At the end of the day, it doesn't change much for Netflix customers, except perhaps to encourage them to use streaming rather than mail delivery. For WB, it gives them a chance to retail the product before it becomes a cheaper rental product.
It's a win win that Netflix will never admit to. They are trying have to push people to streaming (there is no number of copy restrictions, etc), to leverage all those netflix enabled consumer goods in the marketplace. I am guessing you will see Netflix slowly but surely move away from their mail based model, as it will be the most expensive way to do things.
Actually, for the purposes of guarantee, I am the purchaser (I would be the one with the bill to prove the purchase).
Also, I am not re-retailing the product, I am giving it as a gift. Not quite the same thing, is it?
An interesting side note: I often buy products in Asia when I travel, sometimes I give them as gifts. I am very careful though to mention to people that they likely have to guarantee that would apply here. If they have an issue, they can let me know and I can exchange it or get service on my next trip.
Distribution networks are not the same as retail sale. Once something that be sold at retail, it isn't "new", just "new in the box".
Example, the original retail buyer would be eligible for a guarantee, but the second buyer would only be eligible if it was first registered and then transferred. The second buyer is not the original retail customer.
For the consumer that gets something "new in the box" thinking it is new, they will be disappointed when the guarantee isn't applicable or available in their market, because they bought what is a re-retailed, out of market product.
As for how my example covers payola in the 90s, the concept is still the same: Getting music on the air to drive consumer demand. Basically, you get a song or band that might not otherwise be of high enough quality to get a fan base only by word of mouth and not good enough to make the play lists, and you pay to make them into a top act. They get played 8 - 10 times per day for a month or two, make it onto the "top 40" list for the station, and start to develop a fan base in that area. The details of how it is done change from time to time, but the concepts remain the same.
While I hate to use wikipedia for anything, I think this is a good thing to put in the game:
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. ยง 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule."
The very first thing that is required is that the work (in this case a watch) is purchased. As wholesalers of Omega are "market restricted", the only way you get watches from one market to another is to buy them from a retailer, even if you are buying them by the case rather than on an individual basis.
Thus, while they boxes they are in have never been opened, the product has in fact been sold at retail. After all, there is no other way to obtain the goods without a wholesaler breaking their agreement with Omega, which would likely cost them their wholesale agreement.
In order to apply the First Sale Doctrine, you must first have a sale. Otherwise, the goods would still be within Omega's distribution channels, and subject to whatever contractual arrangements exist.
Now, if CostCo sells these "used" goods without indicating that they are used, there would be an issue there as well, not for copyright, but rather as a false representation. Many companies do not honor guarantees for products sold outside of their home market, or will only honor them if you "carry in" the product to the service center in it's home market, as is their right.
There are some interesting implications here...
As a side note, shopping in places like HK is great for this, the same shop will often have the same product in three different versions: Local market, grey market, and black market. The local market are actually intended for the HK market, the grey market often comes from mainland market or places like Indonesia or Thailand (where retail prices may be lower). The black market products are often assembled in the same factories as the real products, but may use rejected components, could be repaired "failed" units, or could be complete knock offs. You trade price point for quality. The grey market products are often 10-30% lower in price than the local market products, but usually are not able to get warrantee coverage
The buyer then sold that shipment of watches to Costco in the US, who offered them for retail sale. Hence the lawsuit.
Here's a twist in all of this: Was Costco selling used mechandise as "new"? The first sale right would only apply to used goods, no?
Even though the product was "new in the box", was it not product that had already been retailed? Is the grey market material used, which in turn would lead it not to have guarantee coverage until the original buyer registered it and transferred that to the second buyer?
It seems like grey market may be greyer than they think.
The ISPs face an issue because while most of them are decent people not trying to screw anyone over, some are specifically set up to allow illegal activity. They play the game of ignornace, all the while actively supporting bad elements.
The whole ESTdomains thing is a perfect example, where the bad guys pretty much locked up registrars, hosts, IP blocks, transit, and every other step in the process in a manner to allow illegal activities (such as phishing, toolbar / BHO installs, etc). When someone would complaint to the "host", the host would ignore them. So they complain to the connectivity provider, same thing. They complain to the registrar, same thing, because they were all connected and all in on it.
There are some ISPs that are known as spam friendly, phishing friendly, etc. Some hosts loudly proclaim themselves as willing to take the heat, willing to insulate their clients from problems. Some even specialize in hosting the IRC chat rooms used for bot herding.
