decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The correct answer is NOT simple. | 226 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The correct answer is simple.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT
IANAL, but I believe copyright law also includes provisions regarding the distribution as well as copying of something that is copyrighted. so it isn't just a simple matter of copying.

Something that occurred to me when reading Patently-O:

Wiley, in turn, focuses on the statute and argues that the US copyright is not exhausted because the foreign-made books were not "lawfully made under this title" where "this title" refers to the US Copyright Act.
This, to me, is confusing.

    The US copyright [on these books] is not exhausted.

    The[se] foreign-made books were not lawfully made under this title.

    This title == US Copyright Act.

Using my dumb logic, KISS, IANAL. These books are outside the scope of the US Copyright Act. There is no US copyright on these books. The copyright on these books is foreign and would therefore fall under the Berne Convention and be fall under the copyright act of whichever country they are published in. (Unless the countries in which it was published are not parties to the Berne Convention. I can't see anything in the Berne Convention Implementation Act 1988 which would make the copyrights for the books fall within the scope of the US Copyright Act.)

So why are Wiley making this complaint? What am I missing? (Is there some provision within US Copyright that applies that I'm not aware of? This is entirely possible... it's a beast, as are most laws, and I can't take all that in.)

j

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The correct answer is NOT simple.
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT
The copyright world certainly used to be divided into bloks. "First
Sale" is actually first *retail* sale.

If the guy was importing the odd second-hand copy there wouldn't be a problem.
But I gather he was importing new copies in bulk. "First Sale", if it
relies on the retail nature of the sale, just doesn't apply here.

This strategy is otherwise known as "grey importing", and I don't know
how the various lawsuits over that have panned out. I don't think there have
been any recent copyright grey import lawsuits.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )