Supreme Court To Consider First Sale of Imports 259
Animaether passes along a legal tale that "doesn't involve the kind of cutting-edge issues that copyright lawyers usually grapple with in the digital age [and] sounds like the kind of lawsuit that should have been resolved 200 years ago," yet still "is very much a product of the Internet-driven global economy." "Can copyright owners assert rights over imported goods that have already been sold once? That is the issue before the Supreme Court in Costco Wholesale Corp v. Omega, S.A. (backstory here). What's at stake is the ability of resellers to offer legitimate, non-pirated versions of copyrighted goods, manufactured in foreign nations, to US consumers at prices that undercut those charged by the copyright holders."
Free market, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's good for the goose must be good for the gander, no?
Re:Free market, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free market, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually you're right. Contraband is the perfect example, the epitome, of the free market. Totally unregulated.
Re:Free market, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
They tend toward being somewhat decentralized, socially structured, and based on direct violence(rather than centralized, bureaucratic, and based on potential violence); but they are definitely there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...but they virtually always have nontrivial regulatory systems.
Then a free market truly is nothing more than a neo-liberal's dream. Because there will always be some third party attempting to skim something off the transaction, through tax, regulation, prohibition, etc
Re:Free market, right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree with your analysis. You claim that they tend towards being somewhat decentralized. On the contrary, I think they start out as decentralized "entrepreneurships" and then tend towards becoming centralized "organized crime".
We call these centralized units "the Mob" or "cartels" or something.
Without firsthand knowledge, I'd bet that Somalia's pirate business has consolidated in this fashion in the last few years as well. It's highly unlikely that each pirate vessel and crew act on their own withou
Re:Free market, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I realize it's AC, but please, someone mod this +1 Funny, if not +5 Insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Free? Have you seen the prices on hookers and blow recently?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free market, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you wish to engage in a little arbitrage of your own, then "grey market" is about the most polite term. It is Vital to uphold Safety Standards and Preserve Market Stability, after all...
Re:Free market, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what bothers me most. Free trade is only good when corporations can take advantage of emerging economies. But when it comes to selling their wares in emerging economies for 5% of what they charge in the US or Europe, well that is just people being unfair.
Perfect discrimination is the epitome of regulated trade. They can't have it both ways. Either free trade is good and we should embrace it, or it isn't and we should close the borders.
Personally, I think a company should have zero control of a product after it's been sold, other than to prevent said consumer from reproducing copyrighted portions of that product. This simple rule would render mod chips legal across board(at least for those designed to remove region coding, as opposed to those that allow you to use CDR media), as well as the used market for all games, even those with online content.
I also think we need a national law spelling out what software publishers may not put in a EULA. Too bad the legislators would name it something like "Consumer Rights Enforcement Act" and it would be 100% pro-corporations.
Why does this even need to be discussed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why does this even need to be discussed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless I'm mistaken this is at least a violation of the Berne treaty, you can't treat domestic and international copyrights from the signatories differently... maybe we should put them on some sort of copyright watchlist ;)
Re: (Score:2)
That settles it then. Whatever about small fry like video game companies and DVD distributors, there is no way that the US Supreme Court is going to upset the gravy train of something so massive as the pharmaceutical industry. No imports for you!
Re: (Score:2)
and the bulk of that is funded by the private sector tax returns on R&D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Research happens outside the US too (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulate the US Market and its bye bye medical research.
While it is true that the US does a good bit of the heavy lifting in medical research, it is FAR from true that all medical research depends on the US. Many medical companies and research institutions exist and are headquartered outside the US including some of the biggest pharmaceutical companies. Plenty of research goes on across the world without the US being involved.
Please note that I'm not dismissing your general thesis completely - price controls are something to be approached with great caution. However it is not fair to say that all price regulation is a bad idea. Access to medicine is a moral issue as much as it is an economic one. Many medicines are sold for profit margins that are hard to justify to anyone with a conscience. It's fine for drug companies to make a profit, a handsome profit even. But resources for medical care are finite and just because a drug company is able to charge a lot doesn't always mean they should.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the inconvenient truth that gets lost in the health care debate - one of the reasons that modern health care i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This still doesn't justify the US paying crazy drug prices to subsidize the price controlled prices in other countries.
