That's MapleStory's claim, though. The DRM was the technology that managed the contractually-defined rights of the user: to use the client to connect to MapleStory's servers. UMaple never contested MapleStory's claim that the software included DRM. If they had turned up in court and demonstrated that MapleStory's software did not warrant the title "DRM", then we would have maybe seen some solid precedent over what constitutes DRM in terms of the DCMA. But the didn't, so we haven't.
If the fuel cap said "property of Ford motors -- only to be removed by authorised personnel" and the pump attendant prised it off with a crowbar, I think it would be the petrol station's problem.
Because they wrote a piece of software with the express purpose of breaking MapleStory's DRM, DRM which forces the client to connect to the official server.
No, Nexon's argument is "this free client is explicitly and expressly provided for connecting to our service". IE is for connecting to an website -- explicitly and expressly. Please go and learn what logic actually is...
Or, if UMaple doesn't have much in the way of assets, they might just declare bankruptcy and walk away from the whole thing. That'd probably be the smart move.
Unless UMaple is a registered limited liability company, that means the guys running it going personally bankrupt, and spending the next couple of decades with a toxic credit rating.
That's definitely a problem, but not the one at issue here. I'd say that problem has to do with the contracts artists enter into with big companies to sell their work for them. In this case the artist (or developer) was already paid the pittance they agreed to write the software for I'm quite sure.
Are you saying no-one pirates indies? Then what's this "Machinarium" thing I've just seen on the Pirate Bay...?
Grey importers tend not to offer the same level of support as legitimate importers. In fact, a great many of them fail to fulfill their basic obligations as the surrogate manufacturer. A non-negligible part of the difference in costs of physical goods in various countries is down to the cost of complying with local consumer protection legislation, including contingency for dealing with returns.
In a country where you've got little or no comeback against sales of faulty goods, goods are cheaper. In countries where you've got to maintain a contingency fund in case of a mass recall, goods are more expensive. And that's all good and proper.
The problem as I see it is that he's explicitly using the Penn & Teller brand in his marketing efforts. That YouTube video is an ad. He is selling stuff off the back of Penn and Teller. So maybe he should really be going after them for abuse of trademark, and get a forward injunction on future sales based on the argument that the initial breach of trademark law is directly responsible for the level of publicity received and the future sales potential of the trick.
This book is a tangible thing that is not licensed but sold. Once you have sold a tangible thing, it is not yours anymore and you cannot place restrictions on what the new owner wants to do with it. The IP in the book is a different (non-tangible) thing, and that is what you license, hence you cannot simply reproduce it.
While that may be technically true, it is a fairly widely applied principle that an importer assumes the responsibilities of a manufacturer when goods are produced outside of a particular jurisdiction. This is for consumer protection -- just because a factory isn't within a judges remit doesn't mean he can't stop goods being sold in his territory if they don't comply with local safety regulations.
The same principle extends to IP rights -- an importer is now considered responsible for ensuring publishing compliance. As he bought the books from someone with no rights to sell in the US, the US distribution is illegal.
Or more precisely, why should we as Westerners be obligated to subsidize the rest of the world to our own detriment?
What detriment? If they stopped selling cheap copies in poor countries, the publishers would be making less money overall and would therefore up the price in rich countries. Not by a lot -- in fact, it'd probably be the difference between $xy.95 and $xy.99 , and you personally wouldn't even notice it, but the current pricing regime is not to your detriment.
Because (just like in many countries) US law makes the first man in the onshore supply chain responsible for the supply chain up to that point. If I import electrical goods to the EU, I am responsible for getting safety and emissions compliance testing before I sell it -- the law sees me as "the manufacturer". By logical extension, if I import books instead, I am "the publisher" and responsible for the IP content.
Is it his responsibility to know that it is illegal? And more to the point, by which basis are they illegal?
As the first link in the supply chain within US jurisdiction, the buck stops with him in ensuring that the products he imports comply with US laws. If someone imports manufactured artifacts such as electronics, garden implements or clockwork bath toys, he assumes the manufacturer's liabilities with regards to safety, durability and usability. In the case of IP-based products, the importer assumes the responsibilities of the publisher. This individual is not authorised by the rights holders to publish the material, hence the breach of copyright law.
