See this fascinating piece on a case in front of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments today in a case called Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, and their final decision could help shape the future of "first sale," a legal doctrine that underpins the right to sell, lend, or give away the things you buy, even if those things contain copyrighted elements.
First sale provides the legal framework for marketplaces like used bookstores, flea markets, garage sales, and eBay. It’s crucial to making sure U.S. copyright holders can’t dictate, for decades, what you do with the books, CDs, DVDs, games, etc., that you buy. But book publisher Wiley says it doesn’t apply if the copyright holder is clever enough to ensure the product in question is manufactured outside of the United States.
(the complete story is here)
The industry is trying to protect copyright. But the consumer question is whether you own or license the things you buy. If you own them, you can sell them. If you license them, you cannot.
Copyright protection is already too strong in the US. Big media is unsustainable and culturally stifling, and ever stronger copyright protection is simply a way for the biggest names in movies, music and tv to prop up their spectacle-driven industries without having to invest in new creation. Preventing piracy is one thing, but preventing people from owning books which they paid for is another thing entirely, and it has the potential to restrict the flow of information and innovation in such a way that will ultimately undermine American knowledge and inventiveness.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those cases where you just tilt your head to the side and say, "come on, really?" I can't even imagine the hassle and chaos that would ensue if the copyright industry wins this decision. It just doesn't seem like realistic situation. First of all, I would think that this would be extremely difficult to enforce, especially with all of the secondary markets that already exist. Second, the fact that manufacturers would specifically have their products made outside of the U.S. to aviod this issue, does not bode well for the United States economy.
ReplyDeleteThis seems quite ridiculous that this is even an option at this point in time. In my opinion, the copyright laws that are already in place seem to sufficiently monitor the situation in the United States. Major actions have already been taken against music distributors and other electronic applications, but to prevent people from reselling their own purchases seems outrageous. Not only does the idea as a whole seem to be out of the box, the enforcing of these regulations would almost be impossible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone is already saying. What is in place can and should stay in place but like Alex said, there are too many secondary markets already in place that it would be near impossible to enforce the ruling if the company won the case. If people buy it then they own it and can do what they want with it. This would make things way too complicated if the company wins. With how the economy and the world works today with the internet especially, it would be ridiculous to vote in favor of the company and would most likely cause some sort of uproar I would imagine among the people.
ReplyDelete