Yes, medical research is expensive but that doesn't mean that we should pay for cheep drugs for Canadians. I'm also not totally convinced that applying the same rules here would actually cause the entire biotech industry to grind to a halt. It would certainly have an impact but the idea that drug companies would just close up all R&D forever is not very believable. Eventually they wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You think medical research is expensive? Check out what it costs to market a drug. Seriously. Drug companies spend far more marketing drugs than developing them.
Re:Why does this even need to be discussed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Next time don't ask a rhetorical question unless you already know that the answer is not devastating to your argument.
Drug company advertising budgets are greater than drug company research budgets, both in total.
Re:Why does this even need to be discussed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, if I read it correctly, this doesn't apply to people importing things for their
Copyright weirdness (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, this was pretty clear 200 years ago: Property was real and tangible. Copyright existed to protect the authors of works from publishers and printing presses using their work without paying for it. Fast forward 200 years and now we have copyright being applied to something that's intangible, can be copied for effectively zero cost, and has been hob-cobbled together to encompass intangible things like phrases, lines of code, even the "likeness" or "appearance" of something is not copyrightable. Given this vast expansion of the definition of copyright (for better or for worse, depending on who you ask), of course there's going to come a day when the tangible thing -- a legitimate CD purchased through legitimate channels could be declared illegal because it's being used incorrectly.
Copyright no longer covers just possession of a thing -- it's now been expanded to include the use of a thing as well, and that latter definition is what's causing most of the problems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
wrong, copyright 200 years ago applied to the information, the data, in a book. You could in 1790 copy a book by hand, sell the copy you made,and be in violation of copyright law.
Re:Copyright weirdness (Score:5, Informative)
wrong, copyright 200 years ago applied to the information, the data, in a book. You could in 1790 copy a book by hand, sell the copy you made,and be in violation of copyright law.
Citation needed! And I'll provide. You want the Copyright Act of 1790, which was created to "securing authors the 'sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending' the copies of their 'maps, charts, and books' for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive."
So you could make a handwritten copy for personal use and not be in violation of copyright law. You could also re-sell anything protected by copyright law that you lawfully purchased without any strings. Neither is true today, which is what this case is all about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Neither is true today, which is what this case is all about.
Nope, that is exactly what this case is about. You can't go to some third world pesthole, print up a bunch of books and then import them into the US. The rights holder of course can outsource the printing. Every book/CD/DVD/etc offered for sale in the US must have a chain of authority tracable to the author, and only through US connections. Some of the newer treaties get a little more complex but the idea is still the same as a practical m
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Say that virgin records produces 2 batches of records. They're both produced side-by-side in the same factory, with the same proper authorization from the same people. Batch 1 is sold in the US for 15 dollars a copy. Batch 2 is sold in Brazil for 5 dollars a copy.
The chain of authority is completely traceable, and perfectly clean. The only difference is whether or not virgin records earmarked a particular piece for sale in one country or another. And that falls to the interpretation of the la
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this is about buying books in a third world pesthole from the original publisher, but at a much lower cost than what they sell them for in the US and then shipping those books back to the US for sale to customers.
It isn't about illegal copies (black market) it is about buying from one market and shipping to another (gray market).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't go to some third world pesthole, print up a bunch of books and then import them into the US.
Read the backstory properly [theiplawblog.com]. You are way off the mark here. What this is about is basically this (Using roughly your example):
CompanyA prints books. They do so in the US and also in thirdWorldPesthole.
CompanyB sells books in the US bought from CompanyA.
CompanyB finds CompanyC that buys the books from CompanyA that are printed in thirdWorldPesthole, and CompanyB buys these books from CompanyC and also sells them in the US.
Becuase CompanyA sells the books much cheaper in thirdWorldPesthole, CompanyA n
Re: (Score:2)
You must speak a different language than the rest of us. A handwritten copy would most certainly qualify as "reprinting". Remember that the spirit (intent) of the law is often as important as the actual wording. Take the word "vending" in that excerpt. At first you may think that only copyright holders could sell their own works (or at least control the sale thereof) and that second-hand sales would be prohibited. But you'd be wrong. The doctrine of first sale had existed in commonlaw for many, many years b
Re: (Score:2)
not so, both still true today but for "exceptions", this court case is about an exception to the general rule, which include imported foreign first sale.
