PSA to Americans: If you've ever sold on a piece of electronics, you probably broke copyright law

God Bless America!

If only someone gave a ****.

I dont get it. How does this mean we can't sell our stuff? Everything I read in the OP (didnt read link lol) says the opposite.

I did hit full quote, but assumed the "sold in the U.S." part of "the Supreme Court ruled that the first-sale doctrine applies to any product manufactured in the United States, sold in the U.S.," covered it. I guess that part was just irrelevant, but it confused me.

Anyways, yeah no way this interpretation will have any effect. For one, the Supreme Courts would have to be retarded to let it, so there's a 50/50 chance it will end there. But even if it does, it'd be even less enforceable than digital copyright violations, and those are damn near impossible to handle. The amount of effort required to prove such transactions and the cost of litigation and benefit of winning a case would be just as, if not more prohibitive than digital violations.

I suppose it could have a serious impact on ebay though. Any idea of whether this would effect US people buying stuff on ebay from non-US based sellers?

Yeah, and people have been sued for downloading music. Look how much that stopped piracy.

Somewhere around here:

But he's not talking about the effect on illegal commerce per se, it's the effect on citizens and how it can be used against them.

Right, I know. Of course it will have a minuscule effect like anti-piracy does on a random/foolish few, but since that doesn't actually stop people from doing it, that's the same as having no effect.

If I went to a candy factory and poisoned 20 of the 100,000 candy bars, that's not going to have any effect outside of the few unlucky people who got the poison.

Well if I went to the trouble to sneak into a candy bar factory, I would poison more than 20 bars.

Get real.

Whoa yeah if I kill 20 people it wouldn't be "effective" at all because think of all the millions of people I didn't kill!

You're not getting it at all but cool okay.

Oh cool, it has no effect apart from the effect it has. What perfect reasoning.

Jesus. Can anyone here follow a discussion?

Krynn said it would have no effect, fully aware of the fact that it has affected someone already. So his meaning was that it's not going to effect whether or not people will continue to sell them. This is what his meaning has always been. Riom responded to Krynn saying it did have an effect, being that the kid was sued. Well no shit. That's not the meaning Krynn was talking about. Which is my he made the reply he did. Then Riom agreed with him, because he previously didn't understand what he actually meant, which was the effect on second-hand purchasing in general. So when Riom asked where he challenged what Krynn said, I pointed it out.

****.

So you're saying that Krynn made the point about "it has no effect except for the effect it has" first, you're just repeating him. It's still fatuous.
You're both giants of debate up in this thread.

This is such stupid logic. Are you being serious?

If someone told you that using a blue spatula to flip your eggs had no effect compared to a red one, would you say "UHH YEAH IT WOULD THE MICROPARTICLES THAT RUB ONTO THE EGG WOULD BE BLUE INSTEAD OF RED HOW IS THAT NOT AN EFFECT?"

You see, Eejit, when people talk about the effects of things, especially in a subject like this, they can have different meanings. Different effects on different things. And there's also such thing as "discernible" effect, and "significant effect". I know it can be hard to keep up with all these subtle differences.

Krynn's post was saying that it would have no effect on whether or not people sold their ipods, just like the fact that piracy is illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. He didn't say it had no effect at all. Obviously it did. But the effect on one person is not going to effect what others do, so there is no effect in the meaning Krynn was using.

Nice way to dismiss multinational corporations trying to destroy the lives of individuals as insignificant. What is the precise number of people that have to be sued for an arm and a leg before you care about it? When is it more than 'indiscernible'? Why are you acting like some blasé douche?

That argument is also based on potentially flawed assumption.
The numbers of people importing items for resale is far less than those pirating media. It also by its nature suggests people doing so for a profit (as in the case of Supap). So a. the haystack those needles are hiding in is far smaller and b. if you're trying to run a business you are going to seriously reconsider if the courts rule it illegal, moving a business underground is a little different than continuing to download illegally and anonymously.

Well now you're just turning this into an entirely different argument. And you say I'm terrible at debating. I was explaining logic here, not getting into my position on the matter. This argument is not about you or me. We're simply talking about the effect on people in general.

Also why the **** are you downrating my posts when I'm god damn here having the debate with you. What does hitting that downvote button do for you?

To address the rest of your post, yeah, I won't argue that people who make a living off of selling used stuff won't be effected. But someone selling his ipod to a friend isn't going to give two shits about the laws, just like someone copying an MP3 for a friend. And I believe this is what Krynn was talking about.

And just to reiterate, I'm not saying that the law is cool because it doesn't effect me or people I know. Nowhere have I even expressed any kind of positive or negative opinion about the law or what happened to the kid. I'm just explaining the effect in the context that Krynn established, which Riom skewed and we ended up with this shitstorm.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-basic-rights-you-wont-believe-we-still-have-to-fight-for/

Nope. I was responding directly to your suggestion that suing individuals is not a "discernible" or "significant". effect.

