[jeffkrol]

He posted that before I moved the thread from GT.

I figured that.. any "kicking and screaming"...???

[falconeye]

My two cents ...

cent #1 I once purchased a Chinese textbook about a programming language for almost nothing (less than 1/10th the original price). In a Chinese bookstore. It was a reprinted textbook (in English language of course) from the US with just a modified envelope. And of course, it is no smuggling if all import duties have been paid (and I am sure they have been.)

I immediately wondered why US editors run the high risk of reimports and make prices so different in a global economy. The US is number one protogonist of open markets and to allow Wiley to ask for legal protection is damaging the US image overseas (split tongue).

cent #2 I really don't get it that in the US, laws are made in the courthouse, not parliament (Congress or whatever). If the American people don't want to loose the right of resale of their property, why then isn't there a law with its intended interpretation in clear text protecting it?

[vonBaloney]

cent #2 I really don't get it that in the US, laws are made in the courthouse, not parliament (Congress or whatever). If the American people don't want to loose the right of resale of their property, why then isn't there a law with its intended interpretation in clear text protecting it?

There is (or there is previous decision anyway, but it is all based on a law somewhere), and that's the defense. The challenge is that the publisher claims it doesn't apply.

And, should the SC actually rule to uphold, there will be a huge outrage and before any such decision can take effect Congress will hastily draft a new law to cover it, of course with some ill-considered exceptions given to lobbyists...

[falconeye]

The challenge is that the publisher claims it doesn't apply.

But this is it I find so strange.

A law protecting rights of property would be rather clear in its wording. Nobody would try to challenge it only because the property is yellow, has wheels, is pocketable, bought abroad, can be eaten or whatever. Except of course in the US. And within this thread, nobody even seems to wonder how the law could be the culprit or what its exact wording is actually looking like. Which appears even stranger to me. Citing the text of the law would be the first thing happening in a similiar discussion in a European forum.

[vonBaloney]

But this is it I find so strange.

A law protecting rights of property would be rather clear in its wording. Nobody would try to challenge it only because the property is yellow, has wheels, is pocketable, bought abroad, can be eaten or whatever. Except of course in the US. And within this thread, nobody even seems to wonder how the law could be the culprit or what its exact wording is actually looking like. Which appears even stranger to me. Citing the text of the law would be the first thing happening in a similiar discussion in a European forum.

I don't even know what the law is, but the "first sale doctrine" was established from a previous challenge to whatever it was, and so now you have original law(s) + all relevant court decisions relating to it. That's why there are armies of lawyers to fight about such things...

[magkelly]

But... Most dvd's and blu-rays that are made to be watched in North america will not work for viewing anywhere else. The same goes for a lot of computer software.

Simply ask to "borrow" amovie from someone who lives in a place such as; Europe, Asia, Australia, etc... and then try to watch something like the averge dvd movie here in america. It simply won't work.

DVD region code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure it is technically possible to bypass this, but don't ever do it on any dvd player which will ever be hooked up to a computer. As for software - in may cases if it is attempted (especially on Windows) expect ones computer to basically "lock-up" under the Windows operating system restrictions. I've already personally seen cases where this has happened.

Actually that depends a lot upon the computer DVD drive. A lot of the newer ones from Japan will say they're coded to region one but they play PAL videos no problem. The one I have in my Dell now will play PAL DVD's sans any region code changing software. I play PAL videos I own on it all the time. I've never had any trouble. Same thing with the drive in my Sony Vaio a few years back. But our HP computer I couldn't sans changing the region coding. Actually it's not that hard. External DVD drives are $50 now. I just got one for that and changed the region, used it for watching just the PAL stuff. You can have one that's coded in the system and an external drive coded to say PAL and it's not much of a conflict.

The one IN the machine might lock up on you if you have one that only wants to play region 1 DVD's and you try to change it but so long as it's not the main one and internal usually you can get away with an external drive set to something else. Or you can just buy a regular all region DVD player. They're easily found online. I had one for a long time actually. I used to watch UK, AUS, and USA DVD's all on it. I think I paid $158 for the privilege of buying a player that wasn't region restricted.

I'm admittedly bad though when it comes to this stuff. I won't let region codes stop me if I really want to watch something. I just buy it and find a way to rip it to a format I can watch, laugh. There are legit ways around region codes lately though. You can dl from some legit video services a lot like Netflix overseas now. Video downloads are becoming the way to go anyway.

