3 ms·
The article doesn't really comment on the merits of the case for Kirtsaeng. The EFF isn't trying to convince people to support any position in that case, nor sh
by antoko 14y ago
The article doesn't really comment on the merits of the case for Kirtsaeng. The EFF isn't trying to convince people to support any position in that case, nor should they, I agree with you that it is definitely a legal grey area.
What the EFF is taking issue with in that case is the potential precedent that could be set depending how the case turns out that could undermine first sale. The only reason EFF is interested in the case is because the legal arguments being used could impact first sale.
What's happening in that case is not simply that publishers are trying to claw back rights from US consumers
True... but that's the part of the case that the EFF is concerned about.
In contrast, in the Capitol case the article very clearly takes a position, and while I'm not familiar with that case I give the EFF the benefit of the doubt and assume they're being truthful.
- schoen 14y agoEFF did take a position in the Kirtsaeng case, in support of the petitioner (Kirtsaeng): https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/eff-asks-supreme-court-tackle-important-first-sale-questions https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/eff-asks-supreme-court... (The "urging" there is a link to EFF's amicus brief in the Supreme Court -- https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/PKEFFCertAmicus_firstsale.pdf https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/PKEFFCertAmicus_firs... if you'd like to read the brief, which was filed together with Public Knowledge and US PIRG, back in January of this year.) Although I mentioned that there are reasons that people who oppose parallel importation or aren't sure if they support it should be concerned about the respondent's (Wiley's) view of the first sale doctrine, EFF's brief explicitly supports parallel importation (see section II(C) of the brief). Reasons to care even if you don't care about protecting parallel importation are found in sections II(A) and II(B).
- tptacek 14y agoI took the time to read your cite, and I can't see how the EFF's argument in favor of parallel importation isn't a public policy no-op. EFF argues that by restricting parallel import, US customers are forced to pay more than overseas customers. You don't say? Offering price breaks to students in Thailand who can't possibly afford to pay what US customers routinely pay for books means US people pay more than Thai people for books?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]