You can make a handwritten copy or photocopy today, as long as for legal use: Libraries have copy machines for that purpose. Try to sell that copy and you're in trouble
Re: (Score:2)
I took her statement thusly: At one time you could re-sell anything that you legally obtained even if copyrighted, but today you cannot sell *anything* that is copyrighted even if legally obtained. Since books, DVDs, etc are copyrighted but you can re-sell them, her statement, the way it written seems rather inaccurate to me.
Re: (Score:2)
How is his statement wrong? You're not even contradicting it. You're talking about copying and selling something, which is exactly what copyright is about: the right to copy.
What this case about isn't copying at all: it's about buying a legitimate item from the publisher (through its distributor and retailer), then taking it somewhere else and reselling it as second-hand. Normally, publishers don't complain too loudly about this, because there's no profit in buying a CD at Wal-Mart and then driving to yo
Re: (Score:2)
What this case about isn't copying at all: it's about buying a legitimate item from the publisher (through its distributor and retailer), then taking it somewhere else and reselling it as second-hand.
Not true. If Costco was calling the watches second-hand I don't think Omega would have a problem with it. They're selling brand new watches. So the question is: Does copyright law allow control of sale and distribution? (yes) and is Costco violating that? (hmmm)
Maybe Costco should claim that all watches are second-hand (also hour and minute-hand).
Re:Copyright weirdness (Score:5, Interesting)
CSS is pitifully weak; but it was perhaps the first demonstration of this concept that gained huge market traction. Thanks to CSS licensing requirements, adding technologically enforced region coding became trivial.
As the cost of computing power continues to fall, and the number of devices that have embedded firmware and/or unique serial numbers continues to increase, there is virtually no area of "real property" over which the DMCA and copyright law will not eventually exert de facto control.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the first sale doctrine forbids using legal tricks (like slapping a license agreement onto a book) to prevent resale of a copyrighted work. Not much of a stretch to extend that to technological protections.
Global economy baby ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Global economy baby ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence all that lovely region coding - ensuring geographic market segmentation so there will not be a single global market.
I often wonder if Philips and the other CD standard signatories regret not inserting region coding into that first digital media standard.
Re:Global economy baby ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine: Omega watches which sync up with the radio signal from an atomic clock, but refuse to configure themselves for any timezones other than those for which it was authorized for sale.
Of course, they'd lose the lucrative international traveler market. Or they'll have temporary time zone support, but if you stay too long in a foreign timezone it will reset or disable itself.
And then comes the question: what if I, as an (American) international traveler, buy one of their manufactured-in-Switzerland watches cheaply in an authorized country, travel back to the US, and then decide I don't like it (or need the money) and want to sell the watch on eBay? Apparently they want to bar me from selling the watch because it wasn't authorized for sale in the US.
Will they have their goons patrolling the US looking for people wearing imported watches and harass them to show their receipts showing they personally purchased the watch overseas or give up who sold them the watch under threat of prosecution? "Product's papers, please?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just got this horrific image of a dystopian future in which you have to carry on your person licenses for every piece of hardware, software, content, fashion accessory, haircut, tattoo, etc. that you have on your person. Don't have your license? Pay the fine or go to jail. The scariest thing about that is I can see it coming true.
I think I need to go lie down...
Re: (Score:2)
Fair is not necessarily legal.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How does copyright come into play here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is not the Omega logo that is being questioned. Omega has a symbol on the back of the watch that has nothing to do with the Greek letter. It is a symbol that was designed to allow the company to enforce the copyright law. From the article:
Costco lawyers at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner write in their brief that in 2003, Omega began to stamp its Seamaster watches with a small globe design, less than 5 millimeters across, "for the express purpose of invoking the Copyright Act to re
Re:How does copyright come into play here? (Score:5, Informative)
The artwork Omega is enforcing a copyright on is that pattern of circles with an omega in it, just to the right of the pronounced Omega logo and above the "825" in the linked picture. That little doodle is about 0.5 centimeters in diameter, and apparently Omega is arguing that when you buy an Omega Seamaster, you are buying an authorized reproduction of that triumph of human artistic endeavor for the agreed-upon price of two thousand dollars. Omega just happens to be so generous as to frame your purchase with a diving watch.
Re:How does copyright come into play here? (Score:5, Insightful)
If ever there was a rationale for "misuse of copyright", this is it.
