This is a very tough case.

Copyright Law exists in order to further the useful arts by balancing the needs of the producer and the needs of the public. Let's look beyond the cheap shots that have already begun to permetate this thread and discuss in those terms.

Basically, this ruling amounts to telling wiley and sons (the producers) that they cannot reliably price discriminate for foreign markets. you might say "so what? tough cookies." but let's think about that for a moment.

basically, wiley has two choices at what price to set the textbooks at in thailand -

Price A - low price that thais can afford.
Price B - USA price or near to it

with price A, they can engage in fair competition in the thai market and earn a fair profit. at this price, they dont have too much to fear from piracy.
with price B, they can expect to sell few copies as piracy will be rampant. as it is highly unlikely that this is at the profit maximizing price, their profits will be lower.

this ruling basically compels them to either sell in thailand (a presumably much smaller market than the usa) at a price closer to price B or to make economically useless changes to their textbooks to make them unsaleable in the USA, such as printing them only in the thai language. or, they can do even worse stuff like arguing for import tarriffs from thailand to the usa on books.

even worse, it prevents them from doing things like giving away their textbooks in africa at a loss.

and even then, if they have to price at price B in thailand, their unit cost goes up and presumably they might have to raise the prices of US textbooks. a lose-lose.

first sale doctrine is important, but i dont see why it must apply accross borders given that there are other legitimate considerations, including the need to educate globally.

i cant say that this is a bad ruling, as ive not read the rulings, but offhand this issue is far more complex and in need of serious thought than some are giving it credit for here.

bollocks. it is not fair use. it is some guy...

a) posting an entire discovery channel documentary and then claiming that it is "fair use" because of fair use's education provision, though anybody with half a brain could see that such a claim does not stand up.
b) posting a whole movie and then claiming "fair use" under god knows what theory.
c) some guy claiming "fair use" because he used a commercial piece of music as the background for his something else.

none of those have been interpreted as fair use. in fact, almost NOTHING on youtube that is claimed as "fair use" actually is.

the idea that there is a real "illegitimate DMCA request" problem is fud. there is none. for every 1 actual illegitimate dmca request, i'm sure there are 10,000 infringing videos on youtube. your issue is FUD, FUD, FUD.

No, that's NOT the logic i'm using. And, in fact, if you read the first paragraph of what I wrote, it's very very explicitly NOT the logic I am using.

You are attempting to apply law like a computer program. And, sorry, but LAW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Your slippery slope analogy DOES NOT APPLY.

In actual law and policy:

- intent matters
- quantity matters
- judgment matters

these things are the difference between intenetional murder and a regrettable accident.

But thank you for an entirely predictable foil post for me to re-emphasize the key point.

As far as this goes:

>Copyright infringement comes down to one thing, as a society do we want free access to art or do we want to only allow the privileged who can afford it, to have >access.

This is an utter and total oversimplification of a complex problem and you should be ashamed for having written this, though as you missed the key point of my first post, I am not so surprised.

Except their automatic filter is ridiculously bad for filtering out basically anything except for recent content by top label bands and recent TV shows, in both cases based on audio samples. You can watch pretty much every copyrighted documentary ever made, get tens of thousands of full length movies, and much more with trivial searches, most of which have been up for a long time and are never taken down. It is only the most obvious of obvious stuff that gets taken down, and even that gets back up in another form trivially fast The only things that really get taken down are the ones where rightsholders have been forced to pay people to sit there full time to write DMCA notices and/or the likely candidates who will sue them. So, youtube has a "don't sue us" filter, but that's about it.

I'd like to say that unlike most of you (most of you who post, anyway), I am, in a broad brush "against" mega. The test of copyright infringement in all countries in not a simple yes/no, but rather depends on things like intent, amount of material involved, for profitness, etc. And, when put against such tests, it is clear that megaupload's entire business model was as a facilitator of copyright infringing materials. I don't think there's any legitimate claim for him to be a "common carrier" as an impartial ISP. I agree with the takedown of his site and the seizure of his ill-gotten gains.

