Congressman Already Claims That He Needs To Overturn Supreme Court Ruling In Kirtsaeng

from the and-off-we-go dept

Wed, Mar 20th 2013 7:34am — Mike Masnick

We fully expected efforts in Congress to look to overturn the strong and important "first sale" ruling by the Supreme Court, and it looks like they're not wasting any time. Rep. Doug Collins has already put out a statement about how awful the ruling in Kirtsaeng is and how he'll look to remedy it.

“The Supreme Court's ruling in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley raises concerning questions about the future of U.S. copyright law,” Collins said. “Many industries and businesses in Georgia rely on strong copyright protections to create jobs and invest in our local economies, including the established and exclusive right to import in to the United States. When a U.S. business harnesses innovation and creativity to develop a product, they should have certainty their copyrighted work will be protected against unauthorized importation of foreign products.

“As a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I look forward to discussing the need for strong copyright protections with the Register of Copyrights at a subcommittee hearing tomorrow afternoon.”

No, actually, it doesn't raise any serious questions. It confirms a basic principle that "you own what you've purchased." It's amazing that a Representative who claims that he wants government to get out of the way and and that "the private sector is best at generating economic growth" would suddenly pipe up in favor of centralized monopolies handed out by the federal government. Furthermore, it's ridiculous, wrong and misleading to argue that Kirtsaeng is somehow antithetical to "strong copyright protections." The first sale doctrine has existed in the US for ages and nothing in it goes against "strong copyright protections." The Supreme Court decision standing up for first sale is hardly an attack on copyright. Even the claim about "being protected against unauthorized importation of foreign products." That's not a copyright issue, but an import issue. Here, again, Collins, who pretends to be for free trade, appears to be arguing that the US should have tariffs. It's funny what copyright will do to politicians -- including highlighting their own hypocrisies.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, doug collins, first sale, kirtsaeng, property rights

80 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 5:40am

Can't he see the tremendous collateral damage this would cause? Suppose Kirstaeng had lost. If I were [insert any company here] I'd simply move my production abroad and voil�, no more used market and major blows tho the US economy.

Sometimes I get this feeling your representatives actually want to break the country if it means they'll make tons of money in the process. Wake up America, take these morons out of the Govt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy2020 (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  He can't see past the wheelbarrows of cash from special interests
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 11:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    All interests are special...to those with different interests.
    
    Your own agenda (whoever you may be) is always just common sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  This is a serious threat to our nation from within. Destroying us economically would result in far worse damage than occurred on 9/11. We're talking massive layoffs, protests, looting, widespread violence and poverty, eventually culminating in massive civil war. All because of politicians like this guy who seek to destroy us from within.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Of course he can see that. He just doesn't care. His job (what he gets paid for) is to further his corporate backers' interests, and that means putting away the lube and fucking the american people in the ass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TimothyAWiseman, 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  Personally, I think that the Kirtseang case was well decided and that Congress should not attempt to alter the matter now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TimothyAWiseman, 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  Personally, I think that the Kirtseang case was well decided and that Congress should not attempt to alter the matter now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ICUC, 22 Mar 2013 @ 3:05am
  
  Re:
  Yup, they don't give a F about American jobs or American consumers. However, helping American corps price discriminate that's the job of the Copyright Law ? And if the cost of enabling price discrimination is the movement of even more production overseas. F the workers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 6:29am

No wonder he said this...
He's from Georgia.

Suddenly everything makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:43am
  
  Re: No wonder he said this...
  Yep.
  
  Georgia has to make up to foreigners for briefly throwing the CEO of a foreign car manufacturer in jail for not carrying his passport on him. The CEO who opened several car factories in Georgia no less, creating hundreds of jobs in the state, the CEO was in Georgia on a business trip to visit those factories.
  
  What better way to make up for it then by giving him MORE reasons to manufacture his cars back in Europe where he came from by adding IP protections to foreign made goods?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:13am
  
  Re: No wonder he said this...
  Guam is capsizing too right?
  