Re:How does copyright come into play here? (Score:4, Funny)
This is just epic fail for Omega. They should have learned from the much more savvy software publishing industry: don't sell your watches; license them.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is quickly become the big business go-to concept for invalidating constitutions everywhere. Wiretapping, prior restraint, first sale rights, presumption of innocence, parody and satire, academic freedoms, etc, etc. People have rights that are getting in your way? Then get yourself some Copyrights!; Ten times more potent than the average right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bit by bit towards corporate feudalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares (Score:2, Funny)
Rediculous interpretation of law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe with eBay, to be able to resell that item as an Omega watch, you have to jump through countless flaming hoops to prove that it is not a counterfeit (effectively provide a notarized affidavit signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, lost, found, lost again, recycled as firelighters, and buried in soft peat for six months).
Without such proof, you would not be able to mention the Omega name or show the logo on the item if you want to sell it.
And that would be a trademark violation, not copyright. O
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, if I live in England, legally buy an Omega watch there, then legally immigrate to the US, it is now a copyright violation to resell that watch on eBay?!? This flies in the face of common sense!
See USC TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 6 > 602 (a) (3) (B) [cornell.edu]. That is not an infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Law and Precedents (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Stability.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's the same as saying "because the supreme court decided that way in a similar situation, and it's a real waste of time to try to reverse the supreme court with our own fanciful rulings". That doesn't seem to stop the Ninth Circuit, however.
It's also a way of adding inertia to the system, which in the long run is a good thing. It's very hard doing anything under a system that flip-flops
Re: (Score:2)
Already against the law in the UK (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That case is just plain absurd. The argument in that case being that Importing and selling a branded item may violate the trademark rights of the brand holder? That argument could only possible be valid in the case of counterfeit goods. Otherwise trademark law just does not work like that. As long as I am selling genuine levi's jeans, I am using the trademark (the Levi's tag on the product) in a purely descriptive manner, which is part of what trademark law explicitly does not prohibit.
Unless I am missing s
Re: (Score:2)
But the Tesco/Levi's case didn't hinge on copyright, if I understand it, but on trademark law and trade regulations. Tesco was free to buy Levi's from Italy or Spain, for example, but was importing them from countries outside the EU, which is forbidden without the consent of the manufacturer.
What I don't understand is that the fact that Levi's were available at a much cheaper price in Eastern Europe sounds like classic dumping on Levi's part, which should mean Tesco can bring a complaint to the European Com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the logic behind making that illegal?
The actual act of importing goods isn't illegal - there are thousands of EU companies that make a living from importing goods from outside the EU. The logic in the Tesco vs Levi case was that trademark law enables a manufacturer to dictate how that trademark is used in commercial retail environments. Each item of clothing contains a distinctive trademarked logo - hence the trademark owner can dictate how each item of clothing is sold within a commercial retail environment. The finding may be annoying for th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, couldn't you now sue Levi directly for Price Fixing?
Price fixing is only illegal within a legal jurisdiction that makes it illegal. It is legal for companies to charge varying amounts to customers in different nations of the EU (there may be varying distribution costs etc.). However, that doesn't apply to the Levi case, since Tesco were apparently buying from outside the EU, and there is no law that stops a company charging different prices in, say, the US, the EU, or the rest of the world.
"Grey Market" (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know why it's a copyright issue, since it's a physical item, but usually we call such legitimate imports "grey market" goods. They're not officially for sale ("white market") nor are they illegal to sell ("black market"), but they're legally sold goods for distribution elsewhere that's re-imported for local sale.
Happens all the time even with IP materials like books, CDs and DVDs. Hell, Amazon and Walmart are probably the biggest "offenders" - I can buy two CDs, one locally and one from Amazon (or Walmart) and the local one is from the Canadian distributor, while the one I got from Amazon (or Walmart) comes from the US.
Ditto books - sometimes the US-Canadian book pricing is so out of whack, it's cheaper to get it from Amazon.com than Amazon.ca even with shipping charges.
Camera manufacturers used to be the biggest PITA regarding grey market goods - if you imported a camera, they would insist that warranties and such were only honored in the purchasing country - buy it in the US, service is done in the US, other countries would not touch it. Oh yeah, and the return shipping, to that address in the country.
Thankfully, for most products this doesn't happen (it's not strictly illegal, but it's a great way to piss off customers) anymore - I figure most companies gave up trying to track serial numbers and points of origin, and lets them move inventory around as needed by demand.