In the end, the vast majority of hosting companies are good and decent, but a few bad ones lead to all of them ending up with more responsibilities.
Not at all, nice to see people take things way out of proportion. When I read stuff like this, I can understand how you can think that piracy is a good thing too.
All I am saying is that the painting is displayed in agreement between the rights holder (could be whoever owns the painting) and the gallery. They decide what the rights are for viewing within their private gallery.
Technically speaking, you are seeing it only because they are allowing you to see it. Otherwise, they could keep it private and you would never see it, and it would be well within their rights.
If the painting was hanging in a public space, the discussion would be different. It is not.
He makes one mistake, one truly huge error in his line of thinking that would change the entire story:
I'm basically doing free promotion here
That isn't his choice, that choice should be up to the artist and the people showing the work. If they don't want your free promotion, you shouldn't just foist it on them anyway.
Thompson does a good job showing how overly restrictive rules can, in fact, limit how we learn or appreciate art, by flat out limiting new ways that people can get exposed to works
No, it only shows that Thompson thinks he can tell the artist what to do and how to share his work. That is the artist's choice, and the exhibitor's choice for the time that the painting is in their gallery.
It is incredibly arrogant to assume to tell the artist and the exhibitor how to show off their work.
I can get a new IP at the push of a button, but even Mike knows that I don't spend time trying to hide who I am, except perhaps to get people to debate ideas rather than personality.
As for my posts, I find that there is much of what Mike posts that is sensationalized or twisted to meet an agenda or belief set that he works from. More often than not, there is missing facts, overlooked angles, and outright misrepresentation of "facts" by only highlighting certain things and ignoring other things that would go against the premise. A lot of people do it, even the mainstream media is guilty sometimes of giving a 30,000 foot view because a closer look might screw up a good story.
I also tend to object to bootstrapping and posts that can lead people to think that opinions are facts. I tend to point that out, because it often changes the way things play out. DRM tax, anyone?
Seriously though: you did a hard-copy dump of a flame-war Ca. 1980 --- and then you *KEPT* it around?
I can't really say where it is from (without giving away a little too much of myself) but safe to say there were national multi-user systems with local dialup long before AOL, and even before the first of the BBSes (I remember the first BBS in Canada, most people would be hard pressed to name it).
Then again, I can remember when 110 baud was "fast". :)
In one instance, you cause the image to be served (by making it part of the web page) in the other, you only provide a link that the user can use or not use at their discretion.
One is an integrated part of a web page, the other is just a pointer.
If you want to run something, get a host and take care of it yourself. Don't depend on some other service to provide you tools that they can take away without notice.
With your own domain and software, you can host anywhere. Considering how inexpensive hosting is, it is almost foolish to use free tools.
Mike, once again you are doing the sort of thing that makes the rest of the world think that Americans are arrogant:
You are trying to apply your standards and your laws to the rest of the world.
India's laws are different. You may not agree with them, but they are the law. Google is doing what is required of them by Indian law to operate in India.
Don't be arrogant, the rest of the world doesn't always want to be American.
Mike, when you write stuff like this, you end up sounding incredibly ignorant.
The entire web isn't infringing on anything.
On your site here, there are certain images and graphics which are yours (and copyright to you or whoever made them for you, whatever the case is). They are hosted on servers or services you control. Example:
Now, by including html in your page that tells my browser to get that image, you are providing that image to me. If you own the rights to it, you are inherently granting me rights to view the image. After all, if you didn't want me to view the image, you wouldn't include it in your page, right?
If you have a link to cnn on your site, http://www.cnn.com that is also not infringing, because you have nothing from CNN on your site. You are only point to it. They can decline your traffic if they so wish.
Now, if you included an image in your html, in the same manner that you include your logo, but the image was:
you would be infringing. You are republishing that image as part of your page without rights. It isn't a question of it appears on my browser instead of your browser, that isn't key. It would not be in my browser as part of your page if you didn't inherently tell me you have the rights to use the image.
Where the image is served from isn't key at all. It is the direct act that you make to actively include the image (not a linking to the image, but making the image as part of your viewable webpage) that changes everything.
basically, an IMG tag has different properties from a HREF tag. It's pretty basic stuff.
When you start getting all tied up in knots on stuff like this, I start to wonder more about some of your other ideas, because you are really off the map on this one.
