6 ms·
> electronic goods But this case is apparently about copyright, and hardware isn't usually subject to copyright. Though I suppose firmware, etc. might be. Of
by TillE 14y ago
> electronic goods
But this case is apparently about copyright, and hardware isn't usually subject to copyright. Though I suppose firmware, etc. might be.
Of course, I think it's ludicrous that anyone could be guilty of a copyright violation without having, by any imaginable definition, made a copy of anything.
- msbarnett 14y ago> But this case is apparently about copyright, and hardware isn't usually subject to copyright. Though I suppose firmware, etc. might be. There's no might, here. The firmware, OS, hell, even the branding text on a label is subject to copyright. See, for instance, the ruling in Omega v Costco, where a logo was enough to bring copyright infringement charges against Costco for importing foreign-market watches.
- DanBC 14y agoCopyright is normally copy and other rights. Thus, for many years, "this edition not available in the United States" was printed in UK editions of many books. I think (but I'm not sure) that the UK makes a difference between personal sales of out-of-country goods (this is okay) and a business selling out-of-country goods (this is not fine). A notable case is Tesco vs Levi jeans. There have been some other cases involving DVD importing.
- alexqgb 14y agoCopyright law governs both the creation of copies, and their distribution. This pairing is one of the law's longest-standing and must basic features. It's also the root of the conflict in this case.
- decode 14y ago> Copyright law governs both the creation of copies, and their distribution. This is an interesting idea that I haven't heard before. In what ways has copyright law governed the distribution of objects when no copying is involved?
- tedunangst 14y agoThe distributed object is a copy. This court case does not apply to the sole copy of a manuscript.
- alexqgb 14y ago"This DVD is licensed only for private, non-commercial use." That's backed up by copyright law. If you build a theater, charge people to enter, and program runs of classic movies, you will get sued for violating the commercial-distribution aspects of copyright law, even if you bought the DVD you were charging others to see.
- decode 14y ago"you will get sued for violating the commercial-distribution aspects of copyright law" I think that's incorrect. I think this would be infringement due to it being considered a public performance, not commercial distribution. As the copyright act says, "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." The MPAA also describes the situation as a public performance issue: http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law Do you know of any cases where a public performance was prosecuted as a commercial distribution case?
- alexqgb 14y agoI'm a producer, not a lawyer, so I can't quote you legal chapter and verse. But as your own link makes clear "But suppose you took the same movie or TV episode and showed it to patrons at a club or bar that you happen to manage. In that case, you have infringed the copyright in the video work." Whether a public performance constitutes legal publication is, of course, a separate issue. The point I was making is that copyright law governs both duplication and distribution, not duplication only.