 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-06-21 14:29
Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/ could have ramifications for anyone living in the U.S. who has purchased materials outside the U.S. or have purchased things in the U.S. but where some of the copyrights are held outside the U.S.
The U.S. has a "first sale" doctrine, whereby after you purchase copyrighted material you are free to resell, rent, or otherwise dispose of your personal copy - you can't make copies, but you're free to do whatever else with your legally obtained copy.
Whether or not the case described is morally OK ( read the article for a synopsis ), a decision might be that only U.S. copyrighted works are subject to the first sale doctrine. If that's true, there will be a long series of consequences to that, some affecting musicians around the world when it comes to music, recordings, and gawd knows what else. It would certainly complicate selling just about anything that has parts made in different countries - and that's just about everything nowadays.
It'll be interesting to see how this is decided.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-06-21 15:27
This is a fascinating and important case.
I think the first-sale doctrine is morally right. When I buy a book or recording, I should be able to sell it, and the publisher should have no right to stop me. While a publisher understandably wants to profit by having everyone who wants to read a book buy a separate copy, I should have the right to sell something I own, and someone else should be free to buy it.
If I decide to sell a Buffet clarinet, should Buffet be able to stop me, or charge a fee? Not in my universe.
I am, reluctantly, willing to make a moral (as opposed to legal) exception for the "droit de suite." When a young "starving artist" sells a work for very little, and it later becomes very valuable, it seems fair that the artist should get a share. Think Van Gogh or the originator of Superman.
The first Superman comic book http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/yeung/actioncomics/cover.html sold for 10 cents and recently brought $2.1 million http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/nicolas-cage-superman-comic-record-2-million-sale-267770. The creator may have a "moral right" in the Superman idea and character, but it's less clear that he should get a cut of the auction price.
We're in the middle of a revolution in intellectual property law. In particular, music performers and publishers are suffering due to rampant illegal copying, but the solution is not the extravagant and overreaching claims that are being made.
We indeed live in "interesting times."
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2012-06-21 17:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-06-21 17:16
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Big Brother is acting more like the invasive in-law......
I don't get what you're talking about at all ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: alto gether
Date: 2012-06-21 17:40
Ken Shaw: why make a moral but not a legal exception for droit de suite? Granted that there are already too many tangled laws, why shouldn't laws be framed so that artists (and early supporters, for that matter) aren't excluded from profits realized on late-arriving fame?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-06-21 18:37
alto -
As newlyweds, my parents bought a large painting by Guy Wiggins, who became moderately well known. They bought it at his studio for $65, and 70 years later it's worth around $40,000. Should his heirs get something if I sell it? At the least, it's a close call. My father had a great eye for art. But if he'd bought something for $40,000 and years later it was worth only $65, should he get something back?
Also, are you saying that an artist's early supporters should participate in an increase in value? I think van Gogh sold only one painting in his lifetime, for a negligible price. Would you give the original buyer a part of the millions it's worth today? That way lies madness.
As I said, we live in interesting times. The technology has bypassed the old norms. It's a long and winding road to find how to live in this brave new world.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-06-22 00:16
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Screw that, if it's mine, it's mine.....
Ah, if life were so simple ... I'll bet dollars to donuts you think you own the software you "buy", too, and haven't read that EULA. THAT'S something few people understand - or read. Or, even if you do read it, you have to be a lawyer to understand. And a damn good one at that. And after all that, you still could be litigated out of existence.
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
"It depends on how you define alone…"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ABerry
Date: 2012-06-28 21:17
So, if I buy a brand new set of Toscas and then sell my set of Festivals, the Buffet Co. could be entitled to some of the proceeds from the sale of the Festivals?
Wouldn't then the reverse be also true, if I sold the Festivals for less than I purchased them, wouldn't Buffet be obligated to send the difference to me?
Allan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill Patry
Date: 2012-06-30 03:33
For those who care what the statute in question says, 17 USC 602(a)(3)(B) allows importation for private purposes, including in your luggage in returning from abroad. Paragraph (C) also has an exemption for scholarly and education purposes. So it is unlikely the ultimate decision will affect any individuals.
It is also not accurate that the case concerns copies of copyrighted works purchased outside the U.S. or copies purchased in the U.S. where there is a foreign held copyright. The issue isn't the place of sale but the place of manufacture. Specifically, the case involves the question of what the language "lawfully made under this title" means in 17 USC 109 (the first sale doctrine). Does that language mean copies made in the U.S. (regardless of whether the copyright owner is domestic or foreign), or does it mean copies made with the permission of the copyright owner anywhere in the world? There are important implications from either interpretation.
The case will be heard in the fall. The Court heard a very similar case fairly recently but split 4 to 4 due to Justice Kagan's recusal. She had submitted a brief in that case before the Court as Solictor General before she was nominated. It is unlikely she will recuse this time, so we are likely to get a decision, even if it is 5-4.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