Of course, importation of such products is perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Been there, done that... actually I'm picking up my new video camera tomorrow. No wonder when the US model costs 999$ and the EU model 999E. Plus I get another 10 fps going from 50 to 60 fps as a bonus, as long as it doesn't break.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thankfully, for most products this doesn't happen
It does for a lot of laptops. That's why many companies seem to have - for example - a model that ends in -US or CA. The major model number on the top may say DX8200, but the stamp on the bottom is more specifically a DX8243CA...
Re: (Score:2)
And as a motorcyclist I find it really annoying that Canada gets more and better motorcycles than we get in the US!
There are several models of Honda that are not imported to the US but are available in Canada! The logic from Honda is that they wouldn't sell enough of them in the US!
I mean really? There are how many people in Canada?
Oh well at least we get cheap books here.
First-sale doctrine and copyright law (Score:2)
Er, Doctrine of First Sale? (Score:2)
Or am I missing something?
If the importer imported it, he/she purchased it (or obtained it on consignment, which is probably unlikely), and can do with it what they wish.
As far as controlling a use of a thing, that would be a matter for a license, not a copyright.
I do recall a case in Canada, though, where an importer of toy cars obtained them legitimately, but was barred from selling them and competing with an "official" agent, on the basis of the copyright on the packaging, but I think that was a differen
This is a copyright case!?! (Score:4, Funny)
At what point was the watch disassembled at a molecular level and then reproduced in bulk by a nano-lathe?
Copyright holders rights over lending DVDs? (Score:2)
Copyright holders should control the market? (Score:4, Insightful)
It has long been held as illegal to engage in price fixing. Region coding for DVDs, for example, is most often used for the purpose of controlling initial distribution (which is their right) to release certain things in certain areas at certain times (which is not their right entirely). Once something is legally sold, they no longer own the rights to anything about it excepts for its duplication which includes various forms of duplication such as public playback or performance. But to individually sold items are no longer under the control of the publisher and the disc or tape or book can be transported and sold anywhere else. All of this is established in precedent or is otherwise understood as common law. You can buy a book, sell a book or even lend a book. Why this wouldn't apply to DVDs or other media defies logic. To make this truly the case, they will have to redefine copyright law to disallow someone to resell that which they have bought. This would be a very bad move for copyright holders as fewer people would be interested in buying something they couldn't later liquidate if some unfortunate event occurs in the future. Instead, people would do only rental and, of course, illegal copying.
Copyright holders have long wanted to be able to control the resale of their goods. Take, for example, the diamond trade -- they really have it the way they want it. Diamonds are super expensive new but if you try to sell one, you will find you will not get much for it... and further, you will find their prices "used" as more than inexpensive. (Wanna buy an engagement ring? Go to a pawn shop.... seriously) But law all around the planet have made this sort of control over the market illegal. This is why DeBeers cannot operate in the U.S. and many other countries legally. If copyright holders want that level of control, they will find themselves unable to operate legally in the very countries they do business. It's conceivable that they would simply buy laws that exclude their own products, but buying laws are a tricky thing and subject to constitutional rules.
Applied globally, exhausted nationally? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to pretty much throw away any pretense of fairness for a doctrine which holds that every copyright applies in every country, but first sale rights (copyright exhaustion) only apply in the country of first sale.
This has been going on for years (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past, I owned / operated a small electronic sales / service store in a smaller American town. Life was good, but the revenue from TV repairs wasn't quite enough to keep the business going. People were asking for high-end car stereos so I looked into becoming a dealer for a Japanese manufacturer. The requirements and restrictions they wanted were unacceptable and the wholesale pricing they offered was far too high.
What ended up being the solution was to purchase this company's products in Britain at retail and have them shipped to this country. Even after the currency exchange fees and shipping the cost was about half of what the company wanted me to pay for those items. That was fine with me and I sold them on to end customers at just under what that company wanted me to pay them as the wholesale cost.
It wasn't too many months until an electronics dealer in another town discovered that I was selling these car stereos for less than he was paying for them. He contacted the manufacturer and complained and they sent me a letter demanding that I conform to the minimum selling price or face losing their wholesale pricing. In my reply to them, I believe I suggested that they do something sexually improbable to themselves. When they threatened to sue, I just put their letters in the trash - I had no contract with them and didn't purchase anything from them so they could just go F themselves as far as I was concerned. I never revealed where I was getting their products and a lot of happy customers bought and enjoyed them.