Downvoting for your attitude FYI in addition to replying to your posts.

Except that wasn't the argument. I was explaining the way in which Krynn meant "no effect". You turned the argument into "So you say it has no effect, that means you don't care about this great injustice!"

And I didn't even ****ing say that suing someone was not an effect. I've said repeatedly that of course it is. I said that the suing of one person has no effect on the average joe selling his ipod.

You were the first to give me a sarcastic insult.


Explain to me how explaining the meaning of what someone said = taking a stance or expressing some kind of opinion on the matter itself?

Please re-read your first post in this thread, thanks. That's where you said that Riom's statement that there was an effect meant that he must be saying that the effect Krynn meant would happen.
i.e. You weren't just explaining Krynn's position, you were implying that the only effect (worth talking about?) was one that changed the behaviour of the wider populace.

I though you said that I was the one changing my argument?

And I said that because Riom was directly quoting what Krynn said, therefore responding to Krynn's meaning. It was his misinterpretation, or not understanding what Krynn meant by 'no effect'. Krynn's post that Riom quoted clearly was aware of the kid being sued, but he still used the words "no effect". The meaning of his words is very easily deduced to not mean "absolutely no effect" since it would make no sense for him to say that after being aware of what happened to the kid. Krynn's next post only reinforces what he meant.

So, my first post was only pointing out that Riom had misinterpreted what Krynn meant, by replying to his meaning of "no effect" with an example of an effect of a different meaning.

Or,

You weren't explaining what Krynn said, you were saying that Riom said something that he didn't. It's easy to see that you weren't explaining anything about Krynn's post because you only quoted two of Riom's and added a few words directing him from one quote to the other.

You spin me right round, baby,

Anyway, bored now arguing with what you said vs what you now say you meant.


P.S. you started acting like a condescending arrogant... person... first, to Bad Hat. One of your frequent objectionable "you just don't get it, do you?" replies with no further explanation - because your subtext is obviously crystal clear and also correct.

I'm stunned that you still don't follow what happened.

Riom misinterpreted Krynn's post, despite the clear meaning Krynn gave. I've explained a few times already why Krynn couldn't have meant "absolutely no affect on anyone".
Despite this, Riom misinterpreted it anyway. He said "no effect? what about the kid that was sued?"
Krynn responded to clarify what he meant. He didn't say it wasn't an effect, he said that it won't affect things in general. Like the people who get sued for piracy doesn't affect piracy in general.

Please, if nothing else, tell me you understand that this is what happened. This is not a matter of me deciphering my own meaning and claiming it's right, blindly. This is not as cryptic as that, it's really quite simple.

I wasn't aware that I needed to, because I thought his meaning was apparent until you came along and decided that Krynn using the words "no effect" means absolutely no effect on anything in any context.

And I'm not sure what my attitude toward Badhat has to do with you.

Edit: Krynn's going to laugh his ass off when he checks this thread.
Edit 2: God I had that smiley. Colon P is not supposed to look like "neener neener"

One man goes fishing in the Pacific Ocean. He catches one fish.
1)What is the effect this has on the ocean?
2)What is the effect on the one fish he caught?

Can you not tell the difference in the scales being discussed in those two questions?

Look, my point was that this will have no effect on the "illegal sale of foreign-manufactured goods scene." The phrase "no effect" being relative to scale of the discussed "scene." Just as the RIAA's lawsuits have made no effect on the digital piracy scene. We're arguing in different scales here. Vegeta and I are talking about a more broad view, looking at the "black market" that these companies are trying to squash. Of course it has a profound effect when looking at the much smaller scale of the individuals the companies pick to make examples of. If thats the scale that you care to discuss, then yes, I agree with you, its having a terrible effect and is a complete injustice.

However that's not the scale I was using when I made my first post, and that is what Vegeta has been trying to explain for half this thread. I think it's pretty ridiculous that you guys misunderstood me, and him so badly. One might almost think you were doing it intentionally...

Nobody misunderstood you. We're arguing in circles because you and Veg changed the subject of the debate. A broad view of the market is a legitimate perspective to take, but it's not what this thread was about, and the whole reason we're all arguing in circles is because you guys started acting like this new perspective was the original perspective or point of the thread, which simply isn't true.

First off, nobody made that argument until you did just right this minute. If you guys didnt misunderstand what we were saying you guys would have mentioned it before. Secondly, this thread hadn't even taken a direction by the time I made my post. My post was only the fifth reply in the thread, and the first reply that attempted any meaningful discussion. Thirdly, how is a supreme court case whose purpose is to determine the ability for people to sell foreign manufactured items across the entire country NOT about the effect on the broader-view perspective of selling said items across the country like I was talking about? Its a bigger leap to say this thread was about the individual case than to say its about the nationwide effects.

