Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court to review first-sale doctrine in copyright law (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where's the Copy? (6+ / 0-)

    Copyright violates the 1st Amendment, but is allowed by the Constitution (to accommodate ancient commerce quirks) only in restricting whether or not a copy can be made. That is the only power it legitimately has.

    Where is the copy being made that is being restricted in this first sale argument? Nowhere. There is no new copy. The exclusive right to copy is not being enforced. A "right" to profit at every turn, regardless of our free press rights, regardless of the "progress in science and the useful arts" in a 21st Century economy, is being invented.

    "Capitalists" believe in capital: property. They're not interested in anything else. And so everything looks like property to them. Their property. Even when it's not.

    Like the Supreme Court. Their property. We'll see when they decide. Because this is an obvious gift to capitalists. And a theft from the righteous.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 04:39:42 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. Even if a book says on the cover page, (0+ / 0-)

      "not for resale" that carries no more legal weight than the paper that it's written on.  Sure, maybe a publisher could enforce contractually that a book store in Taiwan not sell a certain edition to non-Taiwanese customers, but that requirement can't be passed down to 2nd/3rd/etc owners.

      Long term, Pandora's Box is already open.  The Supreme Court making the worst possible ruling on this won't change anything.  Publishers can't restrict access to information the way they could before the Internet became so widespread.  And they can't pick and choose pricing in different markets, now that pretty much anyone has easy access to one giant, integrated global market.  People intent on getting cheap (or free) copies of books will keep on doing so, no matter what the law says.  Instead of trying to control user behavior, the publishers should adapt to the 21st century and **actually compete** for customers instead of resting on their laurels and trying to bring back the 1980's.

      Message to the big publishers: adapt or perish.  This court ruling won't make a difference.

      •  For individuals, sure, although lots of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher, greengemini

        people don't like doing illegal things. For libraries? Death knell.

        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

        by bryduck on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 09:57:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site