|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
Relevant to the DRM argument and the first sale doctrine, a recent op-ed in
Wired:
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/you-dont-own-your-cellphones-or-your-cars
... I wonder if the right of first sale can now be used to invalidate the
anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA in cases where the circumvention is not
part of a scheme to infringe copyright.
Unfortunately, many instances of DRM also involve shrink-wrap licensing, and the
Autodesk decision did allow a publisher to put resale restrictions in their
software license. Software vendors also tend to put
anti-circumvention/reverse-engineering clauses in their contracts as well, so
there is definitely more to come before we can truly "own" our copies
of proprietary media.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 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
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
| We need precedent for First Sale in the digital world... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fredex on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
But the Constitution’s language nowhere suggests that its limited
exclusive right should include a right to divide markets or a concomitant right
to charge different purchasers different prices for the same book, say to
increase or to maximize gain. Neither, to our knowledge, did any Founder make
any such suggestion. We have found no precedent suggesting a legal preference
for interpretations of copyright statutes that would pro vide for market
divisions. Cf. Copyright Law Revision, pt. 2, at 194 (statement of Barbara
Ringer, Copyright Office) (division of territorial markets was “primarily a
matter of private contract”).
This looks to me as if it MIGHT be
a wedge that could be driven into the region encoding scheme used on DVDs, which
is an artificial attempt to divide markets for various business
reasons.
It'd be nice if someone could come up with a compelling case that
could be used to attack it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 02:26 AM EDT |
The US Supreme Court has invalidated international differential pricing for
books, or rather, validated the circumvention thereof through shipping. Of
course publishers will respond with regionally specific books that are different
enough - just barely - to defeat this ruling for the purposes of higher
education, and the schools will be complicit. Regardless, most students won't
bother to find - or even know about - these books available abroad, and the risk
that the book will be different will be too much so publishers don't even need
to taint many books to make the risk real enough to avoid use. But you will be
able to order books to teach you physics at the Thailand price and import them,
and learn physics from them as well as art, culture, history, and all the other
cool things at the third world price. You will Know these secrets.
The
specific regional book / pricing scam in first world education will continue, as
will the exorbitant and logarithmically escalating cost of accredited education
in first world nations. But that becomes a "value of stamp" issue where the
stamp of the institution is the value that you pay to prove that you were
educated there, and the quality of education is almost irrelevant as it is the
stamp that you require - not the education. Indeed many Ivy League schools
certify sportsmen who are barely literate if they can put the ball in the hoop
and/or endzone and thereby procure Alumni dollars and attendance revenues. More
and more Ivy League schools are nothing more than a mechanism for perpetuating
an aristocracy without merit, and the pretence of their "selective admission"
and "gruelling process" grows thinner by the day.
Frankly almost nobody
checks this stuff anyway. I took my Masters in Education at UCLA, got my PhD in
astrophysics at Berkeley, and got my teaching certificate at the same place that
certified some guy's cat. I could put that on my Resume and unless I were in
some controversial position nobody is ever going to check. What they will check
is if the name I claim to have has ever been arrested in any of the places I
claim to ever have lived.
That is a different scam for a different day.
Today the forces of progress and education won in a big way, and knowledge in
one place becomes knowledge in all for the cost of shipping - as long as it is
in a physical format not protected by DRM. That's a little win, but it's a
win.
I'll finish this post with a quote from one of the works of my favorite
author, Robert A. Heinlein:
There has grown up in the minds of
certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has
made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the
courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even
in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This
strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals
nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of
history be stopped, or turned back. Life Line, Robert A.
Heinlein, 1939[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 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
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
I don't see how it would make a difference. They didn't find restrictions on
first
sale *unconstitutional*. They merely found that the current copyright act does
not *have* such geographical restrictions on first sale.
The DMCA on the other hand, explicitly does place restrictions on breaking DRM.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: odysseus on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
I doubt DRM per se will be affected by this as it (mostly) doesn't affect you're
right to resell something, unless the DRM ties it to a specific machine. For
DVD's the DRM doesn't affect your resale ability at all as everyone has a
compatible player.
What it could affect is Region Coding, i.e. you can't buy DVD's in Europe and
play them in the US. In NZ this is already illegal and the grey market is
thriving, but it would be nice to see it ruled illegal in the US, it would set a
massive precedent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