Fourthly, even if it was as you say, nobody on this usually makes this big a stink when we diverge off onto a slight tangent thats still related to the topic. We do that in literally every thread, so why the fuss now? Nah, I call bullshit on this one.

Okay my head is practically spinning but I have it figured out. Here's how:

Krynn states that the law will have no effect pertaining to the wider issue.

Riom misunderstands Krynn in thinking that he was saying it will have no effect on the individual issue.

Krynn replies to Riom and continues his strand of thought on the wider issue by saying that though other laws affected the individual it did not affect the wider populace.

Riom replies to Krynn saying that he knows it will have no effect on the wider issue.

This is where it gets tricky. Vegeta enters the fray and quotes Riom's misunderstanding and uses that to say that Riom in fact stated that it had no effect on the wider issue. In that quote however, though Riom was misunderstanding Krynn's original post about the wider issue, Riom himself was addressing the individual issue and did not say it will have no effect on the wider issue.

So, to summarize who went wrong where at the beginning: Riom misunderstood Krynn. Krynn made a reply that didn't really address Riom's misunderstanding entirely but that's at no direct fault of Krynn. Vegeta makes an illogical argument by trying to say that Riom both misunderstood Krynn's stance by bringing up the individual issue instead of Krynn's stance on the wider issue whilst trying to say that Riom had said in that exact same post that it had an effect on the wider issue when Riom was solely pertaining to the individual issue. I think.

After that the thread completely devolves:

Stigmata enters the fray to clarify that Riom's misunderstanding was the individual issue.

Vegeta acknowledges this but continues arguing with Krynn's point that it will have no effect on the wider issue, but there will be an effect for the individual issue.

Bad Hat enters the fray to state that there is an effect and it's on the individual issue however Vegeta had already clarified that and was arguing that outside of those individuals there is no effect on the wider issue.

Eejit enters the fray to state the same as Bad Hat.

Vegeta makes a summary of the debate thus far.

Eejit replies and makes the same point as he did before.

Vegeta replies by clarifying yet again that Krynn was talking about the wider issue.

Eejit takes a left turn and accuses Vegeta of not caring about the individual issue when Vegeta had already acknowledged it but was discussing the wider issue. Eejit then goes on to address the wider issue by stating there could be an effect on second hand sellers.

Vegeta disagrees that he does not care about the individual issue. He then agrees with Eejit's point about the effect on second hand sellers.

Eejit states that he was replying to Vegeta's “no discernable or significant” effect quote which originally was about the wider issue but turned into the individual issue by Eejit's interpretation.

Vegeta clarifies yet again what he meant.


Eejit talks about Vegeta's entry into the thread. See my summary of the introduction above. However, he misinteprets by thinking Vegeta said it has no effect on the individual issue.



And yadda yadda yadda.

Ah **** it I'm done, it's 3am and I want to sleep. EDIT: It's quite likely I've misinterpreted everyone but this whole thread is a bunch of misunderstandings in the end anyway.

I think what we're missing here is the fact that somebody is on the loose with a clear motive to poison candy for children.

The only thing I can analyze from this thread is that he enjoys poisoning candy. He might even get-off on it.

My earlier post was just an attempt to humor him. Obviously at the time, I didn't know he was actually serious about tainting chocolate goods.


I mentioned motive before. What motive could he have for such a sinister act?

Well it's very clear. He was obviously outraged by the effect of the first-sale doctrine flaws, and in an attempt to rebel against the system, has sprinkled fairy-dust on around 20 Snickers.

I'mV not goingE to pointG anyE fingersT, butA just let it be known that this person is still at large.

Zephos is my new hero.

The first sale doctrine does currently protect the re selling of products, there is an appeal to the supreme court to change that. Every week some corporation is appealing some aspect of IP law.

Pedanticism of the day: You're all abbreviating Riomhaire to Riom. It sounds odd. Riomhaire abbreviates to Riov.

That's my tuppenceworth on the matter. I don't know enough about piracy and copyright law in the US to offer an opinion on that, as I am neither a lawyer nor an American nor a pirate.

(I wish I was a pirate though. Wouldn't that be cool? Y'aaarrrrr!)

I just want to say that holy crap, Zephos that was an amazing post.

You're right about my first post. Using Riom's misunderstanding to show how he contradicted himself was of course a flawed argument. I wasn't really even arguing at that point, it was just typical snarky Vegeta. If I had included a spoiler saying that I realized it was flawed because he misunderstood Krynn, this thread may have been saved.

You're right about every other post, too. So much that it's shocking. Like, when I was arguing with Eejit and he continually misunderstood me or threw in other things, I was beginning to wonder if I was speaking another language or having a stroke. It's refreshing to see that someone could have read the whole thread and understand what everyone was doing. And you didn't even need to go through the effort of making that post, but you did anyway. Bravo.