This isn't simply a law against "the little guy" -- it is protection for the consumer (another "little guy") and the author (who is often also a "little guy").
I get what you're saying about the legalities, but this really isn't a copyright issue, is it? This kid isn't attempting to publish the books or claim authorship, he's reselling.
Unfortunately, as the importer he is responsible for all steps in the supply chain that occur prior to the goods reaching US soil (this principle holds in many countries) so as far as the US is concerned he is the publisher.
Imagine if this was a piece of electronics instead of a book. As the last man in the US the buck would stop with him on issues like safety testing, radio emissions compliance, FCC licensing etc. If there was a fault with it discovered after sale, he's responsible for repair, replacement or refund.
I bought an MP3 player on eBay about three years ago. It claimed to be USB 2, but it was actually USB 1.1 . The guy who sold it tried to refuse responsibility "that's what they said it was", but it was his responsibility as a professional importer to inspect the goods and make sure they complied with UK laws (Sale of goods act, Sale and supply of goods act, etc). A great many small-scale importers neglect to do this and end up finding themselves out of business after a court finds against them, often losing their homes in the process.
The law isn't designed to punish the individual trader, but to protect the individual consumer. Unfortunately, too many individual traders are ignorant of their responsibilities. Proper import, with appropriate due dilligence, is actually quite expensive.
The only resentment here is against the stacked system, in which large corporate interests get to use the global market for labour and materials but small retailers and private individuals are legally restricted from doing the same for goods and services.
Nonsense. If I want to hire a bunch of penny-a-day workers to make books that I wrote as a private individual, there is nothing to stop me. Conversely, if John Wiley & Sons tried to import books that I had published to help educate those penny-a-day workers, the law would be on my side and I would be able to take them to court as a private individual, because they could and should have negotiated with me for the US publishing rights.
The law itself is not "stacked" at all. The only problem is with the level of remedies, which seems to assume traditional publishing and high turnover, whereas he was importing, hence low turnover.
I think it makes a decent enough analogy: copyright holders are the modern equivalent of the landed gentry, and the rest of us serfs have to pay absurd rent to them in order to get anything done.
That analogy only works if a medieval peasant was capable of making new land -- I can write my own books if I want, and nobody can stop me.
Not sure I agree that this is an injustice. The wealth imbalance mostly comes from the fact that first-world countries are better educated, better organised and more politically stable. Third-world countries benefit from having such neighbours or trading partners rather than other third-world countries.
Even this is debatable. Us better educated, politically stable countries also tend to subsidise farming and dump surplus crops on the market, forcing poorer countries into focusing on unsustainable cash crops. Do you think Columbian peasant farmers really want to trade with armed drugs gangs? They're not exactly the most reliable of clients, but if they're the only source of employment....
It's rather simple. A jury agreed the student violated the company's copyright by selling the foreign made book without permission. Apparently the Copyright Law in Thailand or where ever does permit people to resell the book.
That's not it at all. US copyright law says you can't publish without the author's consent. The author did not consent to those editions being published in the UK. Even though the defendant didn't publish in the typeset-and-print sense, as in importer he is the first link in the chain within US jurisdiction and therefore responsible for ensuring all US-law obligations are fulfilled.
Imagine you're an artist, and I'm a poor man who appreciates art. You sell me a painting for a couple of dollars, because that's all Ican afford. I know that you could have sold it for a couple of hundred to someone rich. Now what if I was to turn round and sell it to a rich man for $50? Would you be happy? Of course not, but we both know there's nothing you can do about it, because of the doctrine of first sale. But you're not going to sell me another painting are you?
That's the situation that cross-border copyright protection deals with. It allows us to sell things in different countries at prices the locals can afford. If differential pricing was illegal or unenforced, the price would be set for the west, and the rest of the world wouldn't be able to afford it. Not that missing out on Hollywood crap would be a great loss to the world, but not being able to buy Kernighan and Ritchie would be a massive problem for the Indian student population....
A book's value is mostly determined by its content and when you're marking that down in a foreign country through a foreign distributor, it's massively different than marking down a BMW in Mexico or a wristwatch in Switzerland.
