|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
With the first sale logic so simple, so direct, and so
compelling, what puzzles me is how this case could ever have
been lost at the district court level in the first place.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
The First Sale case I am waiting for is Capitol v. ReDigi
(1:12-cv-00095), but I imagine we have years...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
One wonders then how this will affect DRM encumbered items such as DVDs.
With first sale strongly upheld, isn't DRM now more clearly an attempt to reach
passed the sale and control my use by, say, requiring that I only play the movie
using a player that, say, requires me to watch (or at least wait through) the
previews and disables certain kinds of playback?
The contract of adhesion theory, where after I buy a software package just like
I'd buy a toaster, but the publisher gets to reach passed that sale and
re-structure it as a license seems a little fishy as well. After all, the
"first" sale was the sale to the store or distributor. I am the second
or third sale when I buy.
So too and more particularly if the software was burned onto disk and packaged
by a foreign factory.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj - Authored by: fredex on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- Wiley tried the equivalent of the 'shrink wrap' license as well - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- Uhhh... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- Uhhh... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 02:28 AM EDT
- Uhhh... - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 03:50 AM EDT
- Uhhh... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 05:40 AM EDT
- Uhhh... - Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- Uhhh... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 06:38 PM EDT
- Uhhh... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 11:36 PM EDT
- Uhhh... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 22 2013 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- These were paper books. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj - Authored by: fredex on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- Be happy - Authored by: symbolset on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 02:26 AM EDT
- Heinlein - Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 05:32 AM EDT
- Be happy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 09:13 AM EDT
- First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 08:26 AM EDT
- First Sale Doctrine Upheld by US Supreme Court ~pj - Authored by: odysseus on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 02:23 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
Identify correction in title to make it easier to avoid duplicates.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
If it's not about this article and it's not about an existing news pick then
your comment goes here.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RSS feeds not updating - PJ? - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Dad hacks Donkey Kong so daughter can play as Pauline - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- after weev - these guys are going to jail... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 07:04 PM EDT
- Should Hacking tools be covered by the second amendment? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- U.S. Said to Look Into Microsoft Bribery Allegations - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- More reality distortion field concerning EA - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 11:06 PM EDT
- Code.org documentary serving multiple agendas? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- Security awareness training a waste of time .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Microsoft optimistic over security .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 12:12 PM EDT
- MS is desperate... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 12:51 PM EDT
- Whodunnit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Whois Team? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Google revives RSS extension for Chrome browser - Good, glad it was just a mistake :-) - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 03:48 PM EDT
- Back to the distro question - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Windows RT tablet sales continue to disappoint - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- Apple and Intel put the nails in Thunderbolt's coffin - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 06:43 PM EDT
- Warning - You are being linked to a U.S. based website. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 12:02 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
Please use the title of the news pick as your title. Please include a link
to the news pick in your comment. You must select HTML Format to include links
in your post. You can use "Preview" to check to see if it works
correctly.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more
contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- battle for the Python name - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- News Pick discussions here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 06:35 PM EDT
- f-secure gives weev little sympathy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 08:52 PM EDT
- Lulz and Leg Irons: In the Courtroom with Weev - Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 09:58 PM EDT
- Our Commitment to Compliance - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 03:37 AM EDT
- Microsoft, Nokia, others lobby ICANN over Google gTLDs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 07:53 AM EDT
- Apple Is Sued on Patent-Infringement Claim - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- New European Commission Report Finds That ‘Piracy’ Doesn’t Hurt, And In Fact Helps, Music Sales - Authored by: amster69 on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 06:50 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
Thank you for your support.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
Will the Court apply the same First Sale doctrine to the Roundup Ready soybean
seed case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
On pdf-page 28 of the
ruling, Justice Breyer says:
Finally, the fact that harm has
proved limited so far
may simply reflect the reluctance of copyright holders
so
far to assert geographically based resale rights. They may
decide differently
if the law is clarified in their favor.
Regardless, a copyright law that can
work in practice only if unenforced is not a sound copyright law. It is a
law that would create uncertainty, would bring about selective enforcement, and,
if widely unenforced, would breed disrespect for copyright law
itself.
