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
it's NOT in the law | 367 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
So why didn't Wiley argue that?
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 09:57 PM EDT
Is there some chance that the part of the law that Christian's
post quoted, might be to prevent cheap unauthorized copies
made outside the US from being brought into the US?

If it really were as open and shut as Christian indicates,
then why didn't Wiley argue that and win?

I think this part of the law acknowledges that US law
can't control what illegal copies might be made outside
of the US, but that when such items are brought into the
US is when US law can take effect on those items.

But in this case, the copies are NOT illegal, but
were instead fully and properly authorized by Wiley
themselves.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

it's NOT in the law
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 04:49 AM EDT
I think you are reading this wrong. This section is about importing *copies* of
a work into the USA.

I guess this is to prevent buying a book outside the USA, printing thousand
copies (presumably legal in the country you are doing this) and then import
those thousand copies into the USA. This is to make sure that the "right to
copy" can't be easily circumvented by copying abroad.

Perhaps they should put something like this in the books to prevent the
(completely legal) tax evasion shenanigans of companies, too. But that is
another discussion ;)

The case in question is not about copies of a book but about the actual books as
sold by the publisher. So I don't think this section applies at all.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

it's in the law
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 07:38 AM EDT
"I think it means books and movies will soon only be available under heavy
DRM so almost all our rights will vanish anyway."

Show me a DRM system that actually works.

Go ahead, I can wait.


PS. Look up "The Analog Hole"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

it's in the law
Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 08:14 AM EDT
The importation you refer to is imports prior to the first sale.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

it's in the law
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 10:24 AM EDT
That only applies to NEW copies. The argument here is about second hand copies.
A US business cannot contract to buy from a foreign distributor against the
wishes of the US copyright holder, that is not what happened here. The books
were bought in Thailand and then offered for sale in the US by the legal owner.

The distinction could be subtle, had the defendant taken orders for 200 books in
advance of buying them and then imported them still in the bulk packaging they
were received in I suspect the outcome would have been different. Wiley should
probably have tried to argue that there was no first sale involved since the
purchaser was only acting as an agent for the defendant's US distribution
operation.

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Second Hand? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 03:14 PM EDT
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 )