I disagree. If he was scanning in and redistributing that content, sure, totally different. Yay cheap and trivial digital distribution. But he isn't. The book is a tangible good. With utility. You passed your class, didn't you? Not that much different from a BMW or a watch.
A book is a tangible item. However, it's value is not in the number of paper fibres or millilitres of ink, it is in the content of the words. That's the whole point of intellectual property.
Intellectual property isn't slavery. Instead, differential pricing is a symptom of the west keeping the rest of the world in virtual servitude. Differential pricing reflects the massive difference in earnings globally. When in the UK no-one is allowed to pay less than £6 an hour, and in other countries people are working for a penny a day, why is it that people resent the penny-a-day worker for being able to buy a textbook that would cost us a day's work after he's been saving up for 6 months to buy it? Is he really paying less than us?
It's absolutely unjust and ridiculous (just like much of copyright law) -- which means the Supreme Court will probably support it.
It isn't unjust in and of itself, but a means of maintaining an injustice that all of us rich westerners profit from.
I'm willing to wager everyone reading this owns a lot of things produced in cheaper, underdeveloped countries with poor labour and human rights laws. We can afford to buy lots of their stuff because they're paid less for their time than we are.
Our authors expect similar wages to us as consumers, so books are priced to give them something worthwhile. But people in poorer countries can't afford this. The authors accept a lower profit in poorer countries, because that's the only way they'll get anything out of them.
Now, if the UN passed a resolution demanding free trade rules be applied to all IP-based goods, do you think suppliers would adopt first-world prices or third-world prices...? So what we'd be left with is a world where only people in rich countries can afford university textbooks. Which would reduce the education level in developing countries, making them poorer. And also less qualified to make cheap goods for us.
I've looked at two projects so far. Both were PhD students, so it's pretty safe to assume they're being overseen. One was wanting the money to pay for hosting and Amazon Turk human labour to carry out the work on a massive scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing more than breaking a promise. And we all know breaking a promise is fine, right?
That's MapleStory's claim, though. The DRM was the technology that managed the contractually-defined rights of the user: to use the client to connect to MapleStory's servers. UMaple never contested MapleStory's claim that the software included DRM. If they had turned up in court and demonstrated that MapleStory's software did not warrant the title "DRM", then we would have maybe seen some solid precedent over what constitutes DRM in terms of the DCMA. But the didn't, so we haven't.
Is it bait and switch if the bait is essentially free?
Probably. But it's not bait and switch if there's no switch. MapleStory's Ts & Cs are relatively clear. There is no switch.
If the fuel cap said "property of Ford motors -- only to be removed by authorised personnel" and the pump attendant prised it off with a crowbar, I think it would be the petrol station's problem.
Because they wrote a piece of software with the express purpose of breaking MapleStory's DRM, DRM which forces the client to connect to the official server.
No, Nexon's argument is "this free client is explicitly and expressly provided for connecting to our service". IE is for connecting to an website -- explicitly and expressly. Please go and learn what logic actually is...
Or, if UMaple doesn't have much in the way of assets, they might just declare bankruptcy and walk away from the whole thing. That'd probably be the smart move.
Unless UMaple is a registered limited liability company, that means the guys running it going personally bankrupt, and spending the next couple of decades with a toxic credit rating.
That's definitely a problem, but not the one at issue here. I'd say that problem has to do with the contracts artists enter into with big companies to sell their work for them. In this case the artist (or developer) was already paid the pittance they agreed to write the software for I'm quite sure.
Are you saying no-one pirates indies? Then what's this "Machinarium" thing I've just seen on the Pirate Bay...?
Grey importers tend not to offer the same level of support as legitimate importers. In fact, a great many of them fail to fulfill their basic obligations as the surrogate manufacturer. A non-negligible part of the difference in costs of physical goods in various countries is down to the cost of complying with local consumer protection legislation, including contingency for dealing with returns.
In a country where you've got little or no comeback against sales of faulty goods, goods are cheaper. In countries where you've got to maintain a contingency fund in case of a mass recall, goods are more expensive. And that's all good and proper.
The masked magician took his mask off 14 years ago. His name's Val Valentino.