Boldface added. If even 1% of the existing software
patents were enforced, the software industry in the United States would cease to
function.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more
contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
Did Wiley not have any inkling of an idea how they
were throwing out the baby with the bath water?
Or were they just benignly seeking a clear position
from the Court?
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
What was the split of the decision?
-Clocks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 6-3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:32 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
from page 24
Regardless, a copyright law that can work in practice only if unenforced is not
a sound copy right law. It is a law that would create uncertainty, would bring
about selective enforcement, and, if widely unenforced, would breed disrespect
for copyright law itself.
People arguing against the CFAA should quote this bit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tolerance on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
Let's all remind ourselves of the previous cases like Omega v Costco which
established that the First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply unless at least
some identical copies are imported with Wiley's permission. That was the
case here: the texts sold in the US were made overseas and imported by Wiley for
sale in the US.
There is a clanger of a hint in the judgement for Wiley
on how to proceed:
"Congress did not have geography in mind
when writing the present version of §109(a) ...
The former version referred to
those who are not owners of a copy, but mere possessors who “lawfully obtained”
a copy, while the present version covers only owners of a “lawfully made” copy.
This new language, including the five words at issue, makes clear that a lessee
of a copy will not receive “first sale” protection but one who owns a copy will
be protected, provided that the copy was “lawfully made.”
This
means that in order to circumvent the First Sale doctrine an obvious course is
never to sell your books, but rather to lease or rent them.
For that
to work properly, the lease would have to be lawful and enforceable in the first
country of sale, like Thailand. Such a contract would presumably resemble a
software End User Licence Agreement in both form and method of adhesion.
--- Grumpy old man [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
Kudos to SCOTUS!
As I've said before, the Supreme Court seems to do better with these sorts of
cases than the lower courts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
Wow. That was fast. Lose in the Supreme Court - donate to politicians that
night, changes to Copyright laws in effect next week.
Who says the government is inefficient? ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rubberman on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
Let's hope that he gets his legal expenses from Wiley...
FWIW, I contributed a chapter to a graduate-level text
published by Wiley around 2000. I seem to recall it paid me
about $500 USD for the work. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 11:15 PM EDT |
Sanity. Refreshing.
I've bought international edition textbooks (softcover, different ISBN), because
the US editions are so obscenely expensive ($200+).
I have no problem with doing this, and now the Supreme Court backs up this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
How would this apply to materials where copyright is expired over seas but not
yet in the US?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
Well, its about time someone started putting some brakes on copyright
maximalists who seemingly want to make any transfer of any copyrighted work, no
matter whether lawfully produced or not, an infringment.
Good for the Supreme Court!
---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 04:50 AM EDT |
Doesn't anybody else here find it rather amazing he made $100,000 dollars just
by reselling books? How many books did he have to sell? At a ridiculous price,
of say $20.00 for each second-hand book, that is still 5000 books?
I mean, there is something going on here.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: achurch on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
In section II-B, the opinion twice uses the phrase "those who find
legislative history useful" -- are the justices implying that they don't? I
thought legislative history was considered important in analyzing an ambiguous
statute. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 02:16 AM EDT |
One is patent but one is copyright, so the law is different but the concept is
similar.
Can you explain your views in relation to Apple vs Moto/Samsung In in this
context for FRAND SEP patents?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
Mr. Kirtsaeng was a preview of the future. Academic book publishers can charge
whatever they want. It's a neat little monopoly that's been going on for a long
time. (You want that degree, don't you? Then buy the books.)
Now, imagine 10 Kirtsaengs ($1M), 100 Kirtsaengs? You get the idea.
The profit margins must be terrific, especially if you pay the authors up front.
Printing costs are minimal if done locally. You just email the book to the
printer!
Why not just eliminate the printer, and make ebooks instead?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
It is always fun to see when a company uses globalisation to maximize its own
profit, but denies the average man on the street to do so likewise.
Nice the court put Wiley into its place. Now, what will happen next? Publishers
will joint to lobby congress and buy a few politicians to get laws into place to
outlaw that "despicable" practice by bloody foreigners. It'll cost
them a few well filled suitcases.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|