On the post: Warner Bros. Gets Netflix To Delay Movies; You Don't Save Your Business By Pissing Off Your Customers
It's a win win that Netflix will never admit to. They are trying have to push people to streaming (there is no number of copy restrictions, etc), to leverage all those netflix enabled consumer goods in the marketplace. I am guessing you will see Netflix slowly but surely move away from their mail based model, as it will be the most expensive way to do things.
Welcome to the future. Enjoy it.
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I am not re-retailing the product, I am giving it as a gift. Not quite the same thing, is it?
An interesting side note: I often buy products in Asia when I travel, sometimes I give them as gifts. I am very careful though to mention to people that they likely have to guarantee that would apply here. If they have an issue, they can let me know and I can exchange it or get service on my next trip.
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Distribution networks are not the same as retail sale. Once something that be sold at retail, it isn't "new", just "new in the box".
Example, the original retail buyer would be eligible for a guarantee, but the second buyer would only be eligible if it was first registered and then transferred. The second buyer is not the original retail customer.
For the consumer that gets something "new in the box" thinking it is new, they will be disappointed when the guarantee isn't applicable or available in their market, because they bought what is a re-retailed, out of market product.
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Re: Re: Re: Re:
NOT.
I stated up from it was a "twist", my own look at it. If you don't like it, just skip to the next comment. It's just an opinion, that's all.
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure there's no legal requirement, but the blogger in question would certainly lose readership if exposed doing that secretly.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0943016423.shtml
As for how my example covers payola in the 90s, the concept is still the same: Getting music on the air to drive consumer demand. Basically, you get a song or band that might not otherwise be of high enough quality to get a fan base only by word of mouth and not good enough to make the play lists, and you pay to make them into a top act. They get played 8 - 10 times per day for a month or two, make it onto the "top 40" list for the station, and start to develop a fan base in that area. The details of how it is done change from time to time, but the concepts remain the same.
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Re: Re:
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. ยง 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule."
The very first thing that is required is that the work (in this case a watch) is purchased. As wholesalers of Omega are "market restricted", the only way you get watches from one market to another is to buy them from a retailer, even if you are buying them by the case rather than on an individual basis.
Thus, while they boxes they are in have never been opened, the product has in fact been sold at retail. After all, there is no other way to obtain the goods without a wholesaler breaking their agreement with Omega, which would likely cost them their wholesale agreement.
In order to apply the First Sale Doctrine, you must first have a sale. Otherwise, the goods would still be within Omega's distribution channels, and subject to whatever contractual arrangements exist.
Now, if CostCo sells these "used" goods without indicating that they are used, there would be an issue there as well, not for copyright, but rather as a false representation. Many companies do not honor guarantees for products sold outside of their home market, or will only honor them if you "carry in" the product to the service center in it's home market, as is their right.
There are some interesting implications here...
As a side note, shopping in places like HK is great for this, the same shop will often have the same product in three different versions: Local market, grey market, and black market. The local market are actually intended for the HK market, the grey market often comes from mainland market or places like Indonesia or Thailand (where retail prices may be lower). The black market products are often assembled in the same factories as the real products, but may use rejected components, could be repaired "failed" units, or could be complete knock offs. You trade price point for quality. The grey market products are often 10-30% lower in price than the local market products, but usually are not able to get warrantee coverage
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Here's a twist in all of this: Was Costco selling used mechandise as "new"? The first sale right would only apply to used goods, no?
Even though the product was "new in the box", was it not product that had already been retailed? Is the grey market material used, which in turn would lead it not to have guarantee coverage until the original buyer registered it and transferred that to the second buyer?
It seems like grey market may be greyer than they think.
On the post: Should ISPs And Registrars Be Responsible For Bogus Online Pharmaceutical Sites?
The whole ESTdomains thing is a perfect example, where the bad guys pretty much locked up registrars, hosts, IP blocks, transit, and every other step in the process in a manner to allow illegal activities (such as phishing, toolbar / BHO installs, etc). When someone would complaint to the "host", the host would ignore them. So they complain to the connectivity provider, same thing. They complain to the registrar, same thing, because they were all connected and all in on it.
There are some ISPs that are known as spam friendly, phishing friendly, etc. Some hosts loudly proclaim themselves as willing to take the heat, willing to insulate their clients from problems. Some even specialize in hosting the IRC chat rooms used for bot herding.
In the end, the vast majority of hosting companies are good and decent, but a few bad ones lead to all of them ending up with more responsibilities.