The problem as I see it is that he's explicitly using the Penn & Teller brand in his marketing efforts. That YouTube video is an ad. He is selling stuff off the back of Penn and Teller. So maybe he should really be going after them for abuse of trademark, and get a forward injunction on future sales based on the argument that the initial breach of trademark law is directly responsible for the level of publicity received and the future sales potential of the trick.
This book is a tangible thing that is not licensed but sold. Once you have sold a tangible thing, it is not yours anymore and you cannot place restrictions on what the new owner wants to do with it. The IP in the book is a different (non-tangible) thing, and that is what you license, hence you cannot simply reproduce it.
While that may be technically true, it is a fairly widely applied principle that an importer assumes the responsibilities of a manufacturer when goods are produced outside of a particular jurisdiction. This is for consumer protection -- just because a factory isn't within a judges remit doesn't mean he can't stop goods being sold in his territory if they don't comply with local safety regulations.
The same principle extends to IP rights -- an importer is now considered responsible for ensuring publishing compliance. As he bought the books from someone with no rights to sell in the US, the US distribution is illegal.
Or more precisely, why should we as Westerners be obligated to subsidize the rest of the world to our own detriment?
What detriment? If they stopped selling cheap copies in poor countries, the publishers would be making less money overall and would therefore up the price in rich countries. Not by a lot -- in fact, it'd probably be the difference between $xy.95 and $xy.99 , and you personally wouldn't even notice it, but the current pricing regime is not to your detriment.
Because (just like in many countries) US law makes the first man in the onshore supply chain responsible for the supply chain up to that point. If I import electrical goods to the EU, I am responsible for getting safety and emissions compliance testing before I sell it -- the law sees me as "the manufacturer". By logical extension, if I import books instead, I am "the publisher" and responsible for the IP content.
Is it his responsibility to know that it is illegal? And more to the point, by which basis are they illegal?
As the first link in the supply chain within US jurisdiction, the buck stops with him in ensuring that the products he imports comply with US laws. If someone imports manufactured artifacts such as electronics, garden implements or clockwork bath toys, he assumes the manufacturer's liabilities with regards to safety, durability and usability. In the case of IP-based products, the importer assumes the responsibilities of the publisher. This individual is not authorised by the rights holders to publish the material, hence the breach of copyright law.
This isn't simply a law against "the little guy" -- it is protection for the consumer (another "little guy") and the author (who is often also a "little guy").
I get what you're saying about the legalities, but this really isn't a copyright issue, is it? This kid isn't attempting to publish the books or claim authorship, he's reselling.
Unfortunately, as the importer he is responsible for all steps in the supply chain that occur prior to the goods reaching US soil (this principle holds in many countries) so as far as the US is concerned he is the publisher.
Imagine if this was a piece of electronics instead of a book. As the last man in the US the buck would stop with him on issues like safety testing, radio emissions compliance, FCC licensing etc. If there was a fault with it discovered after sale, he's responsible for repair, replacement or refund.
I bought an MP3 player on eBay about three years ago. It claimed to be USB 2, but it was actually USB 1.1 . The guy who sold it tried to refuse responsibility "that's what they said it was", but it was his responsibility as a professional importer to inspect the goods and make sure they complied with UK laws (Sale of goods act, Sale and supply of goods act, etc). A great many small-scale importers neglect to do this and end up finding themselves out of business after a court finds against them, often losing their homes in the process.
The law isn't designed to punish the individual trader, but to protect the individual consumer. Unfortunately, too many individual traders are ignorant of their responsibilities. Proper import, with appropriate due dilligence, is actually quite expensive.
The only resentment here is against the stacked system, in which large corporate interests get to use the global market for labour and materials but small retailers and private individuals are legally restricted from doing the same for goods and services.
Nonsense. If I want to hire a bunch of penny-a-day workers to make books that I wrote as a private individual, there is nothing to stop me. Conversely, if John Wiley & Sons tried to import books that I had published to help educate those penny-a-day workers, the law would be on my side and I would be able to take them to court as a private individual, because they could and should have negotiated with me for the US publishing rights.
