Re: [dvd-discuss] Power play

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

Before I starting ranting (sorry) -- can anyone give me an explicit ISBN
reference to a work with the faux copyright notice in it?  I know
someone who might have interest. Thanks.

Bryan Taylor wrote:
> 
> I think you are both over reacting. Copyright notices can only retain what
> already belongs to the copyright holder. That has been the law for quite a long
> time. A copyright notice does not meet the requirements of a contract, since
> you don't click "I agree" before the book functions. It is nothing new to bluff
> with copyright notices. The first sale doctrine came about in the US Supreme
> Court case Bobbs-Merrill v. Strous when a notice was ignored.

I'm willing to admit to some level of overreaction, but maybe it's time
to start overreacting. Stating to a buyer that they have no rights in
order to encourage them to give the vendor more cash for additional
copies is fraudulent.  Just because this sort of fraud has been
tolerated for too long by "we the people" neither justifies nor defends
the practice.  False commercial statements can be the basis of civil or
criminal action.  This faux copyright is certainly a knowingly false
statement.

If 2% milk can no longer be labeled low fat (at it decreases fat content
by only 50% over the base product) then public domain works shouldn't be
able to be labeled "all rights reserved".  Certainly the fact it is a
"bluff" doesn't somehow put the statement in the clear.  This is fraud
on the level of a pyshic/con-artist, "you must continue to see me or
your bad luck will return"

Finally it is the whole of the DRM/TPM that makes this all the more
dangerous.  Book vendors are being tolerated in asserting rights where
none exist -- the basis for the majority of DRM/TPM functionality. 
There is no right to prevent fair use. There is no right to prevent
space shifting.  We need to take offense against those who would usurp
our freedoms.

Yes, it's just one little notice -- but it's also the nose of the
camel.  Time to take action (or perhaps class-action), and knock the
camel back on it's hump.

James, can you comment on the validity of a "false advertising"
class-action suit against these booksellers?



.002

(breath, self. breath)