Was I doing something wrong? I suppose it would depend on who you ask. I was happy; the additional profits were most welcome. And the customers were happy because they got a great deal on their new car stereo. Anyway, those stereos were what is commonly called "gray market" goods. That's a curious designation - the only "law" that was being violated was a dealer agreement that I wasn't a party to. If that manufacturer would have had their own way, my customers would have paid twice as much for their car stereos. Some might say that the stereo manufacturer was engaging in price fixing.
The whole idea of a producer of goods being able to dictate what those goods sell for at retail is a curious concept. It's legal and American law allows "minimum selling price" agreements. But is it good for consumers? Or is it just another way that corporations take advantage? That stereo manufacturer was happy to take the British price for those stereos but somehow when I sold them in the USA at a profit they felt that they were being harmed.
These anti-consumer agreements are everywhere - but nobody will tell you about them. Next time you're shopping for a deal on some item and notice that it's exactly the same price at every dealer you check - you're looking at a "minimum selling price" item. Nobody will give you a discount because if they do their source of supply will be cut off. So when you buy an Apple product - or a Timex watch - or hundreds of other items you're paying a higher price than the dealer might offer you. What does it mean for competition when all competitors have to sell at the same price?
There's no such thing as a "free market" when a third party to a sales transaction can dictate the terms of that transaction. Look around you and you'll see this kind of consumer abuse everywhere. We've been putting up with this for a long time - it's time for a change and I hope Costco can make a start at changing this situation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a class of activity that consists more or less exclusively of making bets about the relative movements of currencies, and there is probably some behavior in "real" markets that is affected by currency movements; but most of this stuff is just about price discrimination, which will be economically rational for sellers as long as there are multiple buyers willing to pay different amounts more than the marginal cost of production.
National bord
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This explains why a given item costs the same in Oklahoma and New York City.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask yourself this: would the disparities in pricing still exist if all contracts were payed in gold?
Of course it would. Is gold in Kentucky worth the same to you as gold that is in Zimbabwe?
How about milk that is in Kentucky versus milk that is in Zimbabwe?
An AK47 in New York City compared to an AK47 in Afghanistan?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask yourself this: would the disparities in pricing still exist if all contracts were payed in gold?
Yes. Gold-producing regions and states would be forced to induce artificial scarcity in the the monetary standard commodity or face inflation. In other words, they'd have to manage their money supplies. Just like now.
I continue to be amazed at the irrational belief that gold is some kind of "natural currency". Gold is shiny, and pretty, and heavy, and feels nice to play with, but magic it isn't.
Re:Sorry, but copyright does control imports (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the Supreme Court took the case suggests that it isn't black-letter law, doesn't it?
Re:Sorry, but copyright does control imports (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it is an indicator of a worse problem. We used to have the Rule of Law. Now we have the Rule of Men. Problem is what I wrote above is so self evidently correct that this case shouldn't have made it into a courtroom at all. In a sane world, any competent attorney would have explained the law, charged the client for an hour and that would have been that. But because both sides correctly understand the bizarro reality we actually live in they are rolling the dice; since justice is now whatever a judge says and their views are randomly distributed.
The difference is when you have the Rule of Law the laws are knowable and mostly predictable. Courts are mostly occupied with determining the facts of the particular case and then applying the law to them. The occasional case will test an unexpected corner of the law but it an exception. Now the written laws mean little and judges apply their opinions of 'justice' to cases and their rulings are thus mostly unknowable beforehand. This of course means everyone take a try at court as soon as they have nothing left to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At last, a car analogy! It all makes sense now!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is an artificial government grant of monopoly over reproduction and public performance of a work. A foreign import isn't reproduced under that monopoly grant and is thus illegal to import or sell in the US.
Wait, what? Copyright is a monopoly over reproduction and public performance, so it makes it illegal to import goods legally created in another country but sold for lower prices? I fail to see the logical reasoning here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A foreign import isn't reproduced under that monopoly grant and is thus illegal to import or sell in the US. Black letter law guys. The fact that in small quantities (and marked up over the closest local version as in the typical import album) the rights holders don't mind, but they still possess an absolute legal monopoly on reproduction of copies for sale inside the US so if they do decide they don't like an import they have the right to forbid it.
Too bad that isn't how they ruled in QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L’ANZARESEARCH INT’L [cornell.edu].