[Thaeris]

...Or, you might have tried some other sort of attempt at a witty title. Or something. But, here's the petition of the day:

There is apparently a push from certain manufacturers to re-define the "first-sale doctrine" with respect to copyright law. In short, it appears that if it's not made in the United States, and you're here, it may just be illegal to re-sell something that certain something. And there may be other conditions.

But, if I bought it, it's mine, right? The shenanigans that go on with licence agreements may cause you to question this at times, even though you certainly fight against it in your own mind. But this is a step further down that bleak and intolerably intolerable road, seemingly ridden with corporate highwaymen wielding lawsuits. And if it seems like it's a bid by corporations to ensure that they keep taking and making money while you don't, it probably is - here's a fine article right here which fairly well illustrates the situation.

I still need to look up the actual case if I can find it - NDAA was quite scary until our resident legal expert, MP Ryan, cleared up what was really being said. The petitioners behind many internet drives and movements, however, don't. Even worse, they seldom tell you about the source item of contention which must be so vehemently opposed. Of course, when you want people to sign your petition, you tell them what you want them to hear.

...However, everything I've seen to date indicates that this is indeed pretty damn ****ty. Looking up notes on the highlighted case of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., vs. Kirtsaeng, even established law was damn crappy. And I applaud individuals for using "personal" transactions to make the movement goods and services work much like they did in the supposedly good old days. Thus, if you are sufficiently concerned, peeved, or filled with the raege, here is that petition:

http://www.youvebeenowned.org/

[Mika]

Interesting, but doesn't this actually benefit US people from a larger scale point of view? The way how I read this is that they are proposing limits on foreign imports to US, sort of agreeing with free trade agreements while effectively nullifying them. This will anger the foreign exports, but will increase the production and jobs in the US.

Small people in the US could get shafted in the process, though.

Does anybody else wonder what do the billionaires do with all their property and industry, when nobody has any money to buy anything any more?

[Thaeris]

Where exactly are you reading that anyone in the US would benefit from this (besides the corporate side of the fence)? If you're thinking that industry will move back here if such garbage legislation passed, then you're insane. In fact, I would think that more industry would move out of the country should something like this pass, as it's a quick dollar in the near future for manufacturers. And even when it ultimately hurts the economy, that won't be a concern for proponents of this case now.

...And please consider the good, unfortunate people of the Louisiana coast before you use a term like "small people." Yeah, that's kind of offensive.

[SypheDMar]

Yup. I think even the court that ruled in favor of preventing first-sales doctrine from applying to international products said that it may make more companies move overseas.

What it does is it stops Americans from reselling products they bought overseas. So now companies that are inshore have more reasons to offshore their products. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this, then Americans would not be able to sell their own iPods nor would they be able to have yard sales for anything "Made in NOT USA".

[Herra Tohtori]

I just had a moment of fridge brilliance.

JK Rowling inclulded a commentary on just this type of behaviour in the Deathly Hallows.

See, the Goblins have their own laws regarding trade of Goblin-made items. Everything they make belongs to the Goblin Nation, even if it was made for a customer on order. The items they craft never belong to the people who requisitioned them - they merely have the right to use them.

When the original recipient of any item dies, the right of use - much less ownership - does not pass down to their offspring as a heritage. Instead, the Goblins expect the item to be returned to Goblin nation. However, it is common that this does not happen, and in such cases, the Goblins consider the families who decline to relinquish the items as thieves.



Basically, what the corporations are trying to do is saying that no one ever buys anything but a non-transferable license to use a product. The ownership of the product would be on the producing company, and as the owners of the item, they would have a "right" to prevent the original client from transferring the product or even license to use it to another person.


****ing goblins. I knew they were up to no good.

[headdie]

I am struggling to see what the issue is here.  Is it because the copyrighted company logo is on the item?  because if so then surely it comes under the same legislation as the rest of the copyrights on the item?

I just had a moment of fridge brilliance.

JK Rowling inclulded a commentary on just this type of behaviour in the Deathly Hallows.

See, the Goblins have their own laws regarding trade of Goblin-made items. Everything they make belongs to the Goblin Nation, even if it was made for a customer on order. The items they craft never belong to the people who requisitioned them - they merely have the right to use them.

When the original recipient of any item dies, the right of use - much less ownership - does not pass down to their offspring as a heritage. Instead, the Goblins expect the item to be returned to Goblin nation. However, it is common that this does not happen, and in such cases, the Goblins consider the families who decline to relinquish the items as thieves.



Basically, what the corporations are trying to do is saying that no one ever buys anything but a non-transferable license to use a product. The ownership of the product would be on the producing company, and as the owners of the item, they would have a "right" to prevent the original client from transferring the product or even license to use it to another person.


****ing goblins. I knew they were up to no good.

That would indeed seem to be the situation that is desired by the ppl pressing for this to be enacted.

[Mika]

Well, they way I think about this is that small scale importing from overseas to US usually circumwents the customs toll (believe it or not, US is notorious for putting tolls on imported stuff). That's actually tax evasion, and has contributed in losses of small scale business here, as people bring stuff from China ("personal use") to here and sell it for a hefty profit, never paying import taxes. So, if more companies move overseas, importing them will bring US more toll charges - and they either have to decrease the profit of their product or transfer the toll cost on the product and thus for the consumer. Consumer is also discouraged to buy imported stuff as it has no resale value. If stuff is manufactured in US as I understood, this proposal for the law would not affect it. Suddenly, the US stuff is again competitive. That's how I thought it worked.

Of course, what Herra Tohtori said is also possible, but my understanding is that this bill does not limit the resale rights of stuff produced in US in anyway.

I had no idea that "small people" and Louisiana had something to do with each other, or could be connected by something. Either the phrase what I was looking for something else or the definition of the words have changed.

[Mikes]

And if ya wanna get really paranoid, then just think of the "goblins" waking up to the fact that poisioning the water well leads to lots of goods coming back to the goblin nation...

[Nuke]

everyone should go out and shoot a lobbyist. or you can suspend them from the ceiling with fishhooks and cut on em and burn em while they writhe in pain, but thats just my way of doing things.

[Polpolion]

without lobbyists there's really no effective way to bring an issue to congress and inform them about it. what you want is a way to make so you don't need to be rich or have serious connections to get one. it's like blaming web browsers for what you see on the internet.

[Herra Tohtori]

Some people are already blaming google for what you can find with it...

[Alex Heartnet]

So, what happens when the goblins sell something consumable in nature, and thus can't be returned once used?  Like, some kind of limited-use wand or a magic potion?

Do they ask for the empty bottle and the spent wand back?  Do they even bother going after the bottle thieves when they could be going after the sword thieves?

[Aardwolf]

Yeah, they sue the crap out of the few they can catch, to make an example of them

[Wobble73]

Some people are already blaming google for what you can find with it...

Well, when you Google Search for "English Person" and it bring back such results, I am not surprised the English are blaming Google! (LOL!!)