HOWEVER

If you read the wiki page on mega, specifically the "basis of indictment" bullet points, what strikes me is this: the exact same list can easily be levied against youtube, which I content is also a business, like megaupload, fundamentally built upon copyright infringement. YouTube is slightly more clever in that they attract non-infringing users to better mask their infringing activities, but still fundamentally the vast bulk of youtube advertising dollars come from showing copyright infringing content. Like megaupload, it has as kiddy-pron filter that works and yet while the same filter could be trivially tweaked or built upon to block at least a good portion of blatantly infringing content, it is not. Furthermore, both youtube and mega technically claim to be DMCA-takedown compliant, but both make legitimate rightsholders go through the maximal numbers of hoops to submit claims AND have trivial mechanisms for replacement of taken-down content (in mega's case, the 'link' system, in youtube's case, users just create another logon and re-upload).

So, if there's one thing REALLY wrong with this case, it's not relatively small prosecutorial oversteps in going after mega. rather, it's the unequalness where mega was procecuted but youtube allows to steam on. do a youtube search for 'full movie' to see how bad it is. we all know that we can find more or less whatever we want on youtube, plus or minus a few recent items from popular/current shows where the rightsholders actively police youtube (like the latest family guy episodes).

in all cases, it is the creators of content, the very people that we should protect the most, that get screwed.

Any petition website without a parallel anti-petition, allowing those who have heard about the petition but want to express their voice against the motion is a sham anyway. Without it, petitions are basically north korean elections.

This is no different than those petitions demanding some "human right" to check in luggage at no additional cost. it's a pathetic populist grab that ignores the fact that market forces exist. by limiting the ability of companies to offer (or not) locked/unlocked baggage included/baggage extra you're basically damning the mobile market to the "low cost" of actually-quite-expensive Southwest vs the actually low cost of RyanAir....

oh, and before all of you pipe in saying how mobiles are cheap in europe because you can jump from operator to operator - yes, this is true. however, this shouldn't mean that in principle a company shouldn't be able to offer a "locked to them" plan at a choice that you are free to accept or not based on the value of their proposition and that furthermore you should be obligated to stick to it.

The "writ large" subtext of the headline is that "somebody or somebodies in defense procurement is an idiot."

Not so fast there.

1. there are coordination costs and possibly size/weight penalties associated with installation of additional equipment.
2. the act of installing additional equipment and sharing the necessary protocols is itself a security weak spot.
3. it is hard to imagine where the two aircraft would be operating together and need direct ship to ship communications...
4. especially as they always have the ability to communicte indirectly via AWACS, etc.
5. and if they were in the air together, it is highly unlikely that whatever they'd transmit would be anything except other than a short time period thing that would be useless and impossible for an enemy to make use of (such as coordination information during an air-to-air engagement)

so let's be clear, smitty - what you are basically arguing is for FURTHER gilding the defense lilly and spending what will ultimately amount fo at least one human life's worth of effort to engineer this potential security hole for some highly unlikely engagement.

sorry, but no.

I have no doubt that things go on. I simply am saying that the person who posted the original story about the $30m (USD?) contract and the parking space and the french lawyers coming to america somehow and the same person who ordered, bought, and returned the stuff being the same person who visits the factory and writes like a 14 year old is full of crap and that this particular story is utter nonsense or cobbled together from a similar story that he heard some adult say in a different situation.

I'd like to know where in the USA you found a visit to the doctor for $50.

Folks, this story obviously never happened. People who have the power to both order and return 30m in equipment don't write like 14 year olds and there are plenty of other hints / discrepancies in this story as well.

should i bring out morbo who will yell at you that LAW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY?

law does not work by your idiotic mechanistic application of rigid principles, so your slippery slope arguments are null and void, even if logically sound in some computer programmer sort of way.

honestly this is "law and policy 101" stuff. your argument is tired and deeply, deeply wanting.

government or private company?

will you at least get your argument straight? the difference matters, since presumably an argument AGAINST a private company doing this can be seen as an argument FOR government doing it, and vice versa.

the vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of copyright infringed materials are of recent vintage, making your argument both self defeating and a naked attempt at muddling the issue with some sideshow.

yes, copyright should be limited, but marginal effects on steamboat willie really are not central to the issue.

patents are a short 20 years or so and the resulting inventions have bought incalculable benefit to the world. virtually every pharmaceutical you have ever heard of AND NONE YOU HAVEN'T have been developed because of the profit motive that the patent system allows for.

> IP cases costs me my tax money and bring me zero benefit.

I'm so glad that you and everybody that you know have never been treated by any medication that has been developed by a profit motive possible primarly due to profit motive, or that you have never used any device brought to market because of the profit motive that patents allow for and also that you have never watched any entertainment that was generated as a profit making venture, again, due to copyright.

when you get back from gilligan's island, let us know.