed territory, this argument should be upheld.' Ok, so now I am not allowed to leave where I live and play my games where I travel to? I don't understand this.
You could apply much the same argument and get "Sony only make games using resources available in the area they intend to sell them in". In other words a "level playing field". Alternativly if Sony wants to pick and choose where in the world it manufactures and sources then the "territory" should automatically be (something like) "anywhere within a spherical volume of 1 million miles from the Earth's core".
Someone had a small housefire that destroyed most of his CD collection, and argued that the music companies, because they had stated that the CD wasn't the actual thing that people were buying, but the license to listen to the music ON the CD, that they should replace said disc, because his license was an intangible and did not perish with the physical medium.
Except that it would be hard to prove that he ever had the licence if the media were totally destroyed. If they had obsolete, broken, damaged (but recognisable) media then they would have had a point. Or they had other evidence e.g. from retailers. Of course he may have got further had it been his insurance company making this point.
Nobody bought it, of course; the problem with MegaOmniCorp&Congomeration is that they play by one set of rules when it pleases them, and another when it doesn't.
Actually the rule is know as "heads I win, tails you lose"...
I know the feeling. I've got this box of 8 track tapes from the 70's that won't play properly any more. The pressure pads have fallen off and the tape splices keep breaking. None of the music shops will trade them for replacements. I still have the license to play these if only I could. My box of LP's are not in too good of shape either, but they still play.
However the music publishing companies don't want to to be able to say "here's my old media (which proves I have a licence to the music) and a nominal fee can I have the same thing on new media please". The old media might be obsolete or it might be simply damaged or worn out.
If the new media really does have additional content on then a fair "trade in" would be in proportion with the added content.
However the people doing the publishing don't want this, even though it's the logical consequence of selling a licence to use.
The kids' consoles (he has more than one of some platforms) have been modded to accept copies -- except the Mega CD which doesn't need to be modded. He never lets them near the originals, he burns a copy that they use and when (not if) they've killed it he burns another. If he can't make a backup for the kids to play, then the product is of much less use to him.
In many places this is actually against the letter of the law (no doubt in places where it isn't there are armies of lawyers and professional lobbiests working on getting the law changed.)
Obviously you don't have kids. If you had, you'd be all for backups. Yes, all my Final Fantasy Discs are in mint condition. Yes, all my classical CDs are in mint condition. However, looking at the kids CDs and kids discs, they're all pretty beat up.
The sensible option would be to copy, use the copies and keep the originals secure. But not only can that have technical difficulties it can also be illegal. Effectivly you can end up with the law obliging you to use the original media, even though what you have supposedly bought is an abstract permission to use.
Just recently, my 5yo snapped a PS2 disc trying to take it out of the case. OK, it was his fault, he was a little too eager, and I ate the $50 loss. But that's exactly why we should be allowed to create and use backups.
Of course if you really had just purchased a licence for the game you'd be able to exchange your broken disk for a new disk for something under 5 USD.
As to wheather I expect the judge not to apply the law, yes I do expect he should rule as the law is printed, and as he sees fit. However, I also think that perhaps he should make it his problem to highlight the fact that the law being presented was passed well before the technology it's being applied to.
Is their no procedure by which a judge can effect refer the case to legislature. In cases where there are mutually exclusive laws or where the letter of the law is against a well publicised government policy.
You are legally allowed to make and keep backups of your software. Right or wrong, the hardware manuf. is not legally obligated to allow you to use the backups, though.
But should they have the ability to prevent you being able to use your backups or to prevent a third party providing something to enable you to do so.
Effectivly it's case of "we can't take that right away from people, but we can manipulate things such that for all practical purposes the right is useles". The difference between these situations is really a matter of hair splitting.
If any of you actually bothered to read the article, you would see that the judge acknowledge that there were plenty of legal things this chip allowed you to do, but because it also allowed the illegal playing of pirated games this outweighed the good points and THAT IS WHY SONY WON THE CASE. RTFM!!!
Which is a very dangerous ruling, maybe someone should ban the judge using the same reasoning that his potential for illegal acts outways any posible good he might do...
"We want a global economy, but we don't really want you to participate in it.
Where "we" only includes menbers of an exclusive club. Which dosn't include regular people and dosn't even include the vast majority of corporates, outside of some very specific areas of business.
No, what we mean by 'Global' is that we (the companies of the world) will be free to sell our crap world-wide and determine who gets it, for how much, and just when/how they can use it."
It's not even all the "companies of the world" since those who's business is actually selling things to people (including some quite large ones) are also being excluded.
If you had a "global" economy there would be no such thing as "grey"/"parallel"/etc imports. If say a major supermarket chain wanted to sell jeans at cut price then if the manufacturer wanted to go to court then the judge would tell them go away and invoice them for wasting his or her time.
But this is the NEW economy. You're supposed to want what they want to sell you. And if the economy isn't looking too healthy it's your patriotic duty to mindlessly consume.
It all sounds a bit too close to Soylent Green.
Not quite, more like a set of short stories, by Fred Poul, IIRC. Called "Midas World".
If Sony of America Inc can't compete in terms of price and
availability with Sony of Japan Inc, then they SHOULDN'T be
getting any money.
Is Sony of America Inc obliged to operate in such a way that it must use components manufactured in North America and assembly performed by Americans? Similarly for Sony of Japan, and Sony of Europe.
Or is it the case that these companies are quite willing to scour the planet when it comes to making their products. In which case why shouldn't customers (and retailers) be able to do the same?
As for the possibility of various devisions of SOny "competing" this dosn't appear to be a problem for the likes of Unilever who populate supermarkets with supposely competing brands of products.