  Gotta love the Georgia representatives.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: No wonder he said this...
  As a resident of Atlanta, I cringe every time one of our Senators, or Reps from outside of Atlanta opens their mouth. I believe they must be having a contest with the Texas Delegation on who can utter the stupidest, most ignorant thing possible.
  With this statement, we may have taken back the lead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:41am

Apparently, in Georgia, stupidity is a prerequisite for the job of congresman...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:57am
  
  Re:
  Before calling others stupid, perhaps you should learn how to spell congressman.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    I prefer the term Congresscritter, personally. It describes the average intelligence exhibited on rulings such as this one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rangda (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How about Conroach?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hambone, 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I just shorten it to "Conman", which has the added benefit of being an accurate description.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 2:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Point taken. That would be because English is not my native tongue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 2:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's in the headline. And how did you become such an expert on Georgia politics?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By being an insatiable news-junky.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re:
  Apparently, in Georgia, stupidity is a prerequisite for the job of congresman...
  
  For further support of your argument, I believe it was Hank Johnson (D-GA) who was worried Guam (an island) would capsize if 5,000 Marines were moved from Okinawa (another island) to Guam.
  
  However, I'd open up your argument in suggesting that it is all congresscritters, not just those from GA, who have a prerequisite for stupidity. In fact, I think it may be safe to say that it is a prerequisite for all public office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 1:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You can't just state that and not give a link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
    
    This was a classic, at first, I thought he was having a stroke.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 1:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The army officer (dunno what branch he is or what rank) must have been used to god-damn stupid comments like that because he responded fairly quickly after the capsize remark. If that had been me, I would have been stunned into silence, then asked for a clarification
      "Sir...did you just say...an island, an ISLAND, would capsize?"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JEDIDIAH, 20 Mar 2013 @ 2:04pm
        
        We swat more idiots before 9am then you do all day.
        The dude's a general. He's has lots of experience dealing with those jokers. He's high enough in the food chain that he has to deal with Congressional level idiots on a fairly regular basis. Just comes with the job.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How'd you like to be the person he beat in the election? If it was me, I'd have hung myself the next day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Welcome to US politics, the definition of the Peter Principle: "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 21 Mar 2013 @ 8:53am
  
  Re:
  No worse that whichever of the Carolinas wants to legislate away sea level rise. Especially when there is a 'hot spot' of increased sea level rise on the East Coast...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:43am

Can't wait to see the next congresman's special-interest induced, uninformed and damn-the-consequences rant against the Wiley-Kirtsaeng ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:45am

"The first sale doctrine has existed in the US for ages..."

Yes, but you see Mike, it had never interfered in the profits of the Mega-Corps.

Now that it has, it must be removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:47am

Funny how the North never seems to understand the South.

The assumption that a Southern Republican has the same values as a Northern or western is as comical as assertion that a Southern Democrats during the days of Jim Crow had the same values as a Northern one did but, some how they did work together despite what the pundits say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:16am
  
  Re:
  Did you fail to follow the link thoughtfully provided in the article to Doug Collins's own site, where he states the political opinions you accuse TD of baselessly assuming he holds?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2013 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  Republicans have values now?
  I thought they were like Democrats and only had a price.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:53am

Mike favors grifters over publishers.
This is NOT copyright, kids, it's international trade, which IS properly a concern of Congress. -- Wish they'd do more protectionism. -- And it's sheer arbitrage by a grifter who didn't actually produce anything.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike "supports copyright" -- except when he supports some clever way to get unearned income by dodging it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:55am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  Guys, we found the new troll word of the month! And it is grifter! Whatever he thinks it means.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  out_of_the_blue, 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:56am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  @Me: I disagree, though I am a huge fan of corporations with little to no foresight on the implications of their short term profiteering gags.
  
  Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
  http://techdirt.com/
  Where Mike "supports copyright" -- except when he supports some clever way to get unearned income by dodging it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:13am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  "And it's sheer arbitrage by a grifter who didn't actually produce anything."
  
  I had no idea Rep. Doug Collins was a grifter!
  Thanks for pointing that out, OooB!
  You've actually done some good, for once!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:14am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  "And it's sheer arbitrage by a grifter who didn't actually produce anything."
  
  Ok, now I'd like you (or anyone else) to explain to me why buying low and selling high is such a bad thing.
  
  The guy is taking advantage of price differences in different markets. If I am not mistaken, that's what's been done in business since, like, forever.
  