On the post: Copyright Sillyness: Can't Take Photos Of Artwork That Was Built On The Works Of Others
Re:
All I am saying is that the painting is displayed in agreement between the rights holder (could be whoever owns the painting) and the gallery. They decide what the rights are for viewing within their private gallery.
Technically speaking, you are seeing it only because they are allowing you to see it. Otherwise, they could keep it private and you would never see it, and it would be well within their rights.
If the painting was hanging in a public space, the discussion would be different. It is not.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Amazing.
On the post: Copyright Sillyness: Can't Take Photos Of Artwork That Was Built On The Works Of Others
I'm basically doing free promotion here
That isn't his choice, that choice should be up to the artist and the people showing the work. If they don't want your free promotion, you shouldn't just foist it on them anyway.
Thompson does a good job showing how overly restrictive rules can, in fact, limit how we learn or appreciate art, by flat out limiting new ways that people can get exposed to works
No, it only shows that Thompson thinks he can tell the artist what to do and how to share his work. That is the artist's choice, and the exhibitor's choice for the time that the painting is in their gallery.
It is incredibly arrogant to assume to tell the artist and the exhibitor how to show off their work.
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow. The pattern is so obvious:
As for my posts, I find that there is much of what Mike posts that is sensationalized or twisted to meet an agenda or belief set that he works from. More often than not, there is missing facts, overlooked angles, and outright misrepresentation of "facts" by only highlighting certain things and ignoring other things that would go against the premise. A lot of people do it, even the mainstream media is guilty sometimes of giving a 30,000 foot view because a closer look might screw up a good story.
I also tend to object to bootstrapping and posts that can lead people to think that opinions are facts. I tend to point that out, because it often changes the way things play out. DRM tax, anyone?
On the post: Site Suspends Comments For 'Cooling Off Period'
Re: A "cooling off period" -- suuure.
I can't really say where it is from (without giving away a little too much of myself) but safe to say there were national multi-user systems with local dialup long before AOL, and even before the first of the BBSes (I remember the first BBS in Canada, most people would be hard pressed to name it).
Then again, I can remember when 110 baud was "fast". :)
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission
One is an integrated part of a web page, the other is just a pointer.
On the post: CyberSitter Sues The Chinese Government (In Los Angeles) Over Green Dam Filters
Re:
On the post: Google's Communication Problems Continue: Blogger Can't Get His Blog Turned Back On After Six Months
If you want to run something, get a host and take care of it yourself. Don't depend on some other service to provide you tools that they can take away without notice.
With your own domain and software, you can host anywhere. Considering how inexpensive hosting is, it is almost foolish to use free tools.
On the post: UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(it wasn't broken)
On the post: The Slippery Slope Of Internet Censorship In India
Sort of arrogant, no?
You are trying to apply your standards and your laws to the rest of the world.
India's laws are different. You may not agree with them, but they are the law. Google is doing what is required of them by Indian law to operate in India.
Don't be arrogant, the rest of the world doesn't always want to be American.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re:
The entire web isn't infringing on anything.
On your site here, there are certain images and graphics which are yours (and copyright to you or whoever made them for you, whatever the case is). They are hosted on servers or services you control. Example:
http://techdirt.com/images/techdirt_logohorizontal.gif
Now, by including html in your page that tells my browser to get that image, you are providing that image to me. If you own the rights to it, you are inherently granting me rights to view the image. After all, if you didn't want me to view the image, you wouldn't include it in your page, right?
If you have a link to cnn on your site, http://www.cnn.com that is also not infringing, because you have nothing from CNN on your site. You are only point to it. They can decline your traffic if they so wish.
Now, if you included an image in your html, in the same manner that you include your logo, but the image was:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/06/t1main.gilbert.arenas.gi.jpg
you would be infringing. You are republishing that image as part of your page without rights. It isn't a question of it appears on my browser instead of your browser, that isn't key. It would not be in my browser as part of your page if you didn't inherently tell me you have the rights to use the image.
Where the image is served from isn't key at all. It is the direct act that you make to actively include the image (not a linking to the image, but making the image as part of your viewable webpage) that changes everything.
basically, an IMG tag has different properties from a HREF tag. It's pretty basic stuff.
When you start getting all tied up in knots on stuff like this, I start to wonder more about some of your other ideas, because you are really off the map on this one.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission
As different as coffee and tea.
Next >>