The law itself is not "stacked" at all. The only problem is with the level of remedies, which seems to assume traditional publishing and high turnover, whereas he was importing, hence low turnover.
I think it makes a decent enough analogy: copyright holders are the modern equivalent of the landed gentry, and the rest of us serfs have to pay absurd rent to them in order to get anything done.
That analogy only works if a medieval peasant was capable of making new land -- I can write my own books if I want, and nobody can stop me.
Not sure I agree that this is an injustice. The wealth imbalance mostly comes from the fact that first-world countries are better educated, better organised and more politically stable. Third-world countries benefit from having such neighbours or trading partners rather than other third-world countries.
Even this is debatable. Us better educated, politically stable countries also tend to subsidise farming and dump surplus crops on the market, forcing poorer countries into focusing on unsustainable cash crops. Do you think Columbian peasant farmers really want to trade with armed drugs gangs? They're not exactly the most reliable of clients, but if they're the only source of employment....
It's rather simple. A jury agreed the student violated the company's copyright by selling the foreign made book without permission. Apparently the Copyright Law in Thailand or where ever does permit people to resell the book.
That's not it at all. US copyright law says you can't publish without the author's consent. The author did not consent to those editions being published in the UK. Even though the defendant didn't publish in the typeset-and-print sense, as in importer he is the first link in the chain within US jurisdiction and therefore responsible for ensuring all US-law obligations are fulfilled.
Imagine you're an artist, and I'm a poor man who appreciates art. You sell me a painting for a couple of dollars, because that's all Ican afford. I know that you could have sold it for a couple of hundred to someone rich. Now what if I was to turn round and sell it to a rich man for $50? Would you be happy? Of course not, but we both know there's nothing you can do about it, because of the doctrine of first sale. But you're not going to sell me another painting are you?
That's the situation that cross-border copyright protection deals with. It allows us to sell things in different countries at prices the locals can afford. If differential pricing was illegal or unenforced, the price would be set for the west, and the rest of the world wouldn't be able to afford it. Not that missing out on Hollywood crap would be a great loss to the world, but not being able to buy Kernighan and Ritchie would be a massive problem for the Indian student population....
A book's value is mostly determined by its content and when you're marking that down in a foreign country through a foreign distributor, it's massively different than marking down a BMW in Mexico or a wristwatch in Switzerland.
I disagree. If he was scanning in and redistributing that content, sure, totally different. Yay cheap and trivial digital distribution. But he isn't. The book is a tangible good. With utility. You passed your class, didn't you? Not that much different from a BMW or a watch.
A book is a tangible item. However, it's value is not in the number of paper fibres or millilitres of ink, it is in the content of the words. That's the whole point of intellectual property.
Intellectual property isn't slavery. Instead, differential pricing is a symptom of the west keeping the rest of the world in virtual servitude. Differential pricing reflects the massive difference in earnings globally. When in the UK no-one is allowed to pay less than £6 an hour, and in other countries people are working for a penny a day, why is it that people resent the penny-a-day worker for being able to buy a textbook that would cost us a day's work after he's been saving up for 6 months to buy it? Is he really paying less than us?
It's absolutely unjust and ridiculous (just like much of copyright law) -- which means the Supreme Court will probably support it.
It isn't unjust in and of itself, but a means of maintaining an injustice that all of us rich westerners profit from.
I'm willing to wager everyone reading this owns a lot of things produced in cheaper, underdeveloped countries with poor labour and human rights laws. We can afford to buy lots of their stuff because they're paid less for their time than we are.
Our authors expect similar wages to us as consumers, so books are priced to give them something worthwhile. But people in poorer countries can't afford this. The authors accept a lower profit in poorer countries, because that's the only way they'll get anything out of them.
Now, if the UN passed a resolution demanding free trade rules be applied to all IP-based goods, do you think suppliers would adopt first-world prices or third-world prices...? So what we'd be left with is a world where only people in rich countries can afford university textbooks. Which would reduce the education level in developing countries, making them poorer. And also less qualified to make cheap goods for us.
I've looked at two projects so far. Both were PhD students, so it's pretty safe to assume they're being overseen. One was wanting the money to pay for hosting and Amazon Turk human labour to carry out the work on a massive scale.