  Why is that, suddenly, grifting?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:30am
    
    Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
    It isn't suddenly grifting buying low and selling high has always been grifting. Some grift is considered legitimate and some is punished by law. This is why people often struggle to see any important differences between legitimate businessmen and criminals as the only real difference in some cases is the acceptance of asserted legitimacy. Nonetheless if buying and selling is accepted as legitimate then there is no excuse to pretend to draw a distinction between Kirtsaeng and any other trader.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
      "Some grift is considered legitimate and some is punished by law."
      
      Please show an example of buying low through legitimate means (as Kirtsaeng did) and selling at a profit is illegal, if you can, boy.
      I won't hold my breath waiting.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Beech, 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        I am fairly certain scalping tickets is considered illegal, at least in some states.
        
        Also, I suppose insider trading is, at it's heart, buying low/ selling high.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        "I am fairly certain scalping tickets is considered illegal, at least in some states."
        
        Scalping is buying at market rate and selling for a vastly-inflated price due to scarcity.
        
        Not the same as legally-buying below the established price and selling still BELOW the established price, as Kirtsaeng did), with scarcity NOT being an issue.
        There were plenty of copies of the books available, just at a price students didn't want to (or couldn't) pay!
        Try again, boy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beech, 20 Mar 2013 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        Huh? Scalping is buying something for a "lower price" than what you end up selling it for. Scarcity is a part of economics...like, most of economics (at least until the internets rolled around).
        
        I wasn't saying scalping was the same as what Kirstaeng did, because I don't think it is. I was playing a game, a game called "provide the example" where YOU said "show an example of buying low...and selling at a profit is illegal." I DID EXACTLY THAT.
        
        Buy ticket at market value = legal
        Sell at higher price = illegal
        
        You didn't say anything about "scarcity" or "being more than what (someone) wanted to pay" in your initial request for an example. So don't blame me because YOU didn't sufficiently narrow YOUR request for an example. Dumbass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mark Harrill (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        Scalping is generally legal, see StubHub, TicketCity, etc...
        
        Insider Trading may be buying low and selling high but its based on information that isn't available to everyone else which makes it illegal and not a legitimate market transaction.
        
        Count is 0-2...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beech, 20 Mar 2013 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        From wikipedia:
        
        "In the United States, ticket resale on the premises of the event (including adjacent parking lots that are officially part of the facility) may be prohibited by law, although these laws vary from state to state and the majority of U.S. states do not have laws in place to limit the value placed on the resale amount of event tickets or where and how these tickets should be sold. Ticket resellers may conduct business on nearby sidewalks, or advertise through newspaper ads or ticket brokers. Some U.S. states and venues encourage a designated area for resellers to stand in, on, or near the premises, while other states and venues prohibit ticket resale altogether. Resale laws, policies and practices are generally decided, practiced and governed at the local or even venue level in the U.S. and such laws and or interpretations are not currently generalized at a national level."
        
        So, scalping is kinda sorta sometimes illegal depending on what state you're in. Good to know. (Couldn't look it up at work and I wasn't totally sure, that's why I used all those hedging words "fairly certain," "at least in some states.")
        
        And, I am aware that insider trading should certainly be illegal. But that's not what Mr. AC-that-says-boy-far-too-often asked for. The only thing he asked for was an example of buying low/selling high that is illegal. Not where buying low/selling high SHOULD be illegal, or rightfully is illegal, or only "legitimate market transactions" where it's illegal. So based on the criteria dude gave, insider trading qualifies.
        
        I'll agree with you that I don't get a point for scalping, but I'm gonna stick with my guns and give myself a point for insider trading, so I'm 1-1.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AdamF (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 11:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        Scalping is buying at a regulated price and then selling at the market price.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        You do realize that every time you say "boy" you give everyone the impression you're the racist owner of a plantation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        No, he gives everyone the distinct (and correct impression) that the guy he's talking to is either, or has the mentality of, a pre-teen boy, one who doesn't think logically at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2013 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
        Sheesh, that's pretty much the point the difference between criminality and legitimate business is fundamentally the assertion and acceptance of legality.
        If a law is passed to prevent a trade it doesn't change the fundamental morality or lack of morality inherent in business.
        Many people became immensely wealthy engaging in legal business activities that were subsequently made illegal, they were at all times legitimate business people.
        But what you want is an example of a legal activity that was, at the time it was legal,illegal and expect that people might struggle to give you such an example. Well duh!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:26am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  Your statement is wrong because if Mike would have favoured the "grifters" as you put it, he would've been in favour of Wiley.
  
  If you'd have more experience in international trade than only staring at the foreign stock listings in the WSJ, you would know that it is actually illegal to put restrictions on products you've sold. It is fully legal for companies to make use of price differences in different countries, just as it is legal to have different price levels.
  
  If I told my boss I was trying to prevent our customers in country X from selling to county Y (or messing with their prices to make it less attractive for them) he would fire me on the spot because it is against the law and a guaranteed way to end up in court.
  
  Then again, I work for a company that tries to be ethical and transparent in it's approach to the market. Perhaps you should try working for one too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:27am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  "This is NOT copyright, kids"
  
  Doug Collins appears to disagree with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
    "This is NOT copyright, kids"
    
    "Doug Collins appears to disagree with you."
    
    Doug Collins is an idiot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  And it's sheer arbitrage by a grifter who didn't actually produce anything.
  
  Tune in next week when Blue labels your neighborhood Girl Scouts as "grifters" for selling cookies they didn't make themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 20 Mar 2013 @ 2:12pm
    
    Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
    I'm just waiting for him to be consistent and call mortgage derivatives traders grifters.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RadialSkid (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
    I just sold a used truck recently. Obviously I'm a grifter as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2013 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
      That depends, did you sell it for more than it was worth to you. A standard most would consider unreasonable but not completely invalid
      How about did you sell it for more than it was worth to the purchaser.
      You could argue here that the purchaser with perfect knowledge is in the best position to determine what its worth to them but does that require you to try to inform the purchaser of every relevant piece of information.
      What if the law doesn't require you to make certain information you have available to the purchaser but you know it would affect the price the purchaser is willing to pay.
      Knowing that most people do sell, especially second hand vehicles for as much as they possibly can while doing their best to hide or minimise any issues chances are anyone selling their second hand vehicle will be a grifter but it is possible that you specifically are not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  The actual issue is that it would result in the immediate de facto end of the First Sale doctrine. If imported goods can't be resold, then all goods would be imported.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
    Well it could be argued that if imported goods can't be resold, then companies cannot import goods for resale.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2013 @ 2:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
      If they can't get permission from the copyright owner, then that would functionally be the case, yes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  Ahhh, so you have an official response from the Commerce Dept, specifically the International Trade Administration backing up your point.
  
  OR did you just bend over and pull that statement
  
  out_of_your_butt
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:44am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  OOTB picked up a new word, from whren I defines it yesterday. However he does not understand that arbitrage is not grifting. As for non production, most publishers produce nothing as the contract out the actual work of printing and distribution. They also rely on the work of others for content. Publishers are the grifters when it comes to textbooks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler, 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:35am
  
  Re: Mike favors grifters over publishers.
  Yes, it is arbitrage. Why is that a bad thing?
  
  This looks like a win-win situation to me. Kirtsaeng gets some money in his pocket, the students he was selling to save some money on the monstrously exorbitant costs of textbooks, and the parasites lose out on an opportunity for ill-gotten gain. Everyone's happy.
  
  ...except the parasites, of course.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 7:56am

Rep. Doug Collins another Republican who is Supposed to Stand for Liberty,Freedom From Government, and Less Regulations/Smaller Government show just how much of a Hypocrite he is.As well as being another Clueless Bought Already Politician.

I Buy Something I Fucking Own It A-Hole ! And if not then I intend on stopping my Buying of all things I can find elsewhere for Free.Or I will just enjoy the huge Library and huge Documentary Films I own.

I hate these Clueless Moronic Politicians.Probably got himself a Vote because he said Jesus in a Speech, Dislikes LGBT, and is a Southern Far Right Conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  Not about R or D, it's about being a tool for others. Some refuse and others get down on their knees.
  
  No matter how bad you think this guy is, Chris Dodd is 10 times worse in his hypocrisy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Chris Dod is an industry representative, it's not hypocritical for him to represent the industry. It's his job and it's to be expected and is consistent with his position of industry representative.
    
    Congressmen, OTOH, are supposed to represent the public and so when they seek to represent corporate interests instead that's different.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2013 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You clearly don't remember what Dodd said and did for the industry he now represents when he was "a public representative".
      
      Dodd was the BIGGEST censoring prick out there...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:00am

Uh oh. When the MAFIAA finds out people are boycotting them by buying used. They are going to use their lobbying might to ban used sales or at least get a cut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:07am

I can't wait for all these people to die of old age (any time now), so I can become old and unreasonable in their place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trish, 20 Mar 2013 @ 8:18am

dumbbutt
do we really need copuright on 'art' that consists entirely of a logo placed on a product for the sole purpose of getting copyright coverage? That;s just hilarious, til you realize that the government wants to take away the people's rights and hand them to corporations... Next we'll hear about people goin to jail for a long time for importing goods they legally purchased...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:16am

The amazing thing is the speed with which this politician's opinion was purchased. Only a day? To convince a highly placed lawmaker first sale rights are bad when a border is involved? Money talks I suppose.

My favorite part is the rhetoric about Georgia relying on copyright etc. This case is exclusively about made in places OTHER THAN Georgia! It's helping businesses STAY in country(/ Georgia) where they are rather than moving overseas to avoid a used market! The critical thinking parts of his brain must have been overloaded by trying to comprehend all the 0s on his "campaign donation" check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 11:19pm
  
  Re:
  I agree, it's very difficult for the public to convince lawmakers to act in the public interest (ie: Make copy'right' lengths reasonable) but big corporations apparently have very fast strings when they want something done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:24am

I've said it before and it remains true. Ask any one, be it economist, politicians, businessman, or layman, and they will tell you that monopolies are bad for the economy, for consumers, and for the free market. Change the word to copyright or patent and suddenly a lot of them will trip over themselves telling you how awesome and necessary they are, and how they are foundational properties of a free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:33am

Costco
IN an attempt to bring this conversation back on topic - what impact does this have on the Costco/Casio decision a while back? IIRC Casio sued Costco for selling watches that were meant ( & priced) for the European market. Casio claimed (and won) that Costco was infringing because of a small logo on the udnerside of the watch.

Not sure any more if that was Copyright or Trademark but I thought it applied here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Burkhardt (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: Costco
  Well, prior to this (back in november) the lower courts ruled that the use of a logo was copyright misuse, i.e. that using the copyright of the logo to restrict the movement of the watch was outside of the bounds of the copyright assigned to the logo. Given that the logo was , by the companies own admission, only placed on the watch to restrict the movement of the watch, the court ruled against the watch manufacturer. I dont think it was Casio though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
letherial (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 10:58am

anyone who thinks the right wing mantra of 'smaller goverment' is quite simply a idiot with no facts.

What they realy mean is smaller government for the elite and huge gigantic government for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 11:18am

Jeez! where do these morons get off? do they ever think about or realise what they are saying and how ridiculous it makes them look? a 10 year old has more savy than this Congressman. what a shame he doesn't check the facts before making himself look a complete plum!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 11:21am

Sadly that's why Republicans have become now, and I could tell he was a Republican from the headline. They keep paying lip service to "freedom from government interference", but in reality the vast majority of Republicans are just pro-corporations these days - INCLUDING getting the government to support those corporations, either through lower taxes, subsidies or some kind of legal monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 11:47am

Since when has copyright given someone the "exclusive right to import"?

Gives them the right to prevent others from making it, not to control resale/import/export right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re: Right to import
  If the MAFIAA believed that copyright included a import/export right they would have never invented the region encoding on DVDs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Special interest groups, 20 Mar 2013 @ 2:10pm

Pile of cash
Well of course the Congressman would say this. Just like all US politicians, he is elected to serve his corporate interests first, then himself second, then his constituents somewhere around 10th in line. Follow the money trail back to the Congressman and you'll understand why they vote the way they do - they've been legally bribed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2013 @ 4:54pm

You may contact him here

https://dougcollins.house.gov/email-me/

Everyone should make it clear that he will lose his job if he continues his support for copy'right' and that we should make the rest of his life miserable if he gets a revolving door job afterwords. In fact, getting a revolving door after supporting IP laws should be illegal and subject to punishment far worse than infringement. This is an outrage that this revolving door problem goes unpunished while doing nothing wrong, like infringement, is subject to huge punishments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]