The cable guy was at my parent's place today? I couldn't go do it myself because I've been sick. He barely knew how to hook up a DVD-RW/VCR unit and didn't do it by default even when he saw that they still had one. If it's not a hard drive cable box now apparently it's only supposed to be a player. He was quite baffled at the idea of my parents actually recording to DVD's or VHS tape.

I don't even have a TV anymore. I get DVD's from the library. DL from a service like Netflix for the few TV shows I watch. It's just not cost effective anymore cable TV. I have internet and a cell, that's it. We still have basic cable but it's my roommate's thing. Her TV and she pays that part of the bill. I watch my vids on my computer....

[GeneV]

The fact is that the concept of "ownership" is a slippery thing and always has been, especially in the area of intellectual property. Buy a violin, and you have the right to play it in public for profit without further payment. Buy a recording of a violin, and you have never had the right to play it in public for profit. That was a right you did not purchase in the bundle you thought was "ownership." The details of these rights have always left a great deal for the courts to sort out in the common law system.

Now that this topic is in the political forum, there is a larger political/economic issue here as well. It seems fine to multinational companies to manufacture in a country with low wages and few restrictions, pay less for the product, subject the workers to dangers and conditions which would never fly in the more developed world, create a low price economy there, and keep the profit. However, if the goods sold for less, be they books or Canadian pharmaceuticals, are sold here and lower the profits, then it is time to run to court. Free trade to lower wages is deemed "good," while free trade to lower prices is not.

[falconeye]

I don't even know what the law is ...

This is what I mean by strange ... Everybody discusses (or even files a lawsuit), nobody knows ...

This is the law:

§ 109 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord42

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A that are manufactured before the date of restoration of copyright or, with respect to reliance parties, before publication or service of notice under section 104A(e), may be sold or otherwise disposed of without the authorization of the owner of the restored copyright for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage only during the 12-month period beginning on—
(1) the date of the publication in the Federal Register of the notice of intent filed with the Copyright Office under section 104A(d)(2)(A), or
(2) the date of the receipt of actual notice served under section 104A(d)(2)(B), whichever occurs first.
(b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection.
(B) This subsection does not apply to—
(i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or
(ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.
(C) Nothing in this subsection affects any provision of chapter 9 of this title.
(2)(A) Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lending of a computer program for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library, if each copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(B) Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, and at such times thereafter as the Register of Copyrights considers appropriate, the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with representatives of copyright owners and librarians, shall submit to the Congress a report stating whether this paragraph has achieved its intended purpose of maintaining the integrity of the copyright system while providing nonprofit libraries the capability to fulfill their function. Such report shall advise the Congress as to any information or recommendations that the Register of Copyrights considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any provision of the antitrust laws. For purposes of the preceding sentence, “antitrust laws” has the meaning given that term in the first section of the Clayton Act and includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the extent that section relates to unfair methods of competition.
(4) Any person who distributes a phonorecord or a copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) in violation of paragraph (1) is an infringer of copyright under section 501 of this title and is subject to the remedies set forth in sections 502, 503, 504, and 505. Such violation shall not be a criminal offense under section 506 or cause such person to be subject to the criminal penalties set forth in section 2319 of title 18.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.
(d) The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) do not, unless authorized by the copyright owner, extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106(4) and 106(5), in the case of an electronic audiovisual game intended for use in coin-operated equipment, the owner of a particular copy of such a game lawfully made under this title, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner of the game, to publicly perform or display that game in coin-operated equipment, except that this subsection shall not apply to any work of authorship embodied in the audiovisual game if the copyright owner of the electronic audiovisual game is not also the copyright owner of the work of authorship.

[source: U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 1 ]

The 1908 first-sale doctrine was codified 1976 in the above law. And if people are not happy with it, they should start a discussion to change the law, not blame judges, whatever be the (democratic) country. But of course, that would require people discussing the topic to actually read what is in the law ...

[falconeye]

From the law:

the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord

Reading the rest of the law, there is no exception foreseen for imported goods and assuming, importing a book from abroad is legal in the US ("copy ... lawfully made under this title") then there is no way Wiley can win this case. I need no lawyer to see this. There may be a court case but obviously, it can easily be dismissed. Just read ... That media jump on it is another story though.

The only exception Wiley could use is that their contract for reprint abroad included a disclaimer that export outside the country of purchase is prohibited and that such a disclaimer would actually be able to apply (e.g., in Germany, it would not). (Then, the copy would not be lawfully made under this title.) My Chinese textbook on programming contained such a disclaimer. But then the outcome of that court case would have almost no impact in general.