![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 11:44 [GMT-6]
It's the first day of school! I get to hang around the house without the clump-clump of remora feet today!
The real problem with the Hugos is that the voting process is even less rational and more likely to produce illogical results than is the US presidential primary system (or, indeed, any other primary system in the US!). For example, this year one of the finalists for "best" novel this year and "best" short story last year was also eligible for the Campbell Award ("best" new writer, but technically "not a Hugo")... but didn't make the final ballot with substantially more nominations for her novel than would have been required to make the final ballot for the Campbell. None of those who did make the Campbell final ballot were finalists for individual works either this year or last. That's not to diminish anyone's achievement... except, perhaps, that of the World Science Fiction Society itself.
Kirtsaeng imported textbooks published by Wiley for foreign markets into the US and sold them on eBay... for considerably less than the US-market version of the same textbooks. (I should add that one need not scour eBay to find bargains like this — while helping my remoras purchase their textbooks, I found several more-formally-organized online textbook vendors who do the same.) The Second Circuit held that this is a copyright infringement, and it is not protected by the first-sale doctrine in § 109 of the 1976 Act. This time, the dissent has by far the better of the argument, but for an entirely different reason: That it would have been a clear violation under the 1909 Act, but Congress removed the statutory authority for asserting that violation in the 1976 Act. That said, both opinions are correct to criticize the ambiguous, inelegant prose in question!
Kirtsaeng masks the real reason that the books are cheaper outside the US. The parties claim that it's due to cheaper binding and printing, thinner paper, etc.; however, I've examined several recent Wiley textbooks, and we're talking about a difference of much less than a dollar per copy on hundred-dollar-plus textbooks, especially since there's a decent chance with many textbook publishers that the bloody things were printed overseas anyway (thanks to the rejection of § 15's protectionist impulses by the 1976 Act!). The real difference is that typical US-publisher contracts — and I've seen enough Wiley textbook contracts to presume it's true for the particular textbooks at issue in this matter — give the authors a much lower royalty on books sold outside the US. It's in Wiley's best interest to protect this distinction, so that authors don't start questioning Wiley's accounting of which sales were "in" and which sales were "outside" the US. <SARCASM> But then, we should always trust publishers' accounting anyway, right? </SARCASM>
Finally, Kirtsaeng still represents an intermediate case to the concerns Justice Ginsberg expressed in Costco last year... because the works at issue are merely less-costly packagings of copyrighted material otherwise available in the US. The true extreme case is for a work for which no authorized US edition presently exists, but is imported (even in large quantities) from foreign editions in advance of planned US publication. Consider, for example, a hypothetical Harry Potter book published only in England, with the US edition to be several months (or even weeks) later. That is the true test cast for the first sale doctrine — not a grey-market transaction in which the ultimate victims are not the publishers, but the authors.
Labels: arts, copyright, culture, intellectual property, mass media